Category: Politics

In late May and early June of 1940, the German army blitzed across France. The speed and violence of the panzers and stukas left a beleaguered British Expeditionary Force and some remnants of the once-proud French army surrounded along the coast at the tiny port of Dunkirk. Over the period of eight days, the British navy, merchant marines, and thousands of individual ship owners conducted an improvised, hasty withdrawal-under-fire. They rescued over 330,000 soldiers, albeit with nothing more than the soaking wet uniforms on their backs. It was a humiliating defeat, but one tinged with a tiniest glimmer of hope, which was sorely needed by the British people at that point. Prime Minister Churchill reminded his nation that “we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.”

The American experience in Kabul these days has me thinking of Dunkirk.

First off, the President continues to defend his decision to end the “war in Afghanistan.” This statement demonstrates his fundamental lack of understanding. Afghanistan was a theater of war: just one of many. While it is possible to surrender a theater in order to win a larger war, one must always remember that there is a larger war on. We did not start this war. Radical Islamic terrorists declared war on the US back in the 1990’s. We ignored them at the time, like a much-older brother ignores the taunts of a much-younger sibling. But like that sibling, the terrorist movement grew-up, and when they knocked down the towers, the game was on.

The US could not have cared less about Afghanistan or the Taliban but for their harboring Al Qaeda (AQ). When the Taliban refused to turn AQ over to us, they became another campaign in the war. And as I continue to remind, we can not declare that war over: only the loser can. So we can end the war tomorrow by admitting our evil, renouncing our ways, and publicly proclaiming the Shahada (“I bear witness that none deserves worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”). It really is that simple.

Secondly, I hear much soul-searching about ‘where we went wrong’ in Afghanistan. A few misguided souls says we should never have gone in; I won’t dignify that view with a critique. For the record, I was in favor of going in to Afghanistan to expel the Taliban and root our AQ. BUT, I was also in favor of a cold-hearted, realpolitik approach. Turn the “nation” of Afghanistan over to various regional warlords with this simple admonition: those who fight the Taliban and kill AQ will receive our funds, those who don’t will receive our bombs. Let them fight it out and install whatever puppet-regime the Afghan people could stand in Kabul. Yes, this would have made for atrocities and corruption and human rights violations, but thus was it ever in the Hindu Kush. At least we would be at a distance, and not directly involved in a place where our only interest was the absence of AQ.

When President Bush decided to expand the mission in Afghanistan to nation-building, I thought it was ill-advised but not impossible. I do not understand the logic of those who say “the US can’t do nation-building.” History will long remember our excellent examples in nation-building: Germany and Japan. We took two of the most militaristic cultures of the twentieth century and turned them into committed pacifists barely able to staff military forces (or in Japan’s case, even call them an “army.”) We took nations literally burned to the ground and rebuilt them into economic powerhouses which eventually rivaled us. This took decades to accomplish, even though we had fought a savage war against each.

Bu the best comparative examples for US nation-building are Vietnam and Korea. In the first case, we quit, with predictable results for South East Asia. In the latter case, we stayed. Now somewhere I hear a reader crying “Pat, you can’t be comparing Afghanistan with today’s South Korea!” and to that reader, I say “You’re right; I’m not.” But Afghanistan at year twenty IS comparable to South Korea in 1971. Let me refresh your memory: the Asia Times described South Korea in 1971 as a “Lost Land, . . . a gritty, poverty-racked, unsophisticated nation that was one decade into an industrialization program that would lead to riches.” It varied between democratic leaders, oligarchs, and an occasional military coup. During the previous twenty years, North Korean forces attacked the US and South Korea, killing our soldiers and marines. They continued doing so for the next twenty years.

Now I am not saying Afghanistan was on the path to similar success. But anyone who says we can’t do nation-building is wrong, and anyone who says Afghanistan would never have made it has to explain why South Korea did. Impoverished nation? Check. No democratic culture or history? Check. Pervasive external threat? Check. Persistent US military casualties? Check.

Thirdly (yes, I’m still counting), the President and other senior leaders have said “the Intelligence Community (IC) did not predict such a sudden collapse.” Without having been in the room, I know this is true. It is also a red herring: the IC does not predict anything. Prediction is the realm of prophets and seers, not intelligence professionals. I guarantee you that the IC did consider the possibility of such a scenario and included it as a worst-case one. How do I know that? Because if they didn’t, the President and others would have said as much and fired those responsible. He didn’t (fire them), so they did (cover it).

Likewise, my fourth point is a question. Given that the President has warned for days of a terrorist attack (meaning the IC had good info that an attack was imminent), and given that we remain at war with the Islamic State, and given that the Islamic State is the sworn enemy of the Taliban: why did we wait? Why didn’t we attack the Islamic State in Afghanistan before they attacked us, in order to perhaps disrupt their planning? We didn’t suddenly determine they are our enemy. Nor did we suddenly figure out where ISIS is in Afghanistan. Did we think the Taliban cared? Why the delay? Inquiring minds want to know.

