Let’s imagine that you are a country that has been attacked by a terrorist enemy embedded in a civilian population. You recognize that if you do not respond the likelihood you will be attacked again is high. You get blamed if there is an incident in which civilians are killed for which you are responsible. You get blamed if there is an incident in which civilians are killed for which you are not responsible.

What is the best course of action?

Extra credit:

You are a wealthy country very concerned about civilians in a territory controlled by terrorists. Is it possible for you to provide aid to the civilians and be confident that aid will actually go to help civilians rather than be used by the terrorists controlling the territory?

The editors of the Washington Post call for the United States to send humanitarian aid to Gaza:

Though there are few good options for the people of Gaza, some are better than others. Hopes that Egypt might accept substantial numbers of Palestinian refugees are misplaced. Gazans themselves have little interest in living under an Egyptian regime that they rightly see as responsible for enforcing the blockade. Nor does Egypt have any interest in giving Palestinians refuge. Doing so would implicate Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi in a repeat of the Palestinian experience during Israel’s war of independence, when about 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled by Israeli forces. This central event in Palestinian memory — called the Nakba, or catastrophe — guides how Palestinians are likely to view resettlement outside Gaza.

Therefore, the priority for the United States, the European Union and Arab states is to move emergency supplies in. This will require Israel to keep its promise of safe passage for civilians to the east and south of Gaza — as well as its commitment to allow aid agencies to operate unimpeded. The E.U.’s announcement of a humanitarian air corridor into Gaza is a step in the right direction. U.S. discussions with Israeli officials on setting up “safe zones” for civilians also hold promise.

I think the editors are engaged in wishful thinking. Like it or not Hamas is the government of Gaza. Any aid provided to the Gazans would inevitably be sidelined by Hamas. There have already been reports of such things happening. There is no practical way to prevent that as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza.

Nowhere in the editors’ remarks is there a call for Hamas to lay down its arms. That’s the best way to help the Gazan people. Hamas is not popular in Gaza (see my previous post). Hamas’s failure to conduct an election in 17 years, its intransigence, its failure to provide the basics for Gazans, and its unpopularity all call into question any legitimacy that Hamas might have had.

Some points worthy of consideration:

• Hamas was elected to be the government of Gaza in 2006
• There hasn’t been an election since
• Hamas is basically an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood
• Since coming into power in Gaza Hamas has gone to war with Israel, Egypt, and Fatah
• Hamas’s unwillingness to recognize Israel’s right to exist has been the primary impediment to Palestinian statehood

Hama is not popular even in Gaza. The most recent polling data suggest that the overwhelming majority of Gazans would like the Palestinian Authority (basically Fatah) to assume the leadership of Gaza.

I wanted to pass along Audrey Kurth Cronin’s advice in Foreign Affairs for consideration. First, she observes:

All terrorist groups adopt at least one (and sometimes two) of the following strategies: compellence, polarization, provocation, and mobilization. A superficial reading of the October 7 assault might suggest that Hamas sought to compel Israel to alter its behavior by inflicting pain—as Hezbollah did in 1983 with its attacks on American and French personnel and civilians in Beirut, which led Washington and Paris to withdraw their forces from Lebanon. But compellence does not fit the context of today’s Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in 2005, and no Israeli policy change could advance Hamas’s long-term goal. What is more, if all Hamas wanted to do was kill Israelis, its fighters would not have filmed their operations or taken hostages, actions that reflect the fact that the attack on Israel was aimed at audiences beyond the Israelis and was thus advancing a strategy other than compellence.

Terrorist groups often attempt to polarize the polities they target, carrying out attacks that will pit one part of society against another and hoping that the state will rot from within. Examples of this include the Armed Islamic Group’s atrocities in the late 1990s against entire Algerian villages full of civilians who rejected their extremist principles, and suicide attacks that al Qaeda in Iraq launched in Shiite strongholds and against moderate Sunnis from 2004 to 2006. But Israeli society was already deeply divided politically before the Hamas attack—which, if anything, has at least partially unified Israel. Hamas did not need to polarize Israeli society; in recent years, the Israelis have accomplished that feat themselves.

What Hamas was trying to do, instead, was to provoke and mobilize. Terrorists often try to provoke states into counterproductive overreactions.

and

Mobilization strategies, meanwhile, seek to grab attention, draw recruits, and gather allies for a terrorist group’s cause. The Islamic State, known as ISIS, did that in 2014, carrying out some basic functions of government in the parts of Iraq and Syria it conquered to create the appearance of order, and also carrying out gruesome videotaped beheadings of hostages to create an image of uncompromising, fearsome severity. Seeming to take a page from the ISIS playbook, Hamas has threatened to kill a hostage each time Israel targets “people who are safe in their homes without prior warning,” in the words of Abu Obeida, a spokesperson for the Hamas military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades. Obeida also suggested that the group would broadcast the executions, probably on social media. Hamas leaders may be calculating that such ultraviolent spectacles would bring further attention to their cause and mobilize support—not only among Palestinians but also among sympathizers and anti-Semitic extremists throughout the region and around the world. In the long run, preying on humanity’s basest instincts through spectacles of dominance and vengeance will cause a global backlash and destroy Hamas. But like ISIS before it, the group may believe that such tactics will buttress it in the short term.

