Questions — and an attempt at answers — on the ongoing war

Each week I wrestle anew with the events unfolding in Israel, Gaza, and around the globe, thinking about them in different ways. This week, is strikes me that the national and international discourse about Israel and the war between Israel and Hamas is addressing a number of questions, but that these questions are not always explicit. Here I want to try to spell them out, to see if it’s helpful way of understanding where we stand and how our values align in response to this moment.

To be clear, not everyone has all of these questions, but to better understand the discourse, I think it’s helpful to spell them out.

Question 1: Is war ever justified?

War is a horrific thing. The soul of every human life is precious. I will cite the adage from the Book of Bereshit (Genesis) until I am blue in the face that וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים  אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ “God created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God” (1:27). To contemplate human actions that result in the killings of others is abhorrent, and so I wrestle deeply with whether it could ever conceivably be called.

Still, as Jews, and really as humans, we have seen instances in human history where it is hard to contemplate any response other than taking up arms to defend oneself and to take out an aggressor. World War II is an extreme, but germane, example: few would dispute today that taking up arms—even when considering the number of deaths that occurred as a result—was the correct response to Hitler’s aggression. While not every conflict is World War II, it’s an example that suggests to us that war, at least in extreme circumstances, is an appropriate response. To be clear, this doesn’t mean war was the only response; even after Germany’s surrender, the Marshall Plan, for example, to restore the economic infrastructure of postwar Europe, was instituted. But war was a necessary component in the steps to turn the page on a dark chaper of history.

Question 2: Is this war justified?

Here lies, perhaps, the most challenging question that confronts us. On the one hand, I see Hamas as, surely, a long-term enemy to peace in the region. They murdered approximately 1,000 civilians, and an additional 400 soldiers, on October 7 through truly horrific means, and have said they would like to see a “permanent” state of war on the borders with Israel. A previous version of their governing charter called for the annihilation of the State of Israel and the murder of Jews. As with Hitler, it seems impossible to imagine any enduring political, peaceful negotiation with Hamas. Under those circumstances one would have to imagine war is a necessary component of the long-term solution.

On the other hand, because of the high population density in the Gaza strip and the way in which Hamas embeds itself within the civilian populations, war with Hamas in Gaza, which seems necessary for the future of the region, given that the civilian population of Gaza does not have the wherewithal to overthrow Hamas, leads to a heartbreaking civilian death toll.

The resolution of this “on-the-one-hand; on-the-other hand” dilemma is all but impossible. It’s the stuff of moral wrangling that humans should never have to consider and which seems beyond human ken.

And yet here we are.

Because I see no hope for the future of the region with Hamas in power, and because I understand, from Israel’s perspective, that after the horrors of October 7 it cannot contemplate having Hamas as its neighbor, as few if any other countries would if they suffered this sort of attack, I believe this war is ultimately justified. But I do so with a heavy heart, devastated by the death tolls this, and all wars, take, and in recognition that it should be hard for human beings to feel a sense of moral certitude when matters of war and this level of death is on the table.

Question 3: Even if this war is justified, is Israel carrying it out in a just manner?

We know the civilian death toll of this war—and all wars—is high. We don’t know exactly how high, because it is the Hamas-led health ministry that is in control of the numbers, and, as we saw with earlier false reports that Israel attacked a hospital, there is reason to be suspicious about any individual report. Still, we know the level of Palestinian suffering in this war is very high, with the death toll certainly in the thousands. We mourn for them as we do for Jewish life.

So a question is, is Israel carrying out this war in a just way? I have cited before the international legal standard that civilian death tolls not be disproportionate to the military objective sought. That is an operational question on a strike-by-strike basis: for each strike, would it result in a disproportionate number of deaths relative to the objective sought—for example taking out Hamas leadership and weaponry. It feels cold and callous to reflect in these terms, and yet that is how war is governed; there is a recognition that even while countries have to take up arms to defend themselves from aggressors who, if given the chance, would slaughter millions of their people, they are to conduct themselves according to norms that have limit the level of destruction wrought.

