THEY’RE NOT YOUR BUDDY, GUY

In the movie Ted, there’s a beta male character with attachment issues who obsesses over the anthropomorphic bear and ultimately kidnaps him. Following Ted’s escape, the two end up at Boston’s Fenway Park, and the man-child cries out with a desperate plea:

“But I can give you love…and rocking horses…and dancing!”

To which Ted replies, “I think we’re very far apart on this.”

And that is how I envision much of the way that many on the left have navigated the Israel/Hamas conflict.

I recently overheard someone express their anger toward Israel’s continued operations, after the elimination of the most recent Hamas leader:

“When you play a video game and you beat the final boss, that usually means the game is over, right?”

When dealing with relatively normal people, if you keep beating some 45-year-old Latvian virgin at World of Warcraft, he’ll eventually say “This game sucks anyway,” and give up—and maybe play some Hello Kitty Island Adventure instead. If he couldn’t accept defeat, and kept challenging you, you’d likely throw up your arms and figure you may as well keep beating him. You’d also think your opponent is pretty sad and lame, as he keeps setting himself up for failure. Sure, you could let him have a win out of pity, if you don’t at all care about the survival of your own avatar.

I’m also reminded of Charlie Murphy’s story of Clint Smith repeatedly instigating, and losing, drunken fights. But in video game world, you can choose whether or not to play against a specific person. Other players aren’t forced upon you.

Of course, this whole analogy business is quite silly in the first place. Even when comparing two real-world armed conflicts, the situation between Russia and Ukraine is not the same as that between Israel and Hamas. Even the ways in which the U.S. government has poked its ass into these situations are not the same. If there is one way they are the same, however, it is that they both show how complicated things can get when America gets involved in regions with cultures and experiences that are vastly different from ours.

We saw this play out in many post-WWII conflicts over the decades. Korea. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Iraq again. Libya. Syria. And now, Ukraine and Gaza. I’m sure I’ve even left out a number of countries where the U.S. has military bases or has perhaps fought quieter battles. In many of these cases, the retreat of U.S. forces has been a result of gross misjudgment, whether of foreign terrain, foreign cultural differences, or a combination of both.

With the benefit of keeping war away from American soil, also comes the loss of a home field advantage. Anyone with even a public school-level background of U.S. history will remember learning of the guerilla warfare used by the Viet Cong. Millennials and previous generations know about the urban warfare used in Iraq and the mountains used by the Taliban in Afghanistan. One would also have to be living under a rock to not be aware of how at least one dictator or theocracy has ruled during wartime, be it Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah, Milosevic, the Taliban, ISIS. Even at this very moment, it doesn’t take much to see how Maduro, Díaz-Canel, Kim Jong-Un, Assad or Yahya Mohammed Sinwar treat their own citizens—let alone other countries.

There is a persisting mindset in the West, that the citizens living under these governments are crying out for a first-world democracy to liberate them from a single tyrant and the officials from his regime. It seems more and more as time goes on, that this isn’t a completely false premise, but it also isn’t completely true. This is a harsh realization, yes, but history hasn’t suggested anything different.

There are exceptions to any rule, and there is a ton of footage from Iran of average citizens voicing dissent toward their government whenever possible. Protests are held despite the threat of imprisonment, even with Iranian women defiantly removing their headscarves. Similar sentiment was seen with some women throwing away their hijabs after being freed from ISIS in Syria. It is easy for many Westerners to see this and assume that this equals complete alignment with American-style progressivism or even conservatism.

The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. Twenty or so years ago, we were told by the Bush administration that Iraqi citizens would greet our military “as liberators.” And yet, there were periods during the Second Gulf War when many of these civilians preferred life under Saddam.

Even without Taliban rule, many villages maintained a level of piety in their treatment of women, as well as the handling of local disputes—in a manner that most American progressives would view as oppressive in their own neighborhoods. To use leftist language, it was just their culture.

To use an example from another region, most North Koreans—even if as a result of generational brainwashing by the State—not only are used to their poverty and frequent famine, but view it as the norm. Once you understand how isolated these people are from the outside world, you begin to realize that the very concepts of freedom, autonomy or choice are as foreign to them as they were to a slave in ancient Egypt.

The slave mentality can be so pervasive, that even when offered an alternative on a silver platter, the average citizen in a given country can often struggle to accept the uncertain future. In Argentina, which is surrounded by failing/failed socialist regimes in Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, etc., the successes of Javier Milei—a libertarian—are still viewed as travesties among much of the public who shortsightedly see the dissolution of useless government bureaucracies as an “austerity measure.”

Think I’m picking on foreigners exclusively? Before DeBlasio started the second fucking up of New York City, several native Noo Yawkers were upset about Giuliani’s renewal of Times Square. For some reason, they preferred—and many still do! —the whore-infested dump of the 60s and 70s to the “Disneyland” tourist-safe couple of blocks we had at the turn of the century. It’s not only because they hate tourists (and then complain when tourists and transplants stop contributing to NYC’s economy), but also because they feel the unsafe shithole version was a representation of the “real New York.” I guess that’s what Mayor Adams meant when he said this city has a “brand.”

