This blog entry is a letter responding to an invitation to join a group interested in discussing current affairs in a thoughtful manner. Two more such entries will be added here. As others are written, they will be included here.

Gentlemen,

First, again, thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I’m honored to be included and encouraged to express some thoughts. But now a couple of points. First, I’m a retired college professor and no answer from me is short. So, be prepared. Second, some background about Mr. Fareed and me. He is a Muslim, and I am a Jew. Between us, we have our biases. He will tend to favor Palestinian positions and I will tend to favor the Israeli side. That’s just the nature of things despite our efforts to honor facts.

These facts, as Churchill once said, “United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts.”[1]  Frankly, most news casts, and particularly, their pundits, ignore brute facts and proceed blithely into false idiocies. Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, was a master at this art. So, for this essay, I’ll try to cite sources for each of my statements to ensure they conform to concrete facts. My promise if we are to achieve a good understanding of how the world got into this mess in the Middle East.  Incidentally, reliance on facts should prevail in the Ukrainian war.

This discussion seems to have come from Dr. Clark’s research into the Balfour agreement. Taken at face value, it does indicate a separate state for the Jews and another for the Palestinians. In fact, there was some recognition of this possibility. However, the Balfour Agreement was a vague document that reflected the various attitudes of the Europeans and the Arabs.

In general, there was a misconception that Palestine was an empty land. As early Zionist leader, Chaim Weizman, claimed with apparent general agreement among his peers, that Jews should settle in Palestine as it “was underpopulated, with plenty of empty space.”  This conceit belied the existence of 700,000 people whose roots in the area were very old. The Arab delegate, Feisel, did not generate any strong protest about a Jewish settlement, and, in fact, had a friendly meeting with Weizman in which Weizman donned an Arab headdress. From it, Weizman reported that Feisel did not “place much value on Palestine: ‘He is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t regard as Arabs.’”  Still, both men were cautious about a Jewish state. Weizman talked only about a “settlement” and Feisal hedged his support with a requirement of conferring with his father, the Hajaz king.

The British envoy, Balfour, was emotionally committed to finding a homeland for the Jews. This comes through clearly in the letter cited by Dr. Clark. There was another motive to this support: blocking French dominance in the region that stemmed “from an ancient claim to Palestine” as protector of the Catholics living in the area. A Jewish population was seen as an effective blockade. However, the British had made numerous promises to Arab leaders during the War in hopes of gaining their support against the Ottoman empire. Those promises were expected to be met. Consequently, British diplomats had a straddle a fine line between support for a nascent Jewish settlement by any name and meeting Arab aspirations in the Middle East.

The Americans had just returned from the war Europe to end all wars. They felt they had done their job and renounced their position as a world-leader in place of a rising sense of isolationism. Eventually, the Senate would discard Wilson’s dream of a League of Nations. But still another fact had arisen in America. The Jewish population had grown immensely during the early decades of the 20^th century. Before WW I, American Jews numbered 250,000. Afterwards their population had grown to 3 million. Clearly, this number of voters meant something to American politicians even if they personally didn’t like Jews very much. [2] 

There were people at the Balfour Conference who were clear in their ambitions. They wanted a Jewish state for Jewish people. Theit ambition ran counter to the vague statements and intentions of the envoys there. Weizman, would have perhaps wanted to advocate for a state, but he was cautious of pressing for it. That event would arrive in 1948 after the Holocaust when the United Nations, representing the majority will of world’s nations decided that indeed Jews needed a safe harbor. Immediately afterwards, Arab nations attacked in the War of Independence. Since then Israel has fought eight wars and a number of insurgencies. These conflicts would lead to world conferences and agreements such as the Oslo Agreement. As of now, Egypt and Jordan have honored their agreements even through very trying times.