It is impossible to know which Israeli strikes measure up to these standards and which do not, if any, and I think it can be easy from 6000 miles away to second guess what war looks like and should look like.

At the same time, the line the United States has taken feels appropriate to me: defend Israel’s right to prosecute this war as an effort to defend itself that essentially any other country in its position would take, while at the same time keeping the pressure on to ensure Israel puts in place humanitarian corridors and pauses that let civilians depart from war torn regions, that allow aid reach those who need it, and that enable safe release of hostages to take place, and further to keep the pressure on to ensure strikes are as constrained as possible through the principles of international law. I think it is appropriate to sustain and even increase that pressure as needed, while also recognizing the steps Israel already does take to give advance warning to civilians of impending strikes so that they can relocate.

Still, I recognize that over the course of this war there have been so many deaths on both sides that are absolutely tragic. I’m at a loss. Hamas is a danger to countless lives in the present and in the future, so I understand the determination to carry out this war, but today’s deaths are devastating nonetheless.

Question 4: What else beyond war is needed to ensure we reach a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Removing Hamas from power may be one piece of the puzzle in providing a just and lasting resolution to the conflict. But it will not be sufficient in and of itself.

If Hamas swears by the destruction of Israel as a “resolution” to the conflict, then there is no way to negotiate a lasting peace settlement with them; no resolution that involves Israel surviving would be satisfactory to them. If someone denies your very existence, how can you come to the table and envision a future with them?

Still, Hamas does not represent all of Gaza, let alone all of the Palestinians. For peace to be achieved, Palestinians have to feel like their yearnings are recognized. So do Israelis. Both peoples have deep ties to the land. Both, like all human beings, have certain unalienable rights—to life, to freedom—that need to be ensured. There can be no hope for peace without both peoples feeling like these ties and these rights are recognized.

The vehicle all across the world through which such rights are protected is the nation-state, which is defined, according to one definition as “a territorially bounded sovereign polity—i.e., a state—that is ruled in the name of a community of citizens who identify themselves as a nation.” While other systems of governance have been contemplated, to paraphrase Churchill once again, nation-states are the worst form of government except for all the others.

Thus it would seem appropriate to give these two peoples—Israeli and Palestinian, two national identities that have been forged over the generations—the space to operate nation-states in which they have the right and the freedom to exercise self determination.

Neither side will get all of what it wants under these circumstances. Both sides see the other inhabiting plots of land that they have ties to and feel connections to.

The unique circumstances of the Jewish people—in which they were exiled from their homeland of what was then known as Judea; dispersed throughout the world; but who preserved their culture, their religion, their language, and their ties to the land and who were identified as “outsiders” in the countries in which they found themselves, and thereby perpetually persecuted, culminating in the unique horrors of the Holocaust—led to a determination among the international community that they needed a homeland for themselves.

That homeland was determined to be a portion of British-occupied Palestine; the international community proposed that the Palestinians would form a state out of the other portion of the land—hundreds of thousands of them had been living there for generations. It was an imperfect solution that made neither party whole, and yet which in some sense advanced the interests of both.

75 years later, here we are again. This plan, with the borders since adjusted based on the intervening decades of history, is our best hope to leave both parties feeling like they have a future in which they can live safely and in freedom.

Question 5: What is Israel’s role in securing this future?

Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas, which is bent on its destruction. At the same time, it has the responsibility to pave a pathway forward for Palestinians that allows them to feel like they have a future.

Recognizing that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are the proposed major features of a future Palestinian state, Israel needs to conduct itself with respect to those territories in ways that pave that pathway. That means ceasing settlement construction in the West Bank, and not re-occupying Gaza.

The conditions for peace are not here yet. It is understandable that Israel preserves a security presence in each, while it moves towards peace. But it cannot and should not make moves, like building settlements, that begin to close off that pathway for peace.

