When we were in school taking exams invariably one of the answers was “all of the above.” In the case of the Israel/Hamas war it is all of the above.

First, Hamas is a terrorist organization, its terror attack on October 7th was an atrocity which should lead to the demise of Hamas and Hamas leaders that survive should be brought before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

Second, Israel has the absolute right and responsibility to defend itself. 

Third, there is an overarching narrative namely the condition of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank that cannot be dismissed even as the Hamas terrorist attack is a legitimate rationale for Israel’s military’s attack in Gaza. 

Fourth, Palestine is illegally occupied. Israel must cease its illegal settlements and unspoken desire to annex the West Bank. This must lead to the end of Israeli occupation. While Israel can technically say it left Gaza in 2005, its blockade along with Egypt makes Gaza a prison camp.

Fifth, while Israel has the moral and legal right to seek out those who committed the atrocities of October 7th, it must act along the lines of proportionality as it carries out its mission to destroy Hamas. In the eyes of the international community, its military operation is taking on the characteristics of collective punishment. 

Sixth, the protests which are taking place in support of the Palestinians or Israelis across college campuses lack credibility. Those who rightfully support the Palestinian cause but cannot deem Hamas a terrorist organization or emit empathy for the Jewish citizens slaughtered and butchered on October 7th have no credibility. Palestinian spokespersons who appear on television and say they are against violence in general but cannot condemn Hamas are mere propagandists. Likewise, those on the side of Israel who are rightfully outraged but cannot speak up on behalf of the Palestinians being killed during this war or oppressed on a day to day basis lack credibility as well. While it is human nature to side with the narrative with which we have an emotional investment, for too many the protests serve as a cathartic exercise for whatever their personal grievances are. While youthful exuberance is normal, protesters on both sides tend to be simple-minded in their reduction of the present Middle East crisis to a simple binary choice when the issue is more complex. Unfortunately, college campuses in too many cases are becoming unsafe sanctuaries for informed conversation. College professors who professed exhilaration at the idea of October 7th or organization heads who appear on television with a constant barrage of complaints about how no one is talking about the atrocities committed against the Jewish people do more damage to the situation by bringing heat rather than light. 

Seventh, the Israel/Hamas war is not the cause of increased anti-semitism. That sentiment was always there. The war just gave cover for those who already harbored deep seated animosities. This includes some of those who claim to be marching on behalf of Palestinians as well as some of the Democrat politicians presently serving in congress. 

Eighth, there are those who see Palestinians as a lesser people who must be brought under control by a superior force. This includes Republican members of the United States Congress as well as so-called evangelical preachers such as John Hagee who have couched this in his form of crazy theology as a conflict with biblical implications and consequences with end times theology.

Ninth, it is true that Gaza has received millions of dollars from various entities including Iran, Qatar and the European Union, but has not used these funds to build its nation. Poverty remains inhumanly high. 

Ten, Israel has wasted its social capital that came about after the terrorist attacks by engaging in what many are now seeing as the impetus of an immense humanitarian crisis. It has led some to charge Israel with genocidal intent. This would be quite an ironic twist considering the fact that it was a Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who created the term and advocated for its inclusion in the United Nations lexicon.

To those who would lift up Nelson Mandela, who in his later years advocated violence through the armed wing of the ANC namely the Umkhonto we Sizwe, and equate the Palestinian plight with Black Americans, it should be remembered that while Mandela advocated violence for freedom, Hamas advocates it to destroy a people and a nation. Mandela in his earlier life advocated non-violence as a tactic not as a belief system. When non-violence didn’t work he turned to violence as a tactic not a system of belief. For Hamas, violence is a belief system that supports their goal of genocide. In terms of equating the black community to the plight of the Palestinians, the reality is that they can relate to both communities. As the progeny of slaves, the black community can relate to the Jewish Community. In terms of oppression and limiting of movement, the black community can relate to the Palestinian plight. Strangely it may be the black community that should be best able to speak to both communities. 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a mediating institution that can interpret and discuss this crisis in a way that is credible in its historical and political context and enable a discussion about the path towards creating a resolution as opposed to giving motivation for lining up on one side or the other.

One of the unspoken consequences of this war, unless there is a radical departure from the present status quo, will be a generation of young Palestinian people, mainly men who will grow up with a memory of their homeland being ravaged by Israel. This memory will be leveraged by those who seek retribution against Israel. This inherent anger will be used by nations such as Iran as well as people and organizations in other nations including the United States. This reality lends credence to the belief that while the military infrastructure of Hamas may be destroyed, the ideology may live on. 

While Israel has been advised to have a plan for Gaza after the military campaign has ended, the reality is that Israel may not be seen as an honest broker for a post Gaza plan.

Both sides have historical reasons to be leery of one another but ultimately the two state solution is the only resolution to this historic atrocity. At present however, both sides lack the necessary leadership that can bring security to Israel and freedom from occupation to Palestinians. For the Palestinians, Hamas cannot be a credible voice for liberation. For Israel, Prime Minster Netanyahu, whose Faustian bargain with the extreme right wing may prove to be a prime rationale for the cause of this present war, is incapable of negotiating a solution that will bring long lasting peace, security, freedom and prosperity to both sides. There needs to be a cohort of Palestinian and Israeli leaders who recognize the legitimacy of each others claim to exist with dignity. This cohort should be overseen by a collective of international leaders who will ensure the integrity of the negotiations with a concomitant plan to rebuild both Gaza and the West Bank vis-à-vis the Marshall Plan. 

The international community can bring this about. Those who have signed agreements with Israel can begin to make it clear to the Palestinian community that they must begin to identify leaders who should be at the negotiating table for a two state solution. The United States and its western allies can begin to leverage their financial and military support for Israel with the condition that it immediately begin to identify those leaders who will begin the long arduous task of creating a sovereign state for the Palestinian people. 

Short of this the Israeli/Palestine conflict will continue to foment violence for the foreseeable future. In this scenario the winners will be arms dealers, ideologues, politicians, religious fanatics and the losers will be thousands of more Israeli and Palestinian lives not to mention other nations that will be pulled into the conflict.