Do Your Chores Old Man

CLICK HERE TO HEAR AUTHOR READ

Do your chores old man,

And never stop.

The winter was hard,

Spring turns the clock.

The loam is gravy dark,

Sun stirs the blood like soup.

Get your shovel and barrow from the shed,

Sharpen and oil your tools.

You’re thinner and grayer,  

Than last you were seen.

Shambling through the flower beds,

In gloves and baggy jeans.

You pause to feel the lake breeze, 

Touch your sunken cheek,

Dry the sweat from your brow.

The crested Blue Jay in the tree - 

Squeaks and trills for his mate,

You look up to spot the wildlife. 

It's been a while since reciting the prayer,

After burying your beloved wife.

Like the snow she disappeared in layers,

While you tended her in linen.

Dusted the furniture, swept the floor, 

Counted the hours she'd be given.

These days you get fresh air, 

Hum a tune and turn the sod.

Slowly retreat into yourself,

Do your chores and curse God.

It's A Coin Toss

Grievance kills. Your grievance may be perfectly justified. That doesn't change the fact that it could, and is very likely to, sink you like the stone you're tied to. 

One school of thought is that most, if not all addiction, can be traced to trauma. It could be a childhood trauma, or as in PTSD suffered by war veterans, a traumatic experience in adulthood. But it's not the trauma that leads to addiction - we all suffer traumas in our lives of various types and sizes, some more devastating than others - it's the heavy burden of grievance, resentment, blame and anger that we carry in response to trauma. The thinking goes that addiction, to drugs, or gambling, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or even sex, provides a (somewhat) reliable emotional prop or escape (a physically destructive one) offering the addict a temporary respite from the heavy burden of harboring grievance, resentment and blame. According to this way of thinking, to treat addiction you must provide the addict the intellectual means to recognize and identify the burden that they carry, namely the grievance, resentment and blame, which typically morphs into shame and self-hatred, and provide them with emotional tools they can use to unburden themselves. That's the challenge of every therapist, and it's a tricky one, because people are different (there are likely genetic factors to addiction as well), and there are many types of grievance. But the essence is that addiction feeds on grievance, blame and resentment. Even if the grievance is justified, it cannot be changed. The people who caused the grievance can not be controlled. But if you are unburdened of blame and resentment, if you can learn to relinquish your sense of moral self-justification, the energy source for the addiction is choked off, and it can be overcome. 

What does this mean when we live in a culture that amplifies grievance and blame, and celebrates victimhood? For every one of us who is digitally mainlined a steady drug of grievance and victimhood through our phones, it's time to acknowledge that we are all addicts. And as long as we are addicted to grievance, resentment, blame and anger, we will seek to feed our addiction with more from media 'pushers' who masquerade as commentators and politicians: Liars, grifters and stokers of grievance who mimic cult leaders and false prophets with their outlandish fact-free statements designed to anger, outrage or instill fear, instead of promote policies that address our best interests. We will remain on the self-destructive path all addicts travel until they hit rock bottom, and either survive or die, it's a coin toss, kind of like every election.

We Need To Talk About, South Sudan

I'm prompted to think about South Sudan by the announcement this week that Ireland, Norway and Spain plan to formally recognize a State of Palestine by the end of this month. Why South Sudan, you may ask? Because in July 2011 South Sudan was the last time the international community welcomed a brand spanking new country with open arms. Let's see how well that worked out.

But first, a bit of history on the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine declared Independence in 1988. The declaration was made by the legislative council of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat presiding) while in exile in Tunisia. The declaration specified no particular borders for this new State, although it talks about comprising 'Palestinian territory'. In the intervening decades, the State of Palestine has been recognized by at least 143 countries.

