Former President Barack Obama has joined the chorus of voices imploring Israel not to ignore the “human costs” of its conduct in the war against Hamas. The former American president, who famously led an “apology tour” to Iran and other Middle Eastern countries in which he engaged in liberal self-flagellation as penance for America’s past sins, expressed concern that Israel’s creation of a “humanitarian crisis” could “further harden Palestinian attitudes for generations, erode global support for Israel, play into the hands of Israel’s enemies, and undermine long term efforts to achieve peace and stability in the region.” To quote Ronald Reagan: “There you go again.”
The problem with Obama’s advice — which is that of the U.S. foreign policy establishment — is that Palestinian “attitudes” toward Israel cannot get any “harder.” Hamas is the elected representative of the Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas speaks for the Palestinians who cheered the atrocities committed on Oct. 7, just as they cheered the attacks against America on 9/11.
And there is no “global support” for Israel to erode. The U.N. secretary-general recently stated that Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks “did not happen in a vacuum” and claimed that the “Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffering occupation.” The Palestinians, according to the voice of the global community, “have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished.”
And, contrary to Obama’s predictions, it is not aggressive Israeli military operations that will backfire. What will “play into the hands of Israel’s enemies” is restraining the Israel Defense Forces from destroying Hamas and its supporters. “Peace and stability” in the region are only maintained by Israeli deterrent power backed by U.S. support.
“Already,” Obama said, “thousands of Palestinians have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, many of them children. Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes.” The aggressors, as in past wars (Germans in Dresden; the Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other cities), are paying for their aggression, but Israel is supposed to turn the other cheek. Obama criticized Israel’s decision to “cut off food, water and electricity to a captive civilian population,” forgetting perhaps that the United States and Britain have a long history of using blockades and economic sanctions in support of their wars and foreign policies.
Obama cautioned Israel that its military strategy must abide by international law, especially laws that protect civilians, even as he admitted that “Hamas’ military operations are deeply embedded within Gaza — and its leadership seems to intentionally hide among civilians, thereby endangering the very people they claim to represent.” In other words, Hamas places its civilians in harm’s way, but if Israel strikes Hamas and kills those civilians as a consequence, it’s Israel’s fault. Heads, Hamas wins; tails, Israel loses.
It is remarkable how the U.S. foreign policy establishment, protected as it is by two huge oceans, lectures Israel, a tiny country surrounded by enemies that seek its destruction, on how it is supposed to fight “clean” wars. Moralistic posturing about warfare is the luxury of continental-sized states situated near weak neighbors. Israel in the current war has suffered attacks from the west and rockets from the north (from Iran-backed Hezbollah). And looming in the background is Iran, a country whose influence in the region has expanded even as the Biden administration clings to a flawed nuclear deal (signed by the Obama administration, which Trump wisely withdrew from) with the mullahs.
We have watched as the mainstream media and the “international community” err on the side of blaming Israel for civilian deaths and injuries and only grudgingly, if at all, acknowledge when they are proven wrong. And we have watched as the “best and the brightest” at our elite American universities parrot Hamas’ and Iran’s anti-Israeli propaganda, which has caused some donors to withdraw support for those universities, resulting in charges of stifling “ideological diversity.” Apparently, “ideological diversity” includes encouraging voices that applaud the killing of Israeli women and children.
In the end, no matter what course Israel takes, it will receive the lion’s share of international and elite criticism both here and abroad. Better to be criticized for winning the war than to let Hamas off the hook for its devastating and horrific attacks on Israel and its citizens.