The Gaza Strip had been controlled through these times by Egypt and used as a refugee camp until the Six Day War when Israel took it. It controlled the territory in keeping of their apparent policy of “You start the war; we keep the land.”    The Oslo Agreement directed the establishment of a Palestinian government that would be under direction of Palestinian Authority. This authority was directed by Yasser Arafat who “renounced  ‘terrorism and other acts of violence’ against Israel.’”  This pledge was quickly broken, and the U.S. labeled the PLO a terrorist group. Subsequently, in 2005, under the direction of Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, Jewish settlements were evacuated and the IDF left the territory. In 2007, by elected victory, Hamas replaced the PLO and has remained its government since.[3]

The political position of Hamas is the establishment of a Palestinian government over the entire territory. It has never recognized the legitimacy of Israel. At best, it accepts Israel’s existence as a “fait accompli.”  As cited in Wikipedia:

In 2007, Hamas signed the Fatah–Hamas Mecca Agreement.^[335] At the time of signing this agreement, Moussa Abu Marzouk, Deputy Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, said regarding the recognition of Israel: “I can recognize the presence of Israel as a fait accompli (amr wâqi‘) or, as the French say, a de facto recognition, but this does not mean that I recognize Israel as a state.”[4]

The policies of Hamas throughout its tenure have been the destruction of Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state. It has engaged in limited warfare that can be identified as “asymmetric.”  This type of warfare can be typified as “guerilla warfare” in which the weaker nation engages in protracted insurgencies; attack and retreat; and usage of unlawful, civilian attired troops. Its purpose is the exhaustion of the larger, conventionally equipped nation such that it will accept the political terms of the weaker state.[5] 

Included in its weaponry is the use of human shields. As defined in Wikipedia, these actions are the “deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets.”[6]  An example would be housing combat forces in a hospital. Such actions are considered to be war crimes under the Geneva Convention and Rome Statute.[7]  In the current war, usage of human shields not only provide some modicum of protection for its military and political forces, it also offers a political advantage of currying international outrage when news reports parade images of terrible human suffering.

This tactic puts Israel in a difficult, tenuous position. Since civilian populations wear no uniforms, they cannot be separated into “weapons of war” and innocents. Therefore if Israel forbears from attacking any of them, they leave Hamas with a significant military advantage. If they attack the civilian population at large, as they have done to obliterate the militarized segment, they incur international wraith as has happened. “They can’t win for losing” is a good way of describing their situation.

This type of warfare has a long history in America. Out Revolution was largely fought by irregular forces in asymmetric warfare against Britian. There are two books that describe well the problems Britain faced in combatting these insurgents. They are Cornwallis and the War of Independence and Redcoats and Rebels. Later we fought a prolonged asymmetric war against the Indians. A good book about them is The Origins of Native Americans. Finally our colossal failure in Viet Nam.

The great writer about war, Carl von Clausewitz, once stated that all wars are politics raised to a higher level of intensity. That dictum can be seen in this essay about the Middle East conflicts. Political leaders have been deciding the fate of Middle Easterners for more than a century. Thousands have died as a result: Muslims and Jews alike. In the UN decision to create Israel, Palestinians were forced from their homes never to return. I have personally spoken with refugees from this action. They were bitter. Israelis can be likened to the White settlers who decimated the Indians. Yet, Israel exists and will continue to exist just as the United States exists and will continue to exist. Will we give our land back? Not a chance. As Senator Hayakawa once allegedly quipped when asked about returning land, “Never. We stole the land fair and square.”  Neither will Israel return its land.

These leaders are all following the calculus of their political positions. Consequently, from their perspective the questions must be asked: “Why should Hamas make peace with Israel?”  “Why should Netanyahu stop bombing Gaza civilians?”  “Why should President Biden completely adopt Fareen’s ideas?”  From this perspective, the answers to these questions become clear: because it’s expedient not too. This means that pundits and leaders alike must study the positions of the antagonists and decide why change becomes an advantageous expedient. This does not imply morality. That is irrelevant in these negotiations. Real Politic is the incubus of these actions. Several Arab and Jewish leaders have tried to follow this idea. Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin were assassinated by fellow countrymen for their efforts. Such were the sacrifices made for steps toward enduring peace that led to normal relations between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. It’s a dangerous busine

---

[1]   Churchill’s Statement About Stubborn Facts. https://search.aol.com/aol/video;_ylt=AwrErS9XPuZlQDIAM7FpCWVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?q=churchill%27s+statement+about+stubborn+facts&v_t=loki-keyword. 4 March 2024

[2]  MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919. New York, NY: Random House. 2001.  Chapter 28.

