Nicholas Kristof's recent essay is entitled "Invading Rafah Doesn't Help Israel." There is more wrong here than you can shake a stick at. One problem with it, and this