Then she recommends:

Overwhelming military oppression in Gaza would backfire, stirring support for resistance and aligning Israel’s adversaries against it. A more nuanced political strategy would divide them. Israeli leaders must make clear that their enemies are the 30,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza, especially the Qassam Brigades, and not the two million other residents of Gaza. To legitimize its barbarity, Hamas has claimed that every Israeli is a combatant, just as al Qaeda and ISIS did in their campaigns in the West and in the Middle East. Israel must avoid doing the same thing and make clear that it is specifically targeting Hamas.

A successful Israeli military response would use discriminate force, making it clear through both statements and actions that Israel’s enemy is Hamas, not the Palestinian people. The Israeli government should help fleeing Gazans find somewhere to go, by either creating safe zones, helping the Egyptians to do so, or permitting regional or international actors to create a humanitarian corridor, and then allowing aid organizations to supply food and water to trapped civilians. Even in the north, they must avoid targeting Gazan hospitals from which the injured cannot be moved. Hamas will use those people as human shields—and when they do, such barbarity toward their own people will sap the group’s ability to mobilize wider support. The Israel Defense Forces will be fighting street to street; Hamas will not hold them off for long regardless.

I found the entire piece very puzzling and sadly reminiscent of commentary following the 9/11 attacks on the U. S. What would “overreaction” by Israel consist of? Would Israel pay a higher price for overreaction or underreaction? And what in Israel’s past reactions to attack would lead her to believe that any of the advice she offers would be heeded?

One last remark. I think that U. S. deployment of naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean is creating a more risky situation than Americans seem to recognize. Are we prepared for a direct confrontation with Turkey?

The prevailing wisdom is that in war the advantage lies with the defense. That is all the more true in the style of warfare in the Russian-Ukrainian War and it certainly seems to be case now. Illia Novikov reports at the Associated Press:

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russia is throwing more units into its effort to take a key eastern Ukraine city, Western analysts say, after apparent setbacks that have slowed its dayslong onslaught.

The attempt to storm Avdiivka, a heavily defended city that stands in the way of Moscow’s ambition of securing control of the entire Donetsk region, is Moscow’s most significant offensive operation in Ukraine since the start of the year, the U.K. defense ministry said Tuesday.

The Kremlin’s push to claim Avdiivka comes after months of fending off Ukraine’s counteroffensive, which Kyiv launched some 16 months after Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Also in the prevailing wisdom: a war of attrition is in Russia’s favor. The one area in which that is most likely to be correct is in human resources. While it may be the case that NATO can provide additional supplies, can NATO provide additional human resources without greatly widening the conflict?

At Euronews Sudesh Baniya reports that there is one area in which the majority of Israelis and Palestinians agree—the “two state solution” is unworkable:

Public sentiment among members of the public in both Israel and Palestinian-controlled areas was moving away from the idea of creating a two-state solution for the region, even before Hamas launched terror attacks last weekend.

Public surveys carried out in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank have revealed that only one in three people now see the feasibility of a political resolution to the issue.

People were asked if a way could be found for resolution by forming an independent Palestinian state and whether it could co-exist peacefully with Israel.

According to the Pew Research Center’s survey, a growing number of Israelis are beginning to doubt the feasibility of a two-state solution, with only 35% of respondents believing that a peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine can be achieved.

This marks a 15 percentage point decrease from a decade ago, and the lowest figures to date.

The survey being reported was conducted in April; I doubt that Hamas’s attacks of a week ago have increased the support for the two state solution. Even more discouraging:

Among Palestinian civilians, 53% favour an armed struggle to establish an independent state and fight the occupation. That is a 12% rise compared to survey results from the same time in 2022.

The spike is compensated by a decrease in confidence in diplomacy and negotiations, as Palestinians now are 10% less likely to prefer it as a solution according to the same survey.

Unless for some hard to fathom reason opinions moderate, it sounds very much like a fight to the death is the only foreseeable outcome. Each side blames the other for its hardening views.

All terribly discouraging.

The editors of the Chicago Sun-Times react to the city council’s resolution condemning Hamas:

Anyone who cares about fostering peace and ending war should feel angry and horrified by the cycle of tragedy and chaos and suffering. Everyone should have enough empathy to grieve for every innocent life lost or at risk, regardless of religion or ethnicity or nationality.

And as Johnson said, this time it starts with condemning Hamas.

Ald. Nicole Lee, who co-sponsored the resolution submitted by Silverstein, the council’s only Jewish member, put it this way: “My support for this resolution does not mean I am not heartbroken about the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded since (Oct. 7) and is now affecting the people of Palestine.”

Others, including several Jewish leaders, echoed that sentiment during public comment.