On a tangentially-related, fifth point, who is advising the President on his messaging? Having him stare into the camera and intone “we will not forgive; we will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay” is not intimidating. He shuffles on and off stage. He squints at the teleprompter, which is not atop the camera, so it looks at times like he is not speaking to the audience. Either dim the klieg lights, enlarge the size of the font, or get him contacts/glasses. His speech is halting, and no, this is not his well-understood stutter. Joe Biden has been a public figure for well-nigh fifty years. He never was this forgetful, or confused, or halting. Assuming he is still in command of his faculties (and God help us if he isn’t), why are his handlers insisting on putting him in such a bad light?

Sixth and finally (I know, you’re relieved!), the President most recently said he is following the advice of his senior military commanders. This is always re-assuring to hear. The problem is no competent military officer would ever suggest that we conduct a noncombatant evacuation operation (NEO) of unknown size, from a toe-hold perimeter around a civilian airport in an urban area. Someone made a decision to pull the military forces out first. Someone made a decision to evacuate the US Bagram airbase first. Someone made the decision not to accelerate the visa application process. There are reasons why such decisions might have been made: they are not blatantly stupid decisions. But someone made them. Those persons must be identified and given the opportunity to explain themselves, or suffer the consequences if their explanations do not suffice. Blanket admissions of where the buck stops are irrelevant. Who made the decisions?

Dunkirk is an interesting footnote in the history of World War II. It was not decisive in a military sense. The British could afford to equip and field another army. It was the channel, the Royal Navy, and the brave few pilots of the Royal Air Force whose “finest hour” thwarted any ambitions Hitler had of parading past Buckingham Palace as he had down the Champs-Élysées. But it was the snatching-of-a-small-victory-from-the-jaws-of-defeat that helped stiffen the English spine for the dark days ahead. During this brief period, Churchill gave a series of impassioned speeches in the House of Commons which are long remembered: “their finest hour” “blood, toils, tears, and sweat” and finally “we shall fight on the beaches, . . . .” Such is the stuff of legendary leadership.

We are still in a generational war against radical Islamic terrorism. We’ve had a Dunkirk moment, one of our own making. President Biden explained his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan by asking how many more casualties should we endure? He is now responsible for more casualties in one day than the US experienced in the prior two years. I am still waiting for what is his strategy for the larger war. And for when he will stiffen our spines for the fight.

Within days, we’ll witness a string of atrocities across Afghanistan, as the Taliban consolidates power, takes revenge on those who opposed it, and reimposes its sordid, misogynistic rule. The US went into Afghanistan to evict the Taliban not because they were, and are, evil; we went there because they refused to turn over Al Qaeda to stand justice. For this reason, the US deployed the force necessary to evict the Taliban in a truly amazing display of military power.

In the twenty years since that happened, various American Presidents tried and failed to extricate the nation from the war. It was clear to all that the end of an active US military presence in the Hindu Kush (the ancient term for the area we know as the “nation” of Afghanistan) would mean a return of the Taliban. America tried increasing its presence and operations to destroy the Taliban, tried increasing its civil involvement (building schools, writing laws, fostering businesses), tried reducing its military footprint to reduce frictions, and finally tried negotiating directly with the hated Taliban.

In the last five years, the US engaged in a strategy of delay and stalemate. We provided the Afghan government with all the means to succeed while realizing it never could: in effect we propped it up. We built up the Afghan military so it could resist the Taliban, but only if it retained the continued training, air support, and logistics from the US Army. This strategy succeeded by not losing.

Some decried this strategy as defeatist. While the American way of war emphasizes victory, the American public (and its elected officials) no longer have the stomach for the carnage (both to our soldiers and the enemy) that entails. Waiting the Taliban out was always a long-shot, but it had worked so far. Why did we abandon it?

Some said that Afghanistan was America’s longest war. They are either wrong or simply lying. We have been at war with the People’s Democratic Republic of (North) Korea for seventy-plus years. The fact we currently have an armistice that makes people (even South Koreans) think the war is over is testament to how a strategy of waiting the enemy out can succeed. In the meantime, South Korea evolved into a vibrant economy, a manufacturing powerhouse, and even a nascent democracy.

That long “not peace” was not always as peaceful as it is today. At times after the 1951 armistice, the sides exchanged fire and postured. North Korea infiltrated forces across the DMZ to attack targets in the South, and even master-minded an attack on the Blue House and the terrorist bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987. The US and the Republic of Korea forces suffered casualties, but full-scale combat was avoided. This was a long-term, successful strategy by any measure.

Could this strategy have worked in Afghanistan? It was. Over the past five years, the US drew-down forces and reduced its footprint and operational tempo. We gradually let the Afghan Army take the lead, but were always close at hand in case “things went south” (as we used to say in the Army).

But what of the casualties? I want to be crystal clear here. I was a soldier once; many of my classmates served in Afghanistan, and some died there. No soldier wants to die, and soldiers deserve to know they’re not being sacrificed for no reason. But they do know, from day one in basic training, that they may be sacrificed. Especially in an all-volunteer, professional military, this is a well-understood proposition. Our casualties during the last five years in Afghanistan ran under ten deaths per year. We lose a thousand service-members annually to training accidents. There was no countless-deaths-in-vain reason to withdraw.