I’ve also seen a number of cases where big-city and global corporate conglomerates open up shop in Middle America, or over-develop a once quaint small town, assuming that the locals are longing for a new outlet mall complete with a Nordstrom and a Cheesecake Factory. In Monticello, NY, a once popular destination for summer vacationers and entertainers alike, there is now a Resorts World Casino as a major contributor of tax revenue. It sticks out like a sore thumb in the home of the Woodstock festival.

Some of these conflicting interests are pretty mild and subtle when compared to more violent and extreme schisms between cultures, but imagine how much less possible it is to find common ground between people who speak a different language, have different levels of tolerance toward outside religions, treat women differently, and have different motives entirely.

Unfortunately, there are some cultures that do not value peace as much as their counterparts. How many times have you heard the phrase, “All most people want is to live in peace, go to work, take care of their families…” when referring to anything happening overseas? Not only is this not a given in countries over there, but there are several people in the U.S. who don’t even seek such things. Why else would our society see a need for law enforcement, a welfare system or child protective services? Some people in the world are simply just incompetent or plain old evil. And no amount of rehab, reason or negotiation will persuade them to change their ways. This is why much of the Western world has devised a few opportunities for such people to get a second chance at coexisting with their fellow citizens. And when those opportunities fail, the only option left is separation—elimination if the threat of danger is severe enough.

Can one still hope that North Koreans will one day be rid of starvation and tyranny? Or wish for Iran to replace its Islamic Republic with something that works for all of its citizens? Or celebrate if Maduro suddenly has an epiphany and takes a more hands-off approach to governance?

Of course!

But just as with any other form of development, the individual (groups, in this scenario) who needs to change must also want to change. To deny this is to not only be out of touch, but also to deny the free will and self-determination of human beings.

When Gaza became completely devoid of Israelis and Jews in general in 2005, and was left to its own devices, the common consensus among Israeli society was that Gaza would hopefully become the “Hong Kong of the Middle East.” In a region with newfound prosperity and influence, perhaps there would be less of a reason to attack Israel, due to less dependence on Iran and other sugar daddy nations. Israel left the Gaza Strip as-was, with greenhouses and sewer pipes intact. Over 18 years ago, Gazans could have prioritized their immediate needs—food, water, economic prosperity. Yes, there is also the need for security, which could have been used on an only-when-necessary basis. If the local population still didn’t feel a functioning relationship with Israel was possible, then there was also a border with Egypt, another Muslim-majority country, through which trade and development could be normalized. Or hey, maybe any of the other Middle Eastern countries who claim to care about Palestinians so much could offer some aid.

This is all thinking through a Western lens. Israel has finally learned the hard way, through countless attempts at negotiation, through giving up land, through swapping terrorists for hostages, through far too much appeasement toward the UN and “international community,” that they had miscalculated the situation.

As a side note, it is indeed curious that the UN, which had some bit of involvement in the divvying up of land in 1947, is not targeted by any anti-Israel faction. In fact, it seems that as long as this organization says all the right things to their dependents (such as, “Israel is committing war crimes”), not only are they safe from criticism, but their UNRWA employees are welcomed with open arms into Gaza territory for further exploitation.

In run-down neighborhoods throughout the U.S., whether in a large metropolis or a Midwest suburb, there are 16-to-26-year-olds being shot and killed over a ruined pair of Nikes, talking out of turn, or merely looking at another guy’s girlfriend a little too intently.

Much like American street gangs, Hamas hold their ideology, and a warped sense of honor, over life. So do many of the people who do not officially belong to these groups, but still allow them to run rampant. There are even parallels in the way that leftists in the elitist class (i.e., journalists, politicians, university professors) have made excuses for or dismissed entirely the concerns surrounding the presence of these murderers and rapists. Yesterday’s Neville Chamberlains and Walter Durantys are today’s Joe Bidens, Ilhan Omars and Ta-Nehisi Coates.

That is precisely why the water pipes were dug up and destroyed, in order to be recycled as rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. It’s why Hamas stored weapons and ammunition in their own civilian-heavy areas. It’s why Hamas stole, at gunpoint, any foreign aid they claimed would be transferred to their own civilians. It’s why Hamas blocked, again at gunpoint, any corridors used by civilians to escape to the safe zones provided by and communicated by the IDF. It’s why even Gazans who were provided with employment in, and access to, Israeli towns abused that opportunity and acceptance to give Hamas a tactical advantage on October 7^th. It’s why Hamas leaders were living in million-dollar mansions in both Gaza and their hideaways in Qatar, while civilians lived in shanties. And on top of all of this, Hamas replaced education down to the elementary school level with Nazi-esque anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish propaganda—just to make sure that generation after generation would be destined toward perpetual martyrdom.

But why would Palestinians hurt their own civilians? Exactly.

There is no chance of finding the right answers until you first ask the right questions. If one looks at this conflict through the eyes of a “we’re all the same” mindset, none of this behavior would make any sense. The truth is, any human being that is raised to hate, raised to murder, raised to celebrate their own righteous death, should not be at all surprised when all of those are the end result.

Oftentimes, when I hear that Israel is taking the wrong approach, or being “too aggressive” or “disproportionate,” it is rare to hear from such people anything that Israel should do instead. Even more frustrating, in the few cases where an alternative is provided, it’s usually in the ballpark of diplomacy, peace deals, trade deals, or land deals.

That is, they have no concept of the amount of diplomacy and compromise that’s been tried in the past already. I imagine that whenever these compassionate people accidentally dial a wrong number, they continue to dial it over and over, but press the buttons on their phone a bit harder each time.

In fairness, it is true that any violence or destruction seen by a child in Gaza comes with the risk of resentment and radicalization. Still, this isn’t any different from what an Israeli child might also experience in Ashqelon. Have Americans forgotten the impact of the September 11^th attacks on family members of victims, or even citizens who immediately joined the military from the other end of the country? Did all of that justify reigniting the unrelated conflict with Iraq? Did Gazan hatred for the IDF justify what happened at the Nova festival?

Israel has found itself in a real-life trolley problem.

No matter what Israel does, it will be putting its own security at risk, as well as the security of Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, the entire Middle East, and the Western world. If they do nothing, or continue the consistently unsuccessful bids for diplomacy, then there is no indication that Hamas or any other Iran proxy group will stop before completely eliminating the Jewish State. Even after accomplishing that goal, there is no indication that these groups will stop at the Middle East, or just Jewish people, as those throughout Western Europe, Africa and North America well know.

The other alternative for Israel is to defend itself the way any other country at least claims they would. This too results, and has already resulted, in dead civilians on both sides of the conflict. It’s also resulted in vast destruction wherever terrorists have been hiding. And yes, there is high risk of retribution from any of the affected parties.

In such a situation, there are no “solutions,” but only tradeoffs. Israel does not have the luxury of choosing diplomacy over war. Nor would any other country in this scenario. Diplomacy has turned out to be nothing more than continued death and destruction from terrorists. Not displacement of Israelis, or economic sanctions, or a wall blocking their view, but the deaths of Israelis. In truth, Israel’s choice is between death and destruction, versus more death and destruction. The point of choosing less death over more death, is that the death will at least end at some point. That is a blunt necessity not for conquest, not for dominance, but for mere survival in Israel’s case.

Which brings me to the life after Hamas that Benjamin Netanyahu has begun to pitch.

As the prime minister said just the other day, “Those who put down their weapons and leave our hostages, we will allow them to come out and live…This war can end tomorrow. It can end if Hamas lays down its arms and returns our hostages.”

No calls for religious conversion. No threats of religious holy war. Just give us our people back, and leave us the fuck alone.

Yes, there will always be innocent civilians caught in the middle, and that is precisely why I don’t like it when people start wars. It’s also why I prefer ending armed conflicts over kicking the proverbial can further down the road and waiting for more innocent deaths. There are most certainly people in Gaza who don’t like Hamas any more than a typical Israeli does. Some of these people have even been caught on camera cursing the terrorists for getting Gazans into this mess. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by far more civilians who beat and spit on the corpses of other civilians—many of whom weren’t Jewish or even Israeli—as the terrorists drove them into town.

Even during peacetime, there have been mountains of footage collected by the Ask Project in both Gaza and Judea, in which completely un-forced civilians express their support for the status quo. They could have refused to give any answers to these YouTubers, without risk of persecution, but still volunteered to make their hatred and bloodlust known publicly. In contrast, while of course there are extremists on either side, it is not difficult to find Israelis who would accept a two-state solution—as long as Palestinians were to accept it as well.

If you don’t understand the fundamental motives of the people who wish to destroy you, then you are already 75% on your way to your own destruction.

The situation in this region cannot and will not change, unless the people living there want it to change. Especially now, there is opportunity to shun Hamas, shun Hezbollah, shun Iran’s current government, and promote peace. This does not even require any religious reformation or support for the Israeli government. The Bedouin population inside Israel, much like the Amish in the U.S., are devoutly religious, but have been able to live peacefully and are not required to join the IDF with their fellow citizens (though a number of them still choose to serve). There are currently more than triple the amount of Bedouins living in Israel today, compared with their population in 1948, and members of the Arab tribe even receive free medical and education benefits from the Israeli government.

So far, the vast majority of Gazans have rejected even this level of coexistence, even after having had complete autonomy over their own territory for almost two decades. Most Westerners not only have no idea what it’s like to live miles away from people who prefer to remain in their own familiar version of hell. Many Americans refuse to accept this premise from the outset.

In the meantime, history has shown across the world that until any society proves it can maintain a basic level of humanity toward its neighbors, the only diplomacy that society seems to understand is strength. That is the lesson learned from Germany and Japan, who now each enjoy peace with the U.K and the U.S. Both of these countries have also maintained their sovereignty and compensated for any material losses suffered during the Second World War. Gaza’s situation by no means needs to be permanent. Its potential for peace and prosperity has always existed, and still does exist.

In all of this, perhaps the biggest indication that the anti-Israel crowd has not been serious, or arguing in good faith, is that I have yet to hear any of these people say the following:

“Stop attacking Israel.”