[3]  “Gaza Strip.”  Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip. 5 March 2024.

[4]  “Hamas. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Etymology. 5 March 2024.

[5]  “Asymmetric Warfare.”  Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare. 5 March 2024.

[6]  “Human Shield.”  Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield. 5 March 2024.

Here is a screed. I hate politicians of all stripes:  right, left, and center. They have tasted the honey of power and become corrupted by it. They are addicted to it. Consequently, they declare wars with heedless thought about the thousand and millions of lives that will be destroyed by them.

About Netanyahu:  again, I ask the question, why should he? Our expression of displeasure at his war policies? This is Biden’s position about the war. Israel should change its policies to enhance its world support. It’s a weak argument that politicians don’t hear. George W. Bush squandered world support after 9/11 after he needlessly invaded Iraq. Obama did not heed it during his tenure. Biden pulled out only when he decided that its continuance wasn’t worth the cost. World opinion never entered the equation. Meanwhile, thousands died.

There’s another factor that must be considered about world opinion. Antisemitism is virulent in the U.S. and Europe. Two university presidents were fired for not providing academic, and  perhaps physical, security to its Jewish students.  The newspapers have documented other instances of antisemitism.  Consequently, Israel’s reputation is in the toilet. So, Netanyahu gains nothing by trying to court world opinion. Hamas will get some brownie points but no arms. No nation will overtly supply arms to Hamas that could turn the tide of battle. Netanyahu knows this; Hamas knows this; and Biden knows this. World opinion as an effective political tool is a chimera.

Next, Netanyahu has a military background, and he fully understands asymmetric warfare. Israel’s founding was based in it. Ben Gurion and others were terrorists against Britain. The premise of a weaker force is keeping a political force in the field long enough to wear down the will of a stronger nation until its political objective is met. That’s what we did during the American Revolution. That’s what Ho Chi Minh did in Viet Nam. That’s what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. In all three cases, the stronger force left the field and the weaker force marched to final victory. Netanyahu understands this same objective by Hamas. Give them respite and they’ll resurrect themselves to continue the war. This Netanyahu cannot allow to happen. He will continue the war until Hamas is physically crushed by using every tool at his disposal. He cannot afford to do otherwise. His internal support demands it.

David, your compassion for the Palestinians is commendable. I often note how warriors who bring destruction are more compassionate that the politicians who demand its deliverance. But, on the international scene, it’s real politic that counts and nothing else. So, the question is: why should change be made? Answer: only when it’s in the best interest of all the players, and so far, no good answer has been heard.

Now, changing subjects, about my book. It’s already written in draft. My question is to postulate in the Forward and Conclusion how painfully our Constitution came to be. Seven hundred years of trial and tribulation passed before the liberties we enjoy were guaranteed by the miracle we call the Constitution. We have seen during 6 January how close the nation came to losing them. For me, this is an existential matter for the world. If we lose our liberties, who will be strong enough around the world to champion them?

I talked at length about real politic and corrupt politicians. At the same time, I’m hoping, vainly perhaps, that another George Washington might come along and change our course towards a better nation. One that can carry the flag of human worth and dignity. Perhaps my book, vainly perhaps, might inspire such a person.

Dear Dave,

About the Donald’s remark, “Finish the job,” I would like to make some remarks. But, first, for the rest of our group, let me introduce myself so they can understand where I’m coming from. You and I have known each other since 1967 starting when we were USAF lieutenants stationed in Germany. Before then I had lived in Turkey for two years developing contacts with all varieties of Muslims to include Palestine refugees.  To this day, I have dear friends there and I will state categorically that the Palestinians, as a people, have been screwed royally since 1948. They were evicted from their homes and subsequently have been used as political pawns by their erstwhile leaders. That sad story is a subject for lengthy discussions. However, for now, those wishing to know more about me, I invite them to my website, www.lloydmuller.com. There they can read my musings on its blog and excerpts from the books I have written.

