In August of 1973 I arrived in Israel as a guest of the Foreign Ministry. For reasons I no longer recall, the ministry had decided that trying to effect my conversion to its view of Israel’s policies regarding the Palestinians was a worthy investment. This was six years after Israel’s stunning victory in the Six Day War, hence of its conquest of the West Bank and the Gaza District; it was six weeks before the Yom Kippur War, which Israel won only after suffering significant losses — 2,656 dead, 7,250 wounded.
I remember now only the beginning and the end of a week-long blur of meetings. This was the first (and last) time I was met on the airport tarmac by a limousine, which is very cool. And, saving the best for last, my visit concluded with an 80-minute meeting with the then chief of military intelligence, General Eli Zeira. I was ushered into Zeira’s immense office and noticed first the most detailed map of the region I’d ever seen, one that seemed to me nearly on a 1-to-1 scale.
I was flattered by the time Zeira devoted to our meeting, though I recall only what he said at its end: “Look, Fein, you needn’t be so impatient. They [meaning principally Egypt and Syria] are not going to try anything for at least 10 years. And if for some reason they do, then you have my personal guarantee: three days, and we will be in both Cairo and Damascus.”
Six weeks later, the war. Obviously, Zeira knew very many things that I did not know, yet he quickly and quite unceremoniously found himself the former chief of military intelligence. So it goes: Lyndon Johnson plainly knew much more than I about what was happening in Vietnam, but that did not mean he was right in his assessment of what America should do there. And Israel’s current minister of defense, Ehud Barak, also knows much, much more than I. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong about Gaza; it only means he may be.
Which is — no great surprise — by way of introducing a reflection on the current war.
The standard explanation of Israel’s assault on Gaza is that Israel “has no choice.” That is a slogan with a long history in Israel, going back to the 1930s. If you believe you have no choice when you make war, then you are off the moral hook. But the idea of ein breira — there is no alternative — is easily transformed into a refuge for the intellectually lazy, a bankrupt alibi for all manner of mischief, a shoddy renunciation of autonomy and responsibility. (Uri Zvi Greenberg, a hugely controversial star of Israel’s far right-wing and one of the greatest Hebrew poets of the 20th century, once wrote approvingly that for the Jews, “There is no alternative, for in fact we have no desire whatsoever for an alternative.”) What, we are required to ask, are Israel’s aims in its assault against Gaza? And what are the risks attendant thereto?
It is exceedingly difficult to discern Israel’s war aims. Depending on which Israeli leader is speaking, they range from reducing rocket fire into Israel via a lasting truce, to an end to both rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons and explosives, all the way to Hamas’s definitive ouster from power. All the proposed goals share the urgent conviction that Israel’s deterrent capability, so badly damaged in Lebanon two years ago, must be unambiguously re-established.
After more than a week of aerial and naval bombardment and days of ground assault, it appears that Israel has yet to achieve even its minimal goals. Were it to halt its operation today, it could not claim to have achieved the kind of victory that arguably might have warranted its onslaught. (To say nothing of the rising toll of innocent dead.) But continuing the offensive is not an appealing alternative. Short of actually re-occupying Gaza, it is doubtful that Israel can achieve the kind of change in the rules of the game that could be described as a victory. Unless, prompted by the virtually inevitable carnage, others impose a cease-fire that minimally includes reopening the crossing points between Israel and Gaza, tight controls of the Gaza-Egypt border (preventing the smuggling of arms and munitions into Gaza) and a cessation of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. Then everyone except the dead, the bereaved and the wounded can claim victory, and the terrified can begin to heal.
There’s worse: When this war is over it may take Hamas many months to regroup, but Fatah has already been seriously damaged. Its struggle to be taken seriously by the Palestinian “street” had only lately begun to bear fruit, but now Fatah is again seen as ineffectual, even as a tool of Israeli and American interests. It has been both unable and unwilling to act to protect the citizens of Gaza. One day, it blames Hamas; the next, it excoriates Israel. Still, Israel needs Fatah, needs it badly. Without moderate Fatah — with either Hamas or utter chaos in its stead — there is no one with whom Israel can engage in any serious peace process.
With its right hand, Israel makes war; with its left hand, it builds new housing for Jews in the West Bank. With both hands, then, it weakens Fatah. Israel says it favors a two-state solution, and one must take that seriously, for its leaders know that absent a two-state solution there will one day come to pass a one-state solution, and that state will not be a democratic Jewish state. A two-state solution is an existential necessity for the Jewish state, its one strategic imperative. Its leaders cannot afford to employ tactics in Gaza that render that strategic imperative still more remote. It follows that even if Israel does win the current battle, it risks losing the fateful war.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
You've successfully signed up!