How does a new country come into existence? There are no 'official' rules, although there are some generally accepted criteria rooted in international law. The Montevideo Convention (1933) defined a State as a sovereign unit that is able to meet four benchmarks: 1. A permanent population 2. Defined territorial boundaries 3. A government and 4. An ability to enter into agreements with other states. Let's call these the 'necessary' criteria, but they are not always 'sufficient' for statehood and international recognition. Sometimes new countries, even if they can achieve the basic criteria in theory, in practice  do not possess stability in these areas ie. borders, population movements, security, government etc. and international recognition may not be forthcoming. It's part of the reason a unilateral declaration of independence typically won't succeed without unanimous (or close to unanimous) international consensus and support. The birth of a new country is a bit of chicken and egg; you need to demonstrate some modicum of stability to be recognized internationally, and international recognition, sometimes but not always, brings some level of stability. 

So let's take a look at the case for the State of Palestine and how it's been progressing in terms of the four basic benchmarks. One benchmark is conspicuously absent, defined territorial boundaries, another, a government, is highly questionable, and a third, a permanent population, has been a major issue. During the Oslo negotiations, when the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established as the defacto government in the Palestinian controlled territories, they came very close to settling boundaries, but ultimately walked away from the maps. Not even during the 2000 Camp David Summit, when Israel offered eventually 92% of the West Bank (and all of Gaza) with land swaps making up the balance, were the Palestinians able to come to a final agreement on borders. Another sticking point, the main one by most accounts, has been Palestinian insistence on a 'Right of Return' which would jeopardize Israel's Jewish demographic integrity. According to negotiator Dennis Ross, the reason for the failure of the 'last best hope' was Arafat's unwillingness to sign a final deal that would close the door on any of the Palestinians' maximum demands, particularly the right of return. In his memoir, Ross claims that what Arafat really wanted was "... a one-state solution. Not independent, adjacent Israeli and Palestinian states, but a single Arab state encompassing all of historic Palestine." That demand has actually escalated with the split between the PA and Hamas - From the River to The Sea, as you might say, in the current lingo of campus protest. In the last two decades, the civil war between the secularist Fatah in the West Bank, and the religiously-driven Hamas in Gaza, has split the movement for an independent Palestine and completely upended the Palestinian governance benchmark. Hamas has recently taken the lead with their militant jihadism which views an independent Palestine as part of a Middle-Eastern Islamic caliphate. In sum, as the emerging countries benchmarks go, it's mostly all up in the air with the State of Palestine.     

And that is why we have to talk about South Sudan. It apparently met the benchmarks in 2011. By 2013, a little over two years after it seceded from Sudan and formally became a member of the international community, South Sudan erupted into a multi-sided ethnic civil war that lasts to this day. It is estimated that more than 400,000 people have been killed, almost 11% of which are children. The war displaced over 4.5 million people, approximately 2 million internally, and 2.5 million to neighboring countries, especially Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda. It is considered to be the third-largest refugee population in the world after Syria and Afghanistan, mostly women and children. According to Human Rights Watch in 2023, "The humanitarian situation worsened, driven by the cumulative and compounding effects of years of conflict, intercommunal violence, food insecurity, the climate crisis, and displacement... An estimated 9.4 million people in South Sudan, including 4.9 million children and over 300,000 refugees, mostly driven south from the Sudan conflict, needed humanitarian assistance."

The history of all emerging countries is different, and I'm not saying the story of South Sudan presages what we might expect if the State of Palestine were ever to succeed. But actually, I think the real lesson to draw here is how exceptional, one might even say miraculous, the founding of the State of Israel is. 

Seeking An (UN)Warranted Warrant

News this weekend that the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC (International Criminal Court) Karim Khan is seeking war crimes arrest warrants for both Hamas's and Israel's leaders. The crimes alleged against Hamas's leaders (specifically Sinwar, Deif, and Haniyeh) involve things like extermination as a crime against humanity, taking hostages as a war crime, rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, torture as a crime against humanity, among other allegations. 