The alderpersons who opposed Silverstein’s resolution have the option to submit their own, and call on Chicago to support statehood for Palestine, an end to indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, or whatever goals they want to support.

Chicago has plenty of problems here at home. But taking a principled stand is always worth it.

With the exception of that last clause, note the resonance between what I have written and the editors’ reaction.

I would repeat that disrupting the ordinary business of the city council is undemocratic. Those who dislike the city council’s resolution shouldn’t prevent the city council from doing business. They should get someone to sponsor a resolution of their own.

At ABC News Sophia Tareen reports that a Muslim boy has been killed in a hate crime in Will County, one of Chicago’s “collar counties”:

CHICAGO — A 71-year-old Illinois man was charged Sunday with a hate crime, accused of fatally stabbing a young boy and seriously wounding a woman because of their Islamic faith and the Israel-Hamas war, authorities said.

Officers found the 32-year-old woman and 6-year-old boy late Saturday morning at a home in an unincorporated area of Plainfield Township, southwest of Chicago, the Will County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement on social media.

The statement added that the boy was pronounced dead at a hospital and the woman had multiple stab wounds and was expected to survive. An autopsy on the child showed he had also been stabbed multiple times.

“Detectives were able to determine that both victims in this brutal attack were targeted by the suspect due to them being Muslim and the on-going Middle Eastern conflict involving Hamas and the Israelis,” the sheriff’s statement said.

That’s awful. I can’t think of any justification for such a crime. ABC 7 Chicago adds:

Will County investigators said on Sunday that Wadea and his mother were attacked by their landlord, Joseph M. Czuba. The 71-year-old is now charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of committing a hate crime.

“What we have is a murdered Palestinian child by someone who is radicalized by the environment in which we live right now, that casts Palestinians as human animals,” said Ahmed Rehab, president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

In announcing the charges, the Will County Sheriff’s Office called the crime “senseless” and “cowardly,” saying, in part, “Detectives were able to determine that both victims in this brutal attack were targeted by the suspect due to them being Muslim and the on-going Middle Eastern conflict involving Hamas and the Israelis.”

The world is truly going mad.

I’m also hearing that Hamas is kidnapping Bedouins in Israel for ransom. The entire situation is turning into a CF.

Recently, it was claimed that nobody is supporting Hamas’s actions. That statement is untrue.

A coalition of 34 Harvard students organizations said they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence” following decades of occupation, adding that “the apartheid regime is the only one to blame.”

The organizations signing the letter included Muslim and Palestinian support groups plus others named for a variety of backgrounds including the Harvard Jews for Liberation and the African American Resistance Organization.

Reuters could not verify how many students supported the letter.

Harvard President Claudine Gay and senior leadership including 15 deans issued a statement on Monday that said they were “heartbroken by the death and destruction unleashed by the attack by Hamas that targeted citizens in Israel this weekend.”

But the statement avoided direct references to the student letter or the reaction to it.

Black Lives Matter chapters across the country are celebrating the terrorist attacks that have claimed hundreds of innocent lives in Israel.

Over the weekend, Hamas launched a brutal assault on Israeli civilians that included the beheading of babies, the mass rape of women, and the burning of men, women, and children alive.

One of the most gruesome scenes took place at the Nova music festival, where over 260 attendees were killed by assailants, some of whom arrived in vans and some of whom came on motorized paragliders. Survivors reported that many of the women were raped before being murdered.

The massacre was commemorated by Black Lives Matter in Chicago, which posted a graphic of a paraglider, the Palestinian flag, and the caption “I stand with Palestine” on X Tuesday.

That least passage highlights something that I think should give us pause. It reflects supporters of the Palestinians equating Hamas with the Palestinians.

NEW YORK — Pro-Palestinian demonstrators on Sunday in New York celebrated Hamas’s massive deadly terror attack against Israel, as supporters of the Jewish state held rallies to mourn and express outrage over the slaughter.

Several hundred pro-Palestinian demonstrators rallied in Times Square, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Resistance is justified,” “Globalize the intifada,” and “Smash the settler Zionist state.”

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” they chanted.

Some fringe-left groups are aligning with anti-Zionist organizations in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel, by expressing support for Hamas’s atrocities in the name of “resistance” and “liberation.” The Party for Socialism and Liberation, the World Workers Party, chapters of the Democratic Socialists for America, independent chapters of Black Lives Matter and more have shared these views in official statements and on social media. These groups are also helping to organize in-person, anti-Israel events, where participants are sharing further support for terrorism and violence, as well as expressing antisemitic rhetoric.

They go on to cite direct passages from the statements of these organizations justifying Hamas’s actions.

If by “nobody” no elected officials was meant, sadly that isn’t true, either. As of today several members of “the Squad” have made mealy-mouthed statements regarding Hamas’s terrorist attacks. One is facing censure over her remarks.

I would have agreed with the commenter had he said that only idiots justify Hamas’s actions. Sadly, there is a superabundance of idiots these days.