Indeed, the two state solution is an Israeli interest. That is, however, the very obstacle to its realization. If a particular solution is understood as advancing the interests of Israel, the Palestinians will not lend a hand. Moreover, the founding of the Palestinian state within the framework of a two-state peace solution would necessitate a Palestinian recognition of the other state's permanancy and legitimacy. Palestinian acceptance of a two-state arrangement can only work if it this arrangement will be perceived as temporary. It is a widely accepted narrative in Palestinian society that the founding of Israel is "the greatest injustice in the history of mankind". Even if a Palestinian state will be founded despite the pessimism expressed here (let's say through extreme international pressure), it will remain a hostile entity. The conflict will not be ended. Mr Fein fears that the alternative would have to be the one-state "solution". Obviously, both national communities would have to cooperate in its implementation. The Palestinians would probably be interested in such an arrangement since it would mean the end of Jewish statehood. Obviously, the Jewish side will never agree. Moreover, the conflict will simply continue within the framework of the one state (if it would be forced upon us) - primarily with the Arab side attacking the legitimacy of the legacy left behind by the British Mandate and the State of Israel (the changed demography through decades of Jewish immigration, the changes in the landscape through the building of the Yishuv and many more social grievances). Perhaps another solution will yet be suggested, but it could be that simply the conflict will continue. It's actually quite likely that the conflict is a permanent part of our lives. So, while always being open for negotiations and suggestions, we should nevertheless learn to be patient as we endure another generation of "more of the same".
Both Fatah and Hamas are forms of cancer. Hamas is slightly more virulent, but both are bad. Egypt needs to take control of Gaza and make the gazans Egyptians, like they were before 1967. Progressive zionists like Fein are like pregnant virgins-either a technically difficult feat or the start of a new religion
At some point the Palestinians will have the realization that electing Hamas or any terrorist will be too high a price to pay. Like Egypt after the 6 day war. Peace will then come after they kick Hamas out of office. Ignore world opinion since it is always biased.
Read the editorial in the edition of The Forward your article appears in - especcially the bottom line.
If this is what Judaism is all about, then "Judeo-Christian values" is a myth. Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza All civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written in a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</a>
Forget the two-state solution. We have seen it in Gaza and it is hopeless. It is time for the surrounding arab countries to repatriate their "palestians" to their countries of origin. The so-called "palestinians" will continue their war against Israel, and the world will vilify Israel when it defends itself militarily. The arabs will never be held responsible for behaving responsibly. The world is riddled with anti-Semites. It permeates the UN, Europe, and the Third World, and is growing in America, with the help of far-left "Jewish" anti-Semites. The propaganda and policy wars on Israel is the battlefield on which the anti-Semites war on Jews is being fought. American Jews now face a two-front war: the enmity of the traditional anti-Semites (from the Buchanans to Carters), and our betrayal at home by far-left "progressive" anti-Semitic "Jews". The world's condemnation is a given. Israel needs to act in its own interest by creating a secure Jewish state and let the anti-Semites wail and cry their crocodile tears for the poor "oppressed" arabs.
Norman - I wish it were so simple, and the question of peace could be defined as merely a legal issue. If, in fact, the settlements and their legality were the essence of the conflict, then there wouldn't have been a conflict before 1967. Sadly, the Hamas and the Fatah don't agree with you either. The Hamas defines the conflict in religious terms. The entire country is part of the Islamic "awqaf", the holy possession, that may not be controlled by non-Moslems. The Fatah uses more secular language, claiming that their struggle is an expression of an indigenous population fighting a "foreign invasion". Neither definition of conflict is at all concerned with "international law". That might be your agenda, but it is not the Palestinian agenda. For the Palestinians, it is an ideological struggle. There are many grievances (and only some of them are legalistic), yet the conflict is greater than the sum total of all its grievances! In other words, each and every grievance on the supposed list of grievances could be answered (borders, settlements, refugees, Jerusalem, Palestinian statehood, etc) - and yet the conflict would not be resolved. There is still that element of ideology that defies definition.
after the first euro tsunami hit palestine hundreds of other lesser tsunamis and waves have not destropyed palestinians; actually, there is more pals now than ever. even the raid since 12.27 will not make much of dent; tho it may be declared a victory for israel. just like ottomans against euros, so do israelis win battle after battle but palestinians stay in their palestine. and ottomans were defeated. israelis too will suffer a devastating end. curioso is that it will be an afro-asiatic people whom ashkenazic use as cannon fodder that will go thru its own paces. most ashkenazic cultists are in americas and europe; where the money can be made and which offer relative safety for them. thnx
it may be noted that both US and israel wld like to end all of this by slaughter or/and expulsion of all pals from all of expalestine. but, for what? what's preventing US for not giving israel the nod to procede with this plan that ?all israelis so fervently await? i think it is the oil and if US/Israel wld attempt or announce that, much of the oiless world wld object or even call such an action a casus belli. so, Israel, as the ancient persian proverb says, is plowing and plowing but never sowing (let alone reaping, i may slightly emend it) of course, since irael may have a telos, euro and US also have their own but nobody's divulging them; we, perforce, must educe them from known facts. for US the end goal may be an israel as it is de facto now; which wld make US midizionistic. chomsky and many others, being for a two state nonsloution, i dare call mini-zionistic. europe also appears as a minizionist or may bit more than that. most other cultists want a state that wld straddle jordan and with few if any pals. there may be other variations. one situation appears obvious, Israel is much or in toto dependent on US. we all know that israel is too tiny, too impoverished; sans lakes, swift clear streams and rivers; no game or forest, minerals. so one wonders why is jahweh punishing not only ashkenazic volk but also afro-asian voelken with such a poor land; surounded by eterne enemies? but, of course, because the 'promises' were made by mad hebrew priests and later taken up as true by the germans, poles, slavs, hungarians, et al. in short, a nonshemitic people; armed with a cult. and we all know what cultists are capable of. thx
"Horrified Christian said: If this is what Judaism is all about, then "Judeo-Christian values" is a myth. Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza" Ignore what Eliyahu says. He is the most prominent extremist, but an extremist nonetheless, whose interpretation of Torah is well-known to be made according to his nutty politics. He is neither representative of the general public in Israel (among whom he is somewhat reviled) nor of the Orthodox public.
I am a 62 year old middle class non religious non Jewish Australian. In 1967 I was at University and when the 6 day war broke out we immediately raised money to hire a plane and send medical supplies and assistance to Israel. I tell you now that International opinion does count, today I would not do the same. Today if I could I would send aid to Palestine. In my eyes Israel has become all that it claims to oppose. It is occupying another peoples lands and is now brutally suppressing resistance with overwhelming miltary force and a complete disregard for innocent civilians. Tomorrow I will vote for the Greens, a political party in my country that feels the same as I do and if enough of the few remaining allies that America has do the same then America too will tire of Israel and ther will be a one state solution. So Please, Israel, listen to Leonard Fein
Peter Feeney - Gaza is not an occupied land. Hamas is not fighting Israel as "resistance" against the "occupation of Gaza". In the eyes of Hamas, all of the State of Israel is "occupation". I know that outsiders who don't speak a word of Arabic cannot really understand what Hamas is saying. Indeed, they use words such as "resistance" (muqawama) and "occupation" (ihtilal), and a good people like you think that it is resistance to the occupation of territory captured in 1967. I think Mr Fein also understands things as such. In Arabic, on their TV broadcasting and in their school books, EVERYTHING is occupied (including Tel-Aviv and Haifa). When they say that they have a right to "resist occupation", their real intention is that they have a right to fight Israel until her utter defeat and disappearance. Outsiders, like yourself, are identifying with their cause because of a manipulated misunderstanding. Still, the fact remains that the fight of Hamas is an ideological and religious war, and no change of policy on the part of Israel can calm the conflict. What I find absolutely amazing in your political view is the line that Israel "is occupying another people's lands". Well, we're still in the midst of an ongoing conflict, and the solution hasn't yet been found. But tell me, please, how does an Australian keep a straight face when he accuses anyone else of "occupying another people's lands" (and don't tell me that "it was a long time ago" - it wasn't). We, the Jews, are an integral part of the multi-ethnic ancient Middle East, and our conflict with our neighbors is one of many ethnic clashes in the area (we and the Arabs are "cousins" in both our traditions, and our languages are closely related). It's quite a different phenomenon than the arrival of foreigners (English-speakers) in places like Australia.
Peter Feeney, I'm with you. If Israel followed international law, and gave up the settlements, they would have had peace years ago.
I greatly appreciate Leonard Fein's thoughtful essay that examines some of the problems incurred by the military operation Israel has undertaken. I too have long held a vision of co-existence, with a Palestinian state established along side Israel, productively, and Israel better integrated into the region. Hamas use of violence and ideological rejection of Israel's existence were obstacles to this vision, of course, and I understand the great temptation to impair Hamas militarily. There were been better alternatives, but they were elusive, already half submerged, muddied, and less robust than the military "solution." I think it is most unfortunate that militarism is carrying the day.