But what of the cost? Even with the monumental (and well-documented) corruption, Afghanistan represented a minimal financial burden to the US. In the last few years, we were spending around $50 billion US dollars annually on all activities in Afghanistan; that’s what the entire US government spends in two days. The people who say the cost was too high are the exact same people who said we couldn’t just destroy Al Qaeda and leave the Taliban in charge, we had to create a democracy and build Afghanistan’s civil infrastructure. We tried; it didn’t take, or at least it didn’t take well-enough that Afghani soldiers felt compelled to fight and die to defend it. Maybe it just needed more time, but the clock ran out.

President Trump was wrong to direct a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Like most of his decisions, it went against his own hand-picked advisors, and seemed to be based on his gut instincts or his dislike for the Bush family. He thought he was being decisive in “ending an endless war,” when he simply misunderstood that in combat, only the loser can end a war. He has that decision on his record forever.

Even more execrable is President Biden’s decision to not only withdraw, but to accelerate the timetable. President Biden has seen fit to completely rescind almost every policy President Trump put into place, but here he doubled-down on it. I recall the quote of the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said Mr. Biden had the unique position of being ‘the only person wrong on every major foreign policy issue in the past forty years.’ Looks like the string remains unbroken. His administration set arbitrary (and inane) deadlines, like withdrawing by September 11th. Then they advanced them further, apparently realizing all hell was breaking loose but not that such a move would be reminiscent of Saigon, 1975.

Proving that this was a policy decision not fully coordinated with the military, the administration conveniently ignored the fact that thousands of Afghanis (and their families) who worked with the US military had to be evacuated or they would be massacred; the haphazard evacuation continues today. Administration spokesmen blithely bat away the helicopters-on-the-rooftops comparison, while the President orders three-thousand US Marines back into Kabul to evacuate the US Embassy. Guess we’ll use Humvees this time.

Yes, this war dragged on. Yes, the US engaged in mission creep, and was never willing to destroy the Taliban. Yes, the US military was going to keep sending soldiers home draped in coffins as long as this war continued. No, there was no compelling need for President Trump’s rash decision, nor President Biden’s inexcusable continuation of it. No, we were not bleeding ourselves dry outside Kandahar, nor were we bankrupting the nation’s treasure bankrolling corrupt Afghan officials. No, this loss was not inevitable. It was a choice.

As I said before–and as it has always been–the losers determine when a war ends. There is no dignity in this withdrawal, whether or not we see people clinging to helicopter skids. Our military did exactly what it was asked to do. This “L” is on our Leaders, who lost hope, lacked fortitude, and thought they could finesse it. There will be no finesse in Kabul soon, only peace, the peace that comes with the grave.

Our leaders always knew, from Day One, what would happen if the Taliban returned. They now share this legacy.

As we close on another American Independence day, I’ve been thinking about the nature of patriotism. It seems to me we Americans have lost the concept of the word. People talk about “love of country” and “American exceptionalism” leading to arguments that miss the point. Patriotism is not uncritical support; it is also not unsupported criticism. It is not the extremism of the fan who thinks only his team should ever win, and every referee’s decision or sport ruling to the contrary is unfair and biased. Yet it is also not detached neutrality, a keeping-your-distance and not-being-emotionally-committed attitude common in academia.

When I worked for the government, I used to remind my employees they were not neutral observers of American foreign policy: they wanted that policy to succeed, whether they personally supported it or not. (Note: we weren’t talking about policies they morally opposed; of course one is required to quit if asked to support a policy you could not in good conscience support). You didn’t need to chant “U…S…A, U…S…A!” all the time, but neither should you act like it made no difference to you.

Enough about what patriotism isn’t; what is it? Try this concept on for size: patriotism is an appreciation for the unique advantages your nationality bestows on you, unmerited on your part. Thus it does not mean your country is better than any other, nor does it mean everything your country does it right or best. This appreciative version of patriotism requires an objective view of your nation’s history, other nation’s histories, and the state of the world today. But it avoids silly chest-thumping on one hand, or ridiculous a-historical criticism on the other.

There is nothing particularly patriotic about believing your country is the greatest ever, nor in thinking solely about its many shortcomings. Both approaches lead to dead ends. There can be little doubt nations and nationalities demonstrate differing areas of excellence, and acknowledging this fact is not unpatriotic, just realistic. Brazil plays beautiful football. Nobody does cheese like France. Taiwan and computer chips. Sometimes patriotic fervor isn’t about absolute excellence, but simply relative excellence or good fit. I wouldn’t prefer the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, but the British cherish it as a national accomplishment nonetheless. It just works for them.

Heaven is where

the police are English,

the chefs are French,

the mechanics are German,

the lovers are Italian,

and the Swiss organize everything.

Hell is where

the Germans are the police,

the English are the cooks,

the French are the mechanics,

the Swiss are the lovers

and the Italians organize everything.

