Quo vadis?
Where does Israel go from here?
With the halt to the war in Gaza, which is surely temporary, the question is where does Israel go from here. Quo vadis?
Hamas returned to Israel 20 hostages and some of the bodies of deceased hostages taken on October 7, 2023 in exchange for 2000 prisoners and 250 criminals convicted of murder. According to reports, Hamas now is publicly executing those they claim collaborated with the Israelis. That is not a good start, and it was entirely predictable.
The agreement that was agreed to by all of the nations in the region and, if the photo op at the signing in Egypt is any indication, every European nation of consequence and the United Nations General Secretary, required Hamas to cease fire, relinquish its arms, and remove itself from government of Gaza. Not since the formation of the United Nations has there been such uniform agreement by the nations of the world. It will be interesting to learn what President Trump did to obtain their attendance at the signing.
The agreement says, in part,
1. Gaza will be a deradicalised terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbours.
18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.
The celebrations in Israel and Gaza over the return of the loved ones is a blessing to be sure. But like the force of gravity, which is always there and overcome only with great power, a pall remains. It must be addressed, and it cannot be ignored, try as we might.
There was no reason to believe Hamas or its benefactor in Tehran had any intention of complying with these terms then or now. “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone” and a process will be established “to try and change mindsets and narratives”? Right. Does that include the fundamental belief for nearly 2,000 years that those who do not accept Muhammed are infidels who must be exterminated wherever they may be found? That is what the chant, “the intifada must be globalized” means.
These are not new, recently conceived beliefs. In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met in London with Tripoli’s Ambassador to address piracy against American vessels in the Mediterranean Sea and the need to continue to pay ransom. They reported to President Jay:
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
And what in the world, we might ask, is Qatar doing? They gave refuge to Hamas’ leadership and brokered the deal. Are we to believe the leaders of Qatar wanted Hamas to abandon its foundational belief that the Jews must be eradicated?
These events prompted John Leake to ask whether the call of the former chief of Israeli military intelligence, General Aharon Haliva, for the reprisal killing of 50 Palestinians for every Israeli killed on October 7 was a War Crime as it came to be understood at Nuremberg following WW2. He wrote,
Have the Nuremberg Trials Been Forgotten?
the United States v. Wilhelm List, et al.,—the seventh of twelve subsequent Nuremberg trials conducted by the U.S. military after World War II. The trial, which took place from July 1947 to February 1948, prosecuted German military leaders, including Field Marshal Wilhelm List, for taking and executing hostages, particularly from civilian populations.
Of special interest to the prosecutors was the German military practice of reprisal killings, including the execution of hostages, often at a ratio of 100 civilians for every German soldier killed.
Leake shamefully attached photographs of General List and General Haliva, implicitly accepting the libel that the Jews are no different than the Nazis.
General List was found guilty on two counts, including War Crimes. My Grok search reveals the Tribunal declared he was responsible for the murder of civilians through unlawful hostage taking and “reprisal killings that exceeded the limits of international law.”
I did not know international law set limits on reprisal killings. But apparently there are a host of conditions when reprisal killings are not war crimes.
List was sentenced to life in prison.
Without venturing into the rabbit hole of internationally recognized limits on reprisal killings, I asked Mr. Leake,
You argue, “In each case, politicians and military officers thought, “This time it’s different, because we really are civilized, and our dreadful opponents really are animals.”” I don’t think so.
First, we have to acknowledge those calculations “in each case” never occurred as what we came to call the crimes at Nuremberg did not exist then. Samantha Powers describes the problem in her great work, The Problem from Hell.
The problem presented on Oct 7 is it was no different from old pogroms or the Shoah, and, instead, it was a repetition of Jew hatred by forces who have even less regard for human rights than your Roman generals or US Cavalry officers did.
So, I ask again, how do you propose to eliminate the Jew hatred that has infected those who live in Gaza and perpetrated the Oct 7 massacre? Hatred that Hamas is now turning on its own before they will again turn it on the Jews as surely as night follows day.
He replied:
Just to be clear: Does this mean that you agree with Haliva’s endorsement of 50 to 1 reprisal killings, including children? Regards, John
Thank you. It is not nearly so simple, and if it was me, I’d choose a much higher number in the effort to atone for the massacre of my people, which they are not, BTW. Say 500 or 1000 to one, for example. Judging from our bench Israel’s response to Oct 7 in the context of 2,000 years of Jew hate is a fool’s errand.
I respect and admire your scholarship, which is why I subscribe, and why I will renew again my question, which remains unanswered: how do you propose to eliminate the Jew hatred that has infected those who live in Gaza (including thousands of children who are taught to hate in UN sponsored schools) and perpetrated the Oct 7 massacre?
Greetings Mike, I have no proposal for eliminating hatred from the heart of any man, especially when I have no idea of what he is going through. I work very hard to keep it from entering my own heart and I strive to be fair and impartial in my investigation of all human affairs. Reprisal killings were found by the Nuremberg trial of US v. List et al. to be a war crime. I doubt that it would be prudent for people, least of all the Jewish people, to overturn this legal finding. Best regards, John
Hello again John, sorry to drive the point home. When I graduated from Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island, the CO gave us advice on what he expected of his lawyers. He said, don’t tell me what I cannot do. Tell me how to legally do what I want to do.
So, what can be done to stop the Jew haters whose founding charter calls for the extermination of all Jews?
Declaring a cease fire and trading 20 living hostages for 2000 Hamas warriors held in prison and another 250 Hamas criminals convicted of murder is no sure path to peace. The opposite is true and is borne out every day.
Rome rid the world of its Carthage problem in the Third Punic War by razing the city and killing or enslaving its inhabitants.
In my view, a law made in 1945 by the victors in that war is not suitable for the problem Israel faces in Gaza.
In waging war, Germany was in no sense defending itself from aggression. Israel is in every sense defending itself from aggression. That distinction alone distinguishes Israel from Germany, and renders the Nuremberg rules inapplicable.
Michael Oren is a scholar, writer, diplomat and former Ambassador to the United States who writes frequently on the problem Israel faces. His book, Power Faith and Fantasy, is an excellent history of the relationship of the United States to the Jewish homeland from 1776 to the present. He still believes there is a solution short of the complete annihilation of Hamas. His essay, How Three Businessmen Negotiated for Peace, argues:
By cutting off Hamas’s supply of arms and foreign cash and denying it the ability to steal humanitarian aid, they can force Hamas into submission. Its choice will remain as stipulated in Trump’s 20-point plan: Surrender or die. The president, Hamas will learn, speaks the language of the Middle East, the language of strength.
Surrender seems unlikely. But so did the release of the remaining hostages only months ago.