During the recent Democratic National Convention, I attended a reception for the Israeli ambassador and found myself face-to-face with the husband of a member of the Benjamin Netanyahu administration. The situation called for small talk. But what to say?
"If I had a choice between getting rid of Hamas and getting rid of Netanyahu, I'd choose Netanyahu," I began, in my artless fashion. "There will always be another terror group to take Hamas' place. But I don't think Israel can ever have a worse leader than Netanyahu."
He spun on his heel and strode away. So much for dialogue. I'd be more embarrassed at my rudeness, but obviously am not alone in this opinion, judging from the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who filled the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem this weekend after six hostages were found executed in the tunnels underneath Gaza.
I don't write about the Israeli-Palestinian mess much because nothing ever changes. I could pluck a column from 2004 or 2014 and post it, and it would be just as current and just as futile as what I'll be writing today. To apply a logical concept — it's time someone did — both sides are making what is called a "category error." A category error is when you misinterpret the essential nature of what you're dealing with. Such as if you come home, find a tiger prowling your living room and welcome it as a stray feline and hope it will get along with your other cats. What you categorize as "potential pet" should in fact be seen as an "immediate lethal danger."
The Palestinians traditionally treat Israel as a military problem. An approach which failed spectacularly in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, and that was when they had Arab armies behind them. They've been going it alone for the past 50 years, achieving greater levels of failure, leading to suffering, death and a dwindling area of land they actually possess.
Israel, on the other hand, views the Palestinians as a long-term management issue, instead of a pressing moral call to immediate action. That is, rather than solve the situation that fate has left on its doorstep, it blames the Palestinians' admittedly corrupt and — Oct. 7 notwithstanding — bumbling leadership, shrugs, makes do, and lets another decade slide by. Rather the way Chicago handles its pension problem.
Both sides have a policy of focusing exclusively on their own humanity, decrying their own tragedy while ignoring the tragedy they inflict, calling on the compassion of a public that, while often capable of extravagant displays of sympathy for the Palestinians, at the end of the day can't fix the problem and doesn't really try.
Admittedly, logic doesn't do much in a highly charged emotional issue like this, with children dying every day and kidnapped babies being hidden in tunnels. It's like bringing a slide ruler to a knife fight. I'm a little embarrassed to bring it up, except it would be nice to get past the current disaster so we could proceed to the next one.
Speaking of category errors, I'd like to suggest that the "from the river to the sea" chant hurts, not Jews so much, who see its implications and feel more uneasy than usual, but Palestinians, hindering their ability to improve their situation by inflating their expectations. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Trying to fight their way back to an imagined past, they lose any hope of an actual future. Or to put it another way: Oct. 7 was not a convincing demonstration of Hamas' desire to live in peace.
Anti-government demonstrators scuffle with Israeli police by a barrier near the home of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Monday. The protesters were calling for Netanyahu to reach an agreement to release the remaining hostages held captive since the Oct. 7 attacks by Palestinian militants.
Menahem Kahana/Getty
But if you bring up Oct. 7, Palestinian supporters instantly counter that, given the colonial crime that is Israel, in their estimation, they have a "right" to resist.
Sure they do. And I have a right to jam my hand into a grinder. Doesn't make it a good idea. Was Oct. 7 a good idea? How's that working out? I'd suggest not so well, but I'm biased. Those urging a cease-fire now should ask themselves what a cease-fire achieves if the war starts up the next day after the next barrage of missiles.
The first anniversary of the war is approaching. I won't write about it till then. Meanwhile, protests will disrupt college campuses, frighten passing Jews and accomplish little. The war continues, the blood flows, and the sides seem further apart than ever. I wish they'd finally realize they can't kill their way or blame their way to a solution. They're tried that before and are trying it now. It doesn't seem to be working. The solution is where it has always been, in their own hands.