An old joke about Heaven, Hell and Europe

I didn’t storm the beaches at Normandy, but I benefited from the those who put an end to the Nazis. I never enslaved anyone, nor did my Irish forebears, but I was born into a society that had far more opportunity in South Bend than Sligo, just as an African American descended from slaves but born beside me in South Bend had so much more opportunity than a distant cousin still in Soweto. That we both had different (and unequal) opportunities is both a global statement of fact and a call for continued hard work. It is simply amazing to me that some people today think it is a remarkably American failing that inequality exists; if this surprises you, you either haven’t traveled much or weren’t paying attention when you did.

All nations have strengths and weaknesses. As do all forms of government, all ethnic groups, and all individuals. Being honest about these strengths and weaknesses is not disloyal, while only considering one or the other might be. I have little patience for those who say “America: love it or leave it.” I have no patience whatsoever for those who claim unrelenting criticism is some higher form of patriotic fervor.

America is, was, and ever will be far short of perfect. Yet it remains a blessing to be born an American, regardless of race, creed, or color. In praise or criticism, this remains true, and only an ingrate would challenge it.

Happy Independence Day!

It’s not every day one sees Catholic doctrine debated on the front pages of the New York Times and in the chyrons of the so-called news channels. Given the quality of the debate we’ve witnessed recently, that’s a good thing. Watching professed-atheist journalists wrestle with concepts like transubstantiation is like watching monkeys with the proverbial football. Better still is “former” Catholics proclaiming their own gospel, Bishops suddenly attempting to regain the standing to make moral judgments, and poorly-catechized Catholics offering their take on right-and-wrong. Phew; what’s a poor sinner to do?

You may have heard that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops recently decided to issue a document attacking President Biden for receiving Holy Communion when he attends Mass. You might have heard that Pope Francis warned the American Bishops not to do this, but they did so anyway. You may have heard the Bishops are in the tank for former-President Trump and are attacking the current occupant of the White House for political reasons. You might even believe the Bishops have no moral standing to tell anybody anything, what with several decades of child sexual abuses allegations on their hands. All these things have an element of truth to them; none is actually correct. Like the blind men and the elephant, people are grasping for a partial truth, and oftentimes seeing what they want to see. Let’s stop looking through a glass darkly and see things as they are, shall we?

I know you were told there would be no math, but no one said we wouldn’t discuss Catholic doctrine, which is where we have to start. First off, Catholics believe in the Real Presence, namely, that the bread and wine on the altar are trans-substantiated into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a non-negotiable, eternal element of Catholicism. It means that the Eucharist is the “source and summit of the Christian life.” It is nourishment for the journey that is life, and a source of strength for life’s battle between good and evil. It made me laugh when some claimed the Bishops were “weaponizing the Eucharist.” Why of course they were; that is its purpose.

Because of this teaching, Catholics must be worthy to receive the Eucharist. This is a nuanced subject, as no one is truly worthy to receive the Savior’s body and blood. What worthiness involves is being in communion with the Church (believing what the Church teaches), not being in a state of serious (i.e., mortal) sin, and having completed the prescribed fast and penitence. So all Catholics are sinners, but repentant and in accord with the Church, so we go to Mass and line up for Holy Communion, or if we know we don’t qualify right now, we stay in the pews until we are. It does not matter whether you failed to keep a one-hour fast before communion, or you are remarried but not annulled in the eyes of the Church, or you are an abortion-performing doctor: all require the believing Catholic to repent and do penance before returning to the Eucharistic line. A long time ago, the faithful only took Holy Communion once a year, or tried to win a Divine Trifecta by being baptized, confessing, and receiving their first communion on their death bed (talk about just-in-time delivery!). Eventually the Church taught we all need the sustenance of the Divine Presence, seeking to avoid such heavenly gamesmanship.

The Church in America today is in crisis. Actually, the entire Roman Catholic Church is always in crisis. It began with leaders who were doubters, deniers, braggarts, vengeance seekers, fools and knaves, and never got better. There is a wonderful story about Napoleon occupying Rome, and learning that the Pope had forbid it, whereupon he threatened a Cardinal thusly, “Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” To which the Cardinal replied: “Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

Somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, despite it being consistent, unchanging Church teaching. Now there is nothing wrong with believing communion (note the small “c”) is only a symbol of Christ’s presence; this is a common holding of many Protestant sects. But is it most certainly not Roman Catholic teaching. So there is little doubt that Catholic catechesis is lacking, and whose job is that? The Bishops. Despite whatever other failings they have, the job is theirs.

On top of this, about half of Catholics don’t think abortion is a serious (as before, mortal) sin, reinforcing the lack of Catholic education. Again, there has been no change in Church teaching, as abortion has been around as long as the Church. And to remind, mortal sin is a dis-qualifier for receiving Holy Communion. Many of these Catholics don’t go to Mass, so the issue is somewhat academic. But some do. Now if you secretly support abortion, and go to Mass, and receive Holy Communion, your sin is very serious, but a private one: no one but you and God will know. You may be damned (it’s up to Christ), but your twitter standing is secure.