Right now, Israel is united behind the war to defeat Hamas. Prior to the October 7 attack it was bitterly divided over proposed judicial overhauls pursued by its right-wing government. It will be interesting to see the political fallout in Israel after this war is over: is the current government being given leeway to prosecute this war because the Israeli public sees the urgency of doing so, but afterwards it will pay a political price for being the leadership in charge when this attack took place, and therefore the leadership will change hands? Or will the conditions of the war change the political reality, leading this government, which has not operated consistently with a long-term peaceful resolution with the Palestinians, to remain in power?

I pray that if anything good comes from this war, it is the removal of Hamas as an obstacle to peace, and the recognition by the Israeli government that the issue of the Palestinians cannot be wished away and that the groundwork for peace and a two-state solution must be laid. So, too, must Palestinians recognize that Israel is here to stay, and holding out for its ultimate destruction or dismantling is not a path to peace.

Question 6: What is the role of the ceasefire protest movement in the United States?

As I have said before, reasonable people can disagree about what Israel should be doing right now. While I support Israel’s right to defend itself, and see Hamas as an ultimate obstacle to a long-term settlement to this conflict that can’t be dealt with other than by war, I recognize that some people see the civilian cost of this war as too high to countenance war. While I ultimately don’t agree with that position, war is devastating and heartbreaking, and I can understand why some would come to the conclusion that a ceasefire is necessary.

Unfortunately, many of the organizers of the ceasefire movement, not only don’t want to see Israel carrying out this war, they don’t want to see Israel as a state exist. The energy driving these protests come from groups like Jewish Voices for Peace,If Not Now, and, locally, the Philly Palestine Coalition, whose efforts to deny the legitimacy of Israeli identity long precede the Israeli response to the October 7 attacks. The Philly Palestine Coalition organized an “emergency solidarity rally” on October 8, before Israel had responded—really before Hamas had even ceased its killings—urging supporters to “show up, share, and support the resistance” movement, noting in its social media post promoting the event (which is still up) that “freedom of the palestinian [sic] people will only be gained through armed resistance”. The ceasefire they seek is one-sided.

While it is reasonable to push for a ceasefire (even though I disagree with that push), the push is being organized and led by coalitions that seek not just for Israel to cease this operation, and even not just by coalitions looking to see a peaceful two-state solution, but by organizations who believe the founding of the state of Israel was unjust, and that no future of the region can involve the state of Israel—that its flag and national anthem should be discarded. That the idea of a Jewish majority state—even one this sits alongside a Palestinian state—is unjust. By and large you do not see Israeli flags at ceasefire rallies, because the movement behind these rallies does not envision a future for an Israeli state.

Charitably, some among these movements envision something like a binational state, in which both peoples live under one flag in harmony. While I understand the hopes behind that ideal, it not only appears deeply out of touch with the present—and historic—discord between these peoples, it ignores the unique nature of Jewish history, that Jews living under a flag not formally theirs has been fatal for many Jews over the millennia, and, further, that involves the fantastical notion that a state—Israel—that has existed for 75 years, with 9 million people would move towards erasing that experience and that present.

Even progressive Jewish organizations like J Street and T’ruah, which have historically been highly critical of the Netanyahu administrations, have not joined these ceasefire movements, because they recognize them as inconsistent with the long-term safety and security of Israel and peace in the region.

I wish the pathway forward were more peaceful. My heart is wrenched over the possibility of more war. But a vision forward cannot be built upon the desire to see Israel dismantled, as much of the energy behind the left-wing ceasefire movement seeks, nor can it ignore the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, as the far right-wing movement has espoused. The only future is to recognize the legitimacy—the ultimate right of safety and freedom—for both peoples.

Wishing you a Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi K.

P.S. I wanted to share a couple of resources from this past week that I have found helpful: (1) These two interviews on the Ezra Klein podcast helping to sketch out a Palestinian and Israeli narrative respectively; there is much I disagree with in what’s shared and yet I think it’s helpful to hear these perspectives motivating each side—we can’t move forward until we fully understand; and (2) This article from David Horowitz, the founding editor of the Times of Israel, summing up where things stand 30 days into the war.