The crimes alleged against Israeli leaders (Netanyahu and Gallant) involve things like starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health, or cruel treatment as a war crime, willful killing, or murder as a war crime, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime, extermination and/or murder including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity, persecution as a crime against humanity and other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity.

On the face of it, making any equivalence - even if it's just on the basis of the fact that the application for warrants mentions two parties, giving the appearance of 'both side-ism' - between the leaders of a terrorist organization that attacked a country, and the response of that country while defending itself, is outrageous, (or in President Biden's word, scandalous). In an effort to appear 'balanced' the move ironically has the effect of looking political. But I'm always skeptical of my first reaction. I wanted to know more. 

I read the Official Statement about the warrant applications, and watched a TV interview with Chief Prosecutor Kahn this weekend. When asked about the appearance of moral equivalence between the leaders of a terrorist organization and the duly-elected office holders of a democratic nation, he answered as follows (I paraphrase): We do not make such distinctions, because our job is to seek justice according to international humanitarian law by considering only the interests of the victims. Then he went on to name the esteemed members of the panel that advised him in making the charge recommendation (highlighting the Jewish members, lest there be accusations of anti-Semitism), which didn't actually support the substance of his case in my view. I was left wondering if his statement about 'only the interest of victims' was genuine, and assuming it was, the process of identifying the 'victimizers'. 

The framing of any conflict determines everything that follows in terms of political, legal and moral implications. The Statement issued by the ICC Chief Prosecutor reads: "My Office also has jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals of States Parties and by the nationals of non-States Parties on the territory of a State Party." Teasing that out, a conflict between 'nationals of State Parties' means two countries at war. Are there two countries at war in Gaza? Clearly no. Crimes committed by 'nationals of non-State Parties on the territory of a State-Party'. That sounds like acts of terrorism like Hamas's (the non-State Party) attack on Israel (a State-Party). So far so good. So where does Israel's retaliation in self-defense fit? In the legal lingo of the Statute that would be the actions of nationals of a State-Party on the territory of a non-State-Party. On the face of it, they're not covered. The ICC gets around this little problem by considering this case an armed international conflict, namely between "Israel and Palestine", even calling it "the State of Palestine." Khan writes, "I decided that the Court can exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the Situation in the State of Palestine..."

Further on in the ICC Statement you read this: "My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel." So, to help with the legal jurisdictional problem we have not one but two conflicts happening simultaneously (or as he says 'in parallel'), a war between nations (Israel and Palestine), and a war between a state and a terrorist organization. In order to charge crimes the ICC doesn't have the burden of deciding what this conflict actually is, it can be all things to all people, and that way they can charge both parties involved, on different grounds. Nice trick.

Later, the Statement reads: "We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day." Aside from the startling accusation that Israel, as a matter of State policy, systemically attacked 'the Palestinian civilian population' and not merely as collateral damage during an international war (because maybe this isn't actually a war between States, or maybe it is?), why does the ICC not make any distinction between leaders who are accountable to national rule of law and those who aren't? 

Actually it does, and this is the critical point. According to the Rome Statutes, the ICC can only investigate and prosecute international crimes in situations where states are "unable" or "unwilling" to do so themselves.

The bottom line is that the charges are not just misleading by their implied moral equivalence, and legal schizophrenia by operating with one definition of the conflict that has Palestine (incorrectly) defined as a State when that suits charges against Israel, and another definition that (correctly) suits charges against Hamas. In terms of the ICC's own criteria they have every reason to investigate and charge Hamas, and none at all for investigating and charging Israel. There is no question that Hamas is ‘incapable’ of investigating itself since it has no national judicial infrastructure to do so. And Hamas is obviously ‘unwilling’ to investigate itself since every act of savagery they commit is celebrated as a victory. But the bad-faith bias against Israel extends to the fact that, in the middle of this ongoing war, the ICC is presuming that Israel is also either unable or unwilling to investigate its own actions. Israel is obviously capable since it possesses a national judicial infrastucture and rule of law process to do so. Furthermore, the fact that Israel has already publicly admitted operational mistakes, and has initiated multiple investigations into their own actions, indicates its willingness. But this does not seem good enough for the ICC.