But what if you publicly proclaim your support for abortion rights, support funding for it, defend it as a morally-acceptable choice, and campaign for officials who do likewise, and then go receive Holy Communion? Why, you’re President Biden! Or Speaker Pelosi. Or any of a number of Catholic politicians who do so. And here’s the rub: by being public in their position, and continuing to receive Holy Communion, they commit an additional sin the Catholic Church calls scandalizing the faithful. This means other Catholics will look at them, see they say and do as they please with no sanction, so they must not be wrong, right?

This is the dilemma the Bishops face. Failing to act, and to teach what the Church believes, they ended up with faithful who don’t believe. Take a position, and you enter into politics, since the overwhelming majority of Catholics who support abortion rights are Democrats. What about the Bishop’s support of then-President Trump? Isn’t it hypocritical to call out President Biden? President Trump wasn’t Catholic (Gracias a Dios) so supporting him was a prudential issue, where one had to measure various political, moral, and ethical positions and decide. Faithful Catholics could come down for or against, and they did. President Biden is Catholic, so his behavior becomes an issue of Catholic teaching and who gets to decide what Catholics believe. Which are the Bishops.

Or should I say, the Bishop. One aspect of Catholic doctrine only covered in passing is the role of the national conferences. They are advisory bodies, a relatively recent phenomenon, meant to give the Church a means to speak in unity on national issues. Their writ extends to consensus documents and to such things as which extra holy days of obligation (Church feasts) to require for the faithful in their country. This is why Pope Francis admonished the Bishops to ensure whatever they taught about receiving Holy Communion, it was not divisive. He did not, and could not, say it was ok to receive Holy Communion in a state of serious sin, nor did he suggest support for workers’ rights, immigration, or child care were issues as serious as abortion. In fact, then Cardinal Bergoglio was the principle author of the Aparecida document which stated the prohibition forcefully: “We must adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, be conscious that they (editor’s note: politicians) cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.”

In the end, whether President Biden receives Holy Communion in the District of Columbia every Sunday is up to Cardinal (Archbishop) Wilton Gregory, who has said “yes, he may.” And if the President travels outside of Archdiocese of Washington, it is up to the Bishop in whatever diocese he visits. Normally, these issues are dealt with privately in a parish setting. The would-be communicant visits the parish pastor, finds out what is needed to be “in communion” and not in a state of serious sin, then accommodates the priest’s directions. Sometime a priest recognizes someone in line for Holy Communion and is forced to make a snap-judgment: the priest may know the communicant was (at some time) not eligible, but what if they went to some other priest and are now “worthy” in Church eyes? The problem with public figures is they provide a public example, which reinforces the lack of understanding by the faithful, requiring a very public response which can be characterized as political. And remember, the priest is responsible for helping even a wayward Catholic, for in knowingly receiving Holy Communion in an unworthy state, the sinner merits even greater punishment.

Are some Catholic American Bishops engaging in politics? Maybe. Is there a deficiency in Catholic Americans’ understanding of the Real Presence? Yup. Will the Bishops author a document attacking President Biden? Nope. In the end, they will reiterate Church teaching on worthiness, specify that it is incumbent on the faithful to comply, and that Bishop’s only–not the believer–make the determination. I would bet they will have a sentence or two reminding public officials that, despite the claims of President Kennedy and Governor Mario Cuomo, there is no exception for elected officials who are Catholic. That will be all. The Bishops will approve the document, as will the Vatican. There is nothing new here.

Not all sins are equal, and I understand that non-Catholics may find it hard to believe that failing to support programs for real live children is not as morally suspect as abortion. However, for Catholics, there are differences, and if you want to say you’re Catholic, you don’t get the option of personally challenging how the Church categorizes sin. Sin, by itself, does not disqualify a Catholic from receiving Holy Communion. Serious sin, and disregarding Church teaching to reform and refrain from it, does. Even for Presidents.

In my last post, I reviewed the tangled, complicated events of the most recent conflict in the Gaza strip between Israel and Hamas. Some friends asked whether there was any way to cut the Gordian knot and achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. The expert opinion says “no” because the issues are many, the hatreds deep, and the political will is lacking. All three are true, but there is only one thing preventing peace in the area (in my opinion): unrealistic expectations.

Such expectations can be moderated by real leaders, to the benefit of all concerned. Currently, leaders on both sides choose to pander to the expectations, with predictably violent results.

What are those unrealistic expectations?

For the Jews, there are some who believe they have a Divine Writ to the Holy Land, meaning all the territory of Judea and Samaria belongs always and forever to the State of Israel. I am not here to debate the theological underpinnings of this claim, but only to state it is a maximalist position that can never be realized. For if Israel were to ever claim sole jurisdiction over all that territory it would cease to be a majority Jewish state in a matter of years. There are currently about seven million Jews and seven million Arabs in that territory, and another two-and-a-half million Palestinian Arabs in Jordan and Syria. The Jewish state would soon face an Arab majority voting bloc, or the need to create a permanent sub-class of Arab citizenship: real apartheid. Which would be anathema to most Jews and the international community. So it’s never going to happen.