Now, about Donald and his remark, there is very little I like about the man or his ideas, but his comment was perceptive and not to be lightly dismissed. To understand why, we need to go back to my questions of “why should change be made?” 

From the Israeli perspective, Netanyahu is prime minister of a deeply riven nation. The people there have been attacked for years with guerrilla raids and terrorist killings. I have seen the bunker built by a friend next to his house where he and his family have sat while calling me during air raids. The far right remembers well the Shoah (Holocaust) and say,  “never again.”  However, many of them are Ultra-Orthodox who claim exemption from the military while demanding non-observers to fight the wars. Those people loyally serve from 18 years of age to 55 either in the active forces or the reserves. Call ups are frequent leading to disjointed civilian lives. Among them are those who are bitter about this dichotomy between Orthodox and everyone else. Next, many secular Israelis believe that peace can only be achieved by acceding to Muslim demands that land be granted for a Palestinian state (among them my friend who served through several wars). I say Muslims because the nations from Iran to Saudi Arabia have historically demanded the expulsion of Jews from Israel and the destruction of their nation. Finally, the war has created a strident demand for the return of the prisoners captured by Hamas.

Netanyahu himself is a divided politician. He has been in power for many years and along the way been tempted by the lures of corruption. He has been tried as many times as Trump and by using many of the same tactics remained in power. He has paid a price for this success by having allied himself with the far right. Whatever he may personally believe about the Palestinian situation, he is politically driven to wage a vigorous war that eradicates Hamas. Since that involves a total war, he is obliged to bomb civilians, which creates the international condemnation I discussed earlier.

From the perspective of Hamas with their reliance on asymmetrical warfare, why should they change? Their hope for victory is to erode the political will of the Israelis. Dragging the war on forever; allowing thousands of civilians to be massacred, are prices they are willing to pay. This is not a new idea. During Viet Nam, SecDef McNamara, always the account, believed that killing enough VC solders would cause Ho Chi Minh to stop the war. Below is a photo of what that meant.[1]

r

Clearly losses such as these did not stop Ho Chi Minh from stopping the war. It was not until President Nixon bombarded North Viet Nam, and particularly Hanoi, did peace talks start. This bombardment threatened the existence of the Noth Viet Nam. Likewise, 30,000 deaths have not caused Hamas to sue for peace. Rather, they are playing gruesome images of these deaths for political advantage. If they can survive by doing so, why change?

                Netanyahu has chosen the hard warfare line, at least to meet the demands of his supporters. However, to survive the demands of their opponents, he must bring his war to a swift and conclusive war. To delay invites the same conclusion that ended US involvement in Viet Nam: withdrawal and defeat. Trump’s remark is a sang froid recognition of this fact. He knows this; Netanyahu knows this, and Hamas knows this. Why change? If President Biden is to succeed in creating change, he must show how it is in everyone’s best interest to do so. That’ll be a hard task. Anyone got any ideas?

---

[1] https://search.aol.com/aol/image;_ylt=AwrEr6d.fehlUxAgGyFjCWVH;_ylu=c2VjA3NlYXJjaARzbGsDYnV0dG9u;_ylc=X1MDMTE5NzgwMzg3NQRfcgMyBGZyA3NiX3RvcARmcjIDc2ItdG9wBGdwcmlkA2h4eGptQVdoUUdXZWttODlONWhTZUEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC5hb2wuY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDMARxc3RybAMzMgRxdWVyeQNwaG90byUyMG9mJTIwZGVhZCUyMFZpZXRjb25nJTIwc29sZGllcnMlMjAEdF9zdG1wAzE3MDk3MzU0MTA-?p=photo+of+dead+Vietcong+soldiers+&v_t=sb_top&s_it=sb_top&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt&s_qt=&fr2=sb-top#id=92&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gettyimages.com%2Fphotos%2Fwar-and-conflict-the-vietnam-war-pic-january-1965-tay-ninh-south-the-picture-id80751644%3Fs%3D612x612&action=click.  6 March 6, 2024.