Having the victims in mind when charging crimes sounds good. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The ICC has twisted itself in legal knots in order to find in Israel a 'victimizer' that satisfies some distorted view of equity and fairness. The bias that taints this warrant does a disservice, not just to Israel and the ICC itself, but to the entire effort of defining and applying international humanitarian law.

The Kids Are Alright

What to make of the kids on campus having a moment? Is it just performative social media activism, each participant with what amounts to the equivalent of a TV broadcasting studio in his/her pocket? Or are they the canary in the coalmine of something that is deeply wrong with society? Is this indicative of the rot currently wasting away the body of our culture? An intolerant ideological cancer that has been spreading for decades eating away at our value system through Affirmative Action and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs, which promote shame and guilt for the power and success of western civilization? 

I think the correct answer is found somewhere in between. This is a moment of hysteria supercharged by social media and a mainstream media bent on overdramatizing to generate audience fear and outrage. It also points to problems that have been festering in the universities for decades.

But let's start with the main point: To quote The Who - the kids are alright. Don't blame them for their dumb ideas, their ignorance and misguided notions. For not having depth of knowledge and understanding of a situation that has a complex history. It's totally normal. They feel anxious about the future, as youngsters always do. They reject the conventions of their parents which they feel have taken the world down the path of disaster. They want a more just world. They want to voice concern for minorities and the powerless. They oppose racism, inequality, poverty, discrimination and oppression. They want peace not war. All good things, and nothing new, nothing to be concerned about. When you're a kid at school you have the luxury of entertaining progressive ideas and experimenting with them. We're seeing the manifestations of it because it's being amplified in the media(s). Two other factors are involved as well. A large number of protest organizers and funders were not students at all, but activists coming from outside the university community to spur them on, which explains the coordination across many campuses. And the influx of foreign students which has increased steadily over the last decades - below I will talk further about how universities have become profit centers. But the problem isn't the kids, it’s the universities.

In the era of what we used to call 'politically correct' and is now called 'woke', universities decided they had to become 'safe spaces'. Here's the thing, universities were never 'safe', at least not in an intellectual sense. On the contrary, universities used to be adventurous places, designed to challenge and be challenged, even at the risk of offense. They were places to debate, argue, confront new ideas, try them on for size and either adopt or reject them. That's called growth. The problem is that universities no longer live up to that mission. They have become staid establishment institutions devoted to convention and cultural groupthink that has led to institutional rigidity and dogma. That rigidity was on full display when three Ivy League university presidents were unable to give a clear unequivocal answer before Congress to the simple question whether calling for the genocide of Jews constitutes harassment according to their school’s code of conduct. If they were too fearful to answer that straight forward question, why would anyone think they could be any more capable of dealing with raucous campus protests with a firm hand. Fortunately, the presidents were all forced to resign, which is the important result, I believe.   

But the question remains whether our current universities have doomed society by producing a 'leadership' class of closed-minded, unresilient, overly sensitive graduates, intolerant and offended at the drop of a hat? I doubt it. Take our kids as an example. Our two eldest (ages 30 and 27) graduated university in the last 5 years with advanced degrees. They are both working now, one as a lawyer, and the other at the university that awarded her a Master's. They both see the student protests similarly, as misguided and uninformed, and are extremely critical of the way their universities have handled the encampments. They are both very supportive of Israel and believe the pro-Palestine neo-colonialist narrative is bunk. Incidentally, my eldest daughter majored in Middle-Eastern Studies, took courses in Islamic studies, learned Arabic, and won a scholarship from the Government of Kuwait.