For the Palestinians, there are those who believe they have the right to a separate, fully-sovereign (aka “normal”) state with Jerusalem as its Capital. Now it is undeniably true that this was mostly what was on-offer in the 1947 agreement which the United Nations brokered (Jerusalem was shared). But that was eight wars, two intifadas, and few thousand terrorist attacks ago. Things have changed, so to speak. The first thing the new Palestinian state did was ally with five Arab nations and attempt to destroy Israel. During the period of Arab control, they evicted all Jews from Jerusalem and prohibited Jewish prayer at the Kotel, or Western Wall. Given the upper hand, the Palestinians have repeatedly acted in bad faith: and all this knowing that the very creation of the State of Israel happened as a result of international recognition that the Jews could not rely on other nations to behave.

Drive off the unrealistic expectations on both sides and an agreement is difficult, but possible.

For Israel, Palestine must recognize its right to exist and to defend itself. This has been the secret to Israel’s successful negotiations of peace with Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states. There is no sense engaging diplomatically toward a long-term agreement with an opponent who insists you must die. The Palestinians must accept this. And, because the geography of any two-state solution is so irregular as to make Israel literally un-defendable, and because of the long history of unprovoked attacks, the Palestinians must accept status as a demilitarized state: no military forces, no weapons of any kind. There is only one country interested in attacking Palestine, and it is Israel, for defensive purposes. Remove the ability to threaten, and you remove the need for any military force.

Next, secure this solution by giving Israel complete control over the land/air/sea ports of embarkation into the Israeli/Palestinian territories, solely for purposes of excluding the introduction of weapons. The Palestinians can control immigration, but any object moving in or out must be inspected by the Israelis. The Israelis would also retain the right to patrol all borders, for the same reason.

Third, Jerusalem would remain under Jewish control, but further resettlement and historical claims to land titles would be reviewed under UN sponsorship. The Palestinian government would be given land and transit rights to establish government buildings (like the UN has in New York) and the right to claim Jerusalem as its capital. Religious sites for Christians, Muslims, and Jews would be under the control of religious authorities, with guaranteed access as long as they are used solely for religious activities (i.e., no protests, no political rallies, no violence, in which case they could be temporarily closed by Israeli authorities).

Fourth, Jews and Arabs who lost property in the wake of the 1947 war and other conflicts could apply for remuneration under a UN-sponsored process allocating funds donated by the international community. While it is unfortunate that people lost long-standing family homes, it is impossible to recreate the 1947 status quo. Application is contingent on surrendering any existing claims to actual property.

Fifth, and finally, the lines between the two states should be established solely by the determination of local communities in one-time plebiscites. While this will create mostly contiguous borders, there will be isolated minority communities, which will require detailed negotiations on management and access. The goal here (remembering that the security issue is mitigated by the overall peace agreement, as well as the Israeli control of borders) is to encourage more open commerce and interaction between the communities, in hopes that eventually they choose to co-exist.

The Jews would have a Jewish majority, secure state, with the ability to ensure no threatening weapons can enter. The Palestinians would have a state of their own, with a Capital in Jerusalem, but at the cost of total demilitarization and demonstrated acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. Those made refugees receive redress, if not the return of their property.

Are these peace terms unprecedented? Hardly. Costa Rica is an example of a state without a military despite living in a bad neighborhood. Japan went from militaristic to pacifist in a single lifetime, and no sane nation fears Japan’s Self-Defense Forces. There are even great examples of the details of a demilitarization process. The US and Switzerland have seventy-five years of experience with the functioning of extra-territorial government bodies (i.e., the United Nations). Many nations split their government functions up at multiple sites, and several have non-contiguous territory.

If it is all so clear and precedented, what is the hold-up? As I alluded to earlier, leadership. I mentioned the Israeli government’s paralysis, giving Prime Minister Netanyahu the push toward his natural, uncompromising positions. It is even worse for the Palestinians. The President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is (a memorable quip from The Economist) “in the seventeenth year of a four year term.” Some suggest Hamas is not a terrorist group, since they have social service and administrative elements, and they even won an election in 2006. This is straining to put things in a good light, like the doctor who tells you that you have “a good cancer.” Those who always argue for more democracy should take a long look at this situation: many votes have brought to power (1) a corrupt leader beholden to a minority of extremists, (2) a corrupt and ineffectual octogenarian who has missed every opportunity to negotiate, and (3) murderous terrorists. So much for the wisdom of these crowds.

A breakthrough is unlikely either in Israeli politics or Gaza. Hope remains that a new generation of leaders in the West Bank could revive negotiations, leaving Hamas and the Gaza strip as a problem to be resolved later. A successful peace negotiation just for the West Bank would be a powerful impetus and undermine Hamas’ claims, while also allowing even tighter restrictions on Gaza in the meantime.

