In this episode, Donniel Ha, an Israeli perspective on the war between Israel and Hamas, discusses the nuances of context and justification, morality and war, and how language can engage or isolate allies. They discuss the impact of the ongoing war in Israel, responses to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, analyzing the justification of events, and contextualizing October 7th and Israel's moral responsibilities.
The desire for clarity and condemnation of Hamas as a genocidal organization reflects Israelis' frustration with questions and criticisms of their conduct during the war.
Careful use of language, particularly the word 'but,' is crucial to avoid weakening Israel's position and maintain moral clarity in international discourse.
Deep dives
The Feeling of Embrace and Loneliness
In the early days after the massacre on October 7th, Israelis experienced an unprecedented sense of embrace and understanding from the world. However, as time passes, the circles of those who do not understand or sympathize with Israel are growing. Israelis are grappling with anger and frustration as more questions and criticisms arise regarding civilian casualties, Israel's conduct of the war, and the consequences of a ground campaign. This simmering anger reflects the desire for unequivocal identification of Hamas as a genocidal organization, emphasizing that there is no justification for their actions. The history of anti-Semitism plays a role in Israelis' reactions, as they fear that any acknowledgment of their actions being linked to the massacre brings back old patterns of victim-blaming. The summary also highlights the need for empathy and understanding, while avoiding the creation of loyalty tests or alienating potential friends and allies.
The Fine Line between Explanation and Justification
The conversation shifts towards a discussion on how to talk about the context of the massacre and its consequences. While criticism of Israel's response or how it is conducting the war in Gaza can be legitimate, some cautiousness is needed when discussing the context of the massacre itself. While the UN Secretary-General's statement condemns the massacre, it brings up the occupation as an explanation, not a justification. This distinction is important, as bringing up the occupation to justify the massacre is morally precarious. The summary emphasizes the need to focus on the consequences of the massacre and Israel's response, without equating them morally or deviating from the essential and unequivocal condemnation of Hamas's genocidal vision.
Refining the Use of 'But'
The podcast delves into the nuanced use of the word 'but' when discussing Israeli actions and consequences. It raises the question of whether 'but' is being used to justify, explain, recognize other challenges, or remind Israelis of their moral responsibilities. The need to refine the usage of 'but' is highlighted to avoid categorizing all 'buts' in the same place and to ensure that in the desire to strengthen Israel, it does not weaken its position. The summary suggests that Israelis should be careful in navigating these nuances to maintain a sense of moral clarity and avoid weakening their own position amidst international discourse.
On October 24th, United Nations Secretary-General Guterres delivered remarks on the war between Israel and Hamas. While he condemned the terror attacks, demanded immediate release of all hostages, and called for a ceasefire, he also contextualized the war within the broader history of the occupation and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This prompted Israel’s ambassador to call on Guterres to resign and signaled to many the all-too-familiar waning embrace of global support for Israel. Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi discuss the nuances of context and justification, morality and war, and how language can engage or isolate allies.