Our third daughter (25) studied fine arts and is graduating this spring. She currently holds views that are in line with what you might expect of a graduate in fine arts ie. extremely politically and socially progressive and very sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative and cause. Our youngest (19) will be attending university next year. Perhaps surprisingly, because it's at odds with most of her peers, she's fairly disgusted by the student protests and is very proud to support Israel. All to say, if our kids demonstrate anything (and maybe they don’t) it’s that nothing is inevitable when it comes to kids, so let's not get too excited. 

If we should have any concern it's for the adults, members of faculties and administrators. But I would not overstate that either. The free market will take care of them, just as it did the bumbling university presidents who embarrassed themselves and their institutions by not understanding what the boundaries of free speech were. Universities have become big business in the last 50 years. The luxury brands (read: the universities with strong name recognition and prestige) have benefited. Tuitions have skyrocketed as they've attracted wealthy foreign students, making them less accessible and even more elitist, and out of touch with mainstream society. The other institutions that have thrived as university profit centers are the ones that specialize in scientific and technical research and development. But what about universities as incubators of ideas and promoters of civic discourse? They're being put out of the free-speech/exchange of ideas business by the internet. The pro-Palestine encampment debacle may just be the latest chapter in the story of their waning cultural relevance, like the book publishers, art galleries, and record labels. 

Damned Lies and Statistics

The one truth you can say about war is that the first casualty of war is the truth. And the numbers are usually the first to get fudged. So why does the mainstream media take that information at face value? The reason is simple. If it can't be independently verified - and it can't ever in the middle of a conflict - then just use the consensus number, and for the media that's almost always the number that is the most dramatic. We could be talking about any war. We could be talking about the 300K casualty estimates on the Russian side, provided by Ukraine, or the lack of casualty estimates on the Ukrainian side, also provided by Ukraine, because we're on Ukraine's side. It gives the impression that Ukraine is always winning, which is essential for our ongoing support. It does not come as a surprise that we are surprised when news reaches us that Russia is actually making gains on the ground. 

What about the death toll in Gaza? Is there any reason to believe the 30,000 + number with 70% claimed to be women and children? Conveniently, precisely 70% of the people living in Gaza are women and children, matching the deaths of women and children in the war. I guess that's what makes the number seem 'plausible'? Unfortunately, a perfect match, from a statistical standpoint, also makes it extremely doubtful. Read the article in Tablet Magazine written by a Stanford-trained statistician raising doubts about the numbers being provided by Hamas. He's pretty blunt, says they're fake. For the mathematically-challenged like me, there's Dan Senor's podcast with the author Abraham Wyner. Wyner says the starting point is that we can't know the actual numbers, but we can analyze statistical anomalies. The percentage of women and children deaths is one. Another one is the constancy of the rise in deaths over time which appears to have formulaic regularity. Common sense tells you that war happens in waves which should be reflected in the casualty rate. These are tip-offs to at least be skeptical, and lack of skepticism suggests either laziness of reporting or outright bias.    

Hard to believe anyone would take the information provided by a terrorist organization calling itself The Gaza Ministry of Health at face value. But that's what most of mainstream media and international organizations have done. The first to get information out there seems to win. My spidey-sense was tingling when the reports first appeared of Israel striking Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza leaving 500 dead and wounded. Of course media outlets around the world ran with it. Turned out to be a misfired Palestinian rocket - it is now estimated that 20% of all fired Palestinian rockets land inside Gaza killing untold numbers - and that between 150 and 200 were killed or injured. How to account for the rush to judgment? An information environment designed to feed the information silos because it feels good, truth be damned. 

On May 11th the United Nations Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) revised its child fatality figure from the Gaza war from an estimated 14,500 deaths on May 6th to 7,797. For women it was also almost cut in half from 9,500 to 4,959.  