The Jews and Palestinians are like conjoined twins fighting it out in the womb, neither one realizing that the death of one will result in the death of both. We should all pray they choose new leaders, who choose life.

Israel warplanes and artillery mercilessly bombed Palestinian civilians trapped in the Gaza strip. The Israeli government evicted Palestinians from Jerusalem neighborhoods to secure Jewish control of the city. Jewish mobs dragged Palestinians from their cars and killed them.

Or . . .

Hamas indiscriminantly launched hundreds of rockets into Israel. Palestinian mobs threw rocks down on Jews praying at the Western Wall, and set fire to cars and synagogues elsewhere.

Or . . .

Cynical political leaders on both sides used a violent confrontation to further their own positions. Biased media reported parts of the story to get you to take sides. Gullible people who should be researching the situation instead shared and tweeted and emoted about things like international law and war crimes about which they knew little.

I’ll review the facts, you decide!

The current flare up–and remember, there have been countless ones before this–began in a courtroom. The Israeli Supreme Court was set to decide whether a group of Palestinians could be evicted from the Sheik Jarrar neighborhood of Jerusalem. The Palestinians had lived there since 1948, after having been displaced during the original Jewish-Arab conflict. The neighborhood had been Jewish prior to 1948, but the Jordanian government, which seized all of Jerusalem during the war and expelled the Jews, now had thousands of Arab refugees (there were no people called “Palestinians” at this time, as the term was a general one for the region, and not used for any specific people. It would be like referring to Ohioans as Midwesterners: true, but not specific). Jordan decided to settle displaced Arabs in former Jewish properties with the approval of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). While this was a practical solution, it did violate concepts of international law which forbid the re-titling of personal property forcibly seized pursuant to war.

Even the Jordanians respected this precedent, so despite Palestinian claims, Jordan never gave them proper title during the next twenty years, and Sheik Jarrar remained a Jewish neighborhood with Arab residents. The Israelis reclaimed all of Jerusalem in the 1967 war, and began systematically removing Palestinian squatters, both by legal and illegal means. This activity has proceeded in fits and starts for fifty-three years. At one point, Palestinian residents of Sheik Jarrar agreed to a compromise to be permitted to stay indefinitely as long as they paid rent, on which they subsequently reneged. The Israeli Supreme Court finally ruled last year that the Palestinians had to vacate the property by May of this year, but last month delayed the eviction to let the Israeli Attorney General take one more look at the case.

Point #1: International law is clear that these specific properties are Jewish and the Israelis have every right to evict the Palestinians. That said, the Israeli government has also evicted thousands of Palestinians without proper legal authority, and denies Palestinians the “right of return” to their former properties in Israel, the same right they are enforcing in Sheik Jarrar.

In anticipation of the end of the Muslim holy period of Ramadan, and the expected Israeli Supreme Court decision, Palestinian youth began gathering nightly at the Damascus Gate, a popular location along the Old City wall. Local Jewish authorities responded with riot dispersal methods before any real problems happened: perhaps with the intent to defuse, but ultimately inflaming the situation.

Jewish extremists gathered near the al-Aqsa Mosque on May 10th to celebrate “Jerusalem Day” and the recapture of the holy city during the 1967 war. These same marchers demanded access to al-Aqsa and were denied by Israeli security forces, but they subsequently engaged in acts of vandalism and violence at various locations in and around the city.

• 

• 

Palestinians responded by occupying the Temple Mount, the site of the Dome of the Rock (al-Aqsa), and began throwing rocks down on Jews praying at the Western Wall. This is a time-honored Palestinian technique which puts the Jewish authorities in a bind: ignore the rock throwers and Jews will be killed at the Western Wall. Respond, and that requires forcing your way up a narrow staircase and occupying part of the sacred Muslim ground on the Temple Mount. Almost always, the Jews choose the latter, resulting in tear gas and rubber bullets on holy ground, but in the end, an end to the fatal rock throwing.

Point #2: Every Israeli-Palestinian conflict begins with a series of action-reaction-overreaction cycles. The youths did not spontaneously gather; they were encouraged in case the Israeli court issued a ruling. The police did not have to disperse the original crowd. The Jewish extremists did not need to approach al-Aqsa. The protesters did not have to throw rocks from al-Aqsa. Same as it always was.

Next, Hamas began launching thousands of un-aimed rockets into Israel from Gaza, to “protect the dignity of the al-Aqsa Mosque from the Zionist occupiers.” To review, Hamas is the terrorist organization that seized control in Gaza in 2007. Their website states Hamas is a “popular, patriotic Palestinian, Sunni Islamist movement that resists the Zionist occupation.” Wait, isn’t one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Why yes, but with whom do you agree? Hamas is a terrorist organization according to the USA, the Israelis (‘natch), the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others; Russia, China, Syria, and Egypt support Hamas. Hamas denies the Holocaust, and while publicly suggesting a willingness to negotiate with Israel, when speaking in Arabic to Arab populations, cites the ‘worldwide Jewish conspiracy’ and the religious duty to kill all Jews everywhere. The Israeli government would have a better chance negotiating with the Illinois Nazi Party.

