The war in Gaza—the war in Gaza and Israel, we should say, so as not to lose sight of the fact that hostilities began with an armed incursion into Israeli territory—is as complex a historical event as one can possibly imagine, with deep and tangled historical roots, a large and very complicated set of relevant actors (Israel, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, the US, Hezbollah, Iran, Qatar, the Saudis, …), and potentially profound implications for the future relationships among all the parties and for the world as a whole. Not to mention the unimaginably terrible suffering on all sides. It is, to put it mildly, too complex for a blog post, too difficult to find one small piece of the issue to address that is not connected to all the other pieces.
But I find one small corner of this complicated tableau particularly disturbing. Why is it, I ask myself, that Israeli conduct always seems to be judged by different standards than those applied to any other country in the world in similar circumstances; and, similarly, why is it that the grievances of Israel's enemies are viewed more sympathetically than the grievances of any other group in the world?
For instance, you would think that people concerned with ending the terrible violence in Gaza and the awful suffering of the Palestinians would advocate for the most direct and straightforward path to that end: Hamas should surrender, thereby sparing its people further misery. They chose to wage war against a neighboring state; they are at a grave disadvantage in the conflict that has ensued, in terms of military firepower; they are losing, and appear to have no prospects of winning, that war. They are in a position to bring the killing and the destruction to a close; they should release the hostages they are holding and surrender, at which point the Israelis, having achieved their objective, would surely cease their attacks.