Recently heard from Bari Weiss: "There's not some viral hashtag campaign that's going to defeat a world that is awash in lies. But if you look throughout history, the answer in the end is always what (Natan) Sharansky was saying...which is truth... what one person and one voice can do to cut through the noise... a five-foot-one Jew, who basically, with a small number of Jews whose names are very hard to pronounce, brought down the Soviet Union. How is that possible? Because he had the truth on his side... We have an epidemic of cowardice in the world right now and especially in the West... people would rather be socially accepted, be cool, get into the right places, get into the right colleges, be in the right crowds, than do the right thing... You talk to the average 18-year-old in the US - no shade, there are a lot of amazing ones - but it's about me, my story, my goals, my life, my chapter. The sense here (in Israel) is that you are part of something so much bigger. And when you have that sense of the purpose of your life, it can give you an unbelievable amount, not just of meaning.. but courage."

Some basic rules: Never believe first reports. Never believe the corroborating reports from your side alone. Don't settle for the easy, comforting lies. Seek the hard uncomfortable truth and tell it. 

Bedfellows

This week, to my horror, I found myself agreeing with Benjamin Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham. I rarely agree with Netanyahu, and I absolutely despise Lindsey Graham. In politics, a trade filled with hypocrites, Graham is one of the most blatantly two-faced politicians in US history. When opposing a Senate confirmation for Obama's pick of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the last year of his presidency, Graham said that if the Republicans ever voted to confirm a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of a presidency he would eat his words. Then he and his Republican Senate colleagues did just that, they voted to confirm Amy Coney-Barrett, not in the last year of Trump's presidency, but in the last weeks. After January 6th, in an impassioned almost tearful speech on the Senate floor, Graham said about the violence and Trump’s role, 'count me out' and 'enough is enough'. A few weeks later he was down at Mar-a-lago kissing the ring and saying "The way I look at it, there is no way we can achieve our goals without Trump." He counted himself back in.

I don't believe that withholding from Israel one or more shipments of 2,000 pound bombs - which, according to every military analyst I've heard, are fairly unusable and ineffective in densely populated urban areas - is going to have much of an impact on Israel's plan for Rafah. And I do not believe that President Biden, Anthony Blinken and their advisors have any other motive for doing what they are doing other than what they truly believe is in Israel's best interest. I think they believe, for good reason, that a full scale invasion into Rafah would be a humanitarian catastrophe, and that it would do further damage to Israel's international standing (although it's hard to believe Israel's reputation could suffer any more damage than it already has.) Probably, Biden is also thinking about the pro-Palestinian progressive wing of his party, and how more very bad news out of Gaza would impact his electoral prospects in November, although I doubt this is a major consideration so early in the game. 

I also believe the US decision is wrong in a number of important and far reaching ways beyond the 2-tonne ordinance: 

1. The US should be advising their ally on military tactics and strategy based on their experience, know-how and assessments, not withholding the tools their ally deems necessary to fight a war that it considers existential. In this case, the ultimate decision must always remain Israel's and the US should respect that, and support it. 

2.  The US is sending the wrong message to its allies, and an even more wrong message to its (and Israel's) enemies. The message to allies is, don't count on us to back you up fully. Not even under the gravest circumstances, in an existential conflict. The message to enemies is how easily the US caves under public pressure, how readily they abandon allies. With Hizbollah threatening Israel’s north  this potentially changes their calculus for attack. The same with the Houthis and even more so Iran. It undermines Israel’s efforts at deterrence and makes the region less stable.

3. The public feud is playing into Netanyahu's domestic political hand. It makes him look like a strong defiant leader, someone who will defend Israel's interest even if it means opposing Israel’s greatest ally. Israeli hardliners and hawks will use this to their political advantage and the Israeli public opinion may move further to the right on security.

4. It frames the international public discussion in all the wrong ways. It makes the focus of discourse the type of weapons being used by Israel to prosecute the war, and not the crime and immorality of Hamas using the entire population of Gaza as a weapon of war-making ie. a human shield. It plays into the false narrative that Israel is the aggressor and Hamas the helpless victim.     