Israel has the world’s preeminent anti-missile system, called Iron Dome, which can intercept these Hamas attacks. Except no system is 100% effective, and since the Hamas rockets are unguided and go just about anywhere, even the successful intercepts can result in large chunks of metal falling from the sky. And civilian casualties. Not to mention the fear factor of sirens wailing at all hours of the day and night, as Israelis scramble to get into safe-rooms in their homes (Israeli codes require them) or community shelters (provided by the government–remember this point for later). So the situation becomes intolerable for the Jewish people, even if casualties remain low. Thus Israeli leaders face a challenge: wait out the attacks, using up expensive Iron Dome intercepts on cheap Hamas rockets, or go after the launching systems and the people who push the buttons.

In Gaza, the Hamas leadership occupies a densely-populated (ranked as a city, it would be 43rd) urban area. It is, in effect, an urbanized refugee camp, which Israel can effectively blockade when it wants. Yet somehow, Hamas manages to smuggle in building supplies to dig hundreds of tunnels, both to further smuggling efforts into Egypt and to infiltrate terrorists into Israel proper. Note that Hamas does not insist upon safe-rooms in Palestinian high-rises, nor does it build community shelters. In fact, Hamas is infamous for co-locating its weapons and headquarters in schools, hospitals, and in this conflict, even a media center. Prior to the ceasefire, two-hundred thirty Palestinians and twelve Israelis had died.

Point #3: In any Hamas-Israeli conflict, civilian casualties will always be one-sided. Israel can try all they want to limit Palestinian casualties, but Hamas is actually seeking more Palestinian casualties: more martyrs, more innocent bodies for the international media to cover, more calls for revenge. There is no accountability for Hamas, which does not need votes because it has the guns.

If the Israelis can defend against the missiles barrages, and striking into Gaza leads to inevitable civilian casualties, why doesn’t the government just wait it out? While this sounds attractive as an option, it has yet to work. Hamas and other militant groups have launched literally thousands of rockets into Israel in the last twenty years. The UN has even labelled these attacks as “terrorism” and oftentimes the Israelis make little or no response. However, when the attacks occur en masse, or seem aimed at specific areas (like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem), the Israelis respond. Can you name a country which stands by and suffers thousands of cross border attacks without responding? I can’t either.

The Israelis have physically invaded Gaza before, and could occupy the entire Gaza strip. However, doing so would require an extended urban military operation, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties and the destruction of most of the property. In the end (under international law), the Israelis would assume responsibility for the homeless refugees in an urban wasteland.

So Israeli government responses are a fine-tuned political calculation: enough force to reassure citizens and inflict pain on Hamas without causing an international outcry. Yet Israel’s national government is a precarious coalition. “Bibi” Netanyahu’s party has never achieved more than thirty percent in four elections over the last two years, so he remains Prime Minister in a caretaker role as the elections continue. And there is a powerful impetus to play the hard-line “warrior” leader in the meantime.

Point #4: No one should ignore the role internal Jewish politics plays in these crises. Jewish extremists wish to expel all Muslims from Jerusalem and elsewhere, and their small political parties play a crucial swing-vote role in determining the rise and fall of Israeli governments. No Israeli politician is ever penalized for acting or reacting too harshly to external threats; one (Yitzhak Rabin) was assassinated for being too willing to negotiate.

One new thing in this conflict was the effect of social media, which abetted the spreading violence into more and different areas. Using social media apps, Jews and Arabs began making claims about atrocities committed by the other side, and organizing to take revenge. This cycle witnessed Jewish mobs dragging suspected “Arabs” out of cars, and Israeli Arabs (there are almost two million of them living in Israel) forming mobs to burn cars and synagogues.

Point #5: Once again, social media demonstrated how it can be a tool for good or evil.

So, to wrap it all up. Does Israel have a long history of abusing the rights of Palestinians? Yes. Have Arabs and Palestinians constantly tried to eliminate Israel and the Jews since the founding of the state in 1947? Yes. Is Israel strong enough to defend itself against any threat at this time? Yes. Does Hamas employ terrorism simply to provoke Israel? Yes. Is Israel legally justified in responding to Hamas missiles? Yes. Has Israel ever offered a two-state solution to the Palestinians? Yes. Does current Israeli politics practically prevent a similar offer now? Yes.

This latest spasm was a calculated effort on both sides: by Hamas, who had virtually nothing to lose, and perhaps could incite leftist opposition in the West (which it did). For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was a chance to look the part of a forceful leader and test whether President Biden would back him (he did). Hamas has enough propaganda film for an entire season on PBS; the Israeli military believes they destroyed a significant amount of Hamas tunnels, launchers, and rising leaders.

The ceasefire will hold, because both sides can claim they won, and both sides have nothing more to gain at the moment. But the war goes on, as it has, since 1947. Whether the next spasm of violence comes from an arrest, a bombing, a riot, or an eviction, it will come. While the Jewish and Palestinian people continue to suffer, leaders for both seem unable to find a way to separate them, equitably, so they may live in peace.