This decision by the US has broad ramifications. Agreeing politically with a hypocrite like Graham, and a Machiavellian like Netanyahu makes a progressive peacenik like me uncomfortable. On the other hand maybe, in these highly partisan times, it also means I’m open enough to consider the other side when it makes sense. 

An Imagined Speech by the POTUS

My fellow Americans,

I come to you tonight to address the Israel-Hamas war and the protests we are seeing on American university campuses. I asked for the opportunity to address you tonight because I felt that it was important to clarify the position of the United States and clear up any confusion. 

The war is between Israel and Hamas. It is not between Israel and the people of Gaza. It is not between Israel and the Palestinian people. In fact most Palestinians are not involved at all. This war is between Israel and a terrorist organization that is funded by Iran and Qatar. No country would tolerate an attack against its citizens as Israel did on October 7th without vigorously defending itself. No country would accept living under the constant threat of a genocidal terrorist group whose stated mission is the murder of your citizens and the destruction of your country. It's similar to the war we fought against Bin-Laden after the 9/11 attack. It's similar to the war we fought in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the Middle-East against ISIS. It's a war for freedom and western values against terrorists who oppose freedom and western values. It's a war against the inhumanity of using citizens, women and children, as weapons of war, turning apartment buildings, schools and hospitals into military facilities. No sane, humane organization would do that. That's what this war is about.

I understand the heartbreak of seeing many many innocent people die and hurt in this war. It's heartbreaking for me as much as it is for you. I understand the horror of seeing the ruin of homes and hospitals in Gaza. But let's be clear. This is a war. One that Hamas started on October 7th. A war that Hamas brought into Gaza because they felt it was tactically advantageous to them to do so. They took hostages back with them into Gaza. They built tunnels, not for the safety of citizens, but for Hamas fighters to hide and launch attacks. As long as Hamas stays in Gaza, Palestinians are unsafe. Recently, Hamas attacked the humantarian pier our engineers have been building to bring food aid to the citizens of Gaza. When they are not looting food trucks, Hamas terrorists are attacking the gates where those trucks enter Gaza. Hamas wants Gazans to suffer as much as possible, because it serves their propaganda purposes. They cannot defeat Israel militarily, so they hope the world will pressure Israel into a ceasefire. The massive death toll of Palestinians and ruin of Gaza is Hamas's responsibility. They are not fighting for the Palestinian cause, they are fighting for their own survival, and to destroy any hope for peace with Israel. 

It's unthinkable to me that there are educated, caring young people, university students, lending their voices in support of this heinous, barbaric terrorist group and their aims. The right of every American citizen to voice their opinion is a cornerstone of America. I support that fully. But I cannot fathom how it seems lost on these students that Hamas is celebrating their protests and views them as allies. Hamas is encouraged and emboldened to continue their fight by these protests. I believe that most of the students care deeply about the Palestinian people, as do I. Which is why any support of Hamas is detrimental to their cause. Many of the protesters are not students at all, but outside political organizers and agitators. They are using and manipulating the students for their ends. But if there are students and members of faculty who support and justify the babaric acts Hamas committed against Israeli citizens, I am not with them. If there are students and some faculty members who believe that Israel should not exist, I oppose them. And I oppose in the strongest terms possible anyone who would justify the torture and taking of hostages. That's simply evil. 

I want to be perfectly clear. Israel is our ally and partner for 75 years, and a beacon of democratic western values in the Middle-East. Our alliance with Israel is and will remain steadfast. Israel is stronger now than it's ever been and will continue getting stronger. Its enemies may wish otherwise, but Israel is not going anywhere. Israel's fight is the fight for freedom and democratic values. Just as Israel stood with us in our fight against freedom-hating terrorists, so do we stand with Israel to finish the job of eliminating Hamas in Gaza, and wherever they are. It's in our interest. It's in Israel's interest. And it's in the interest of the Palestinian people if they hope to achieve safety, security and to maintain any hope for a path to self-determination and peace. 

Thank you for your time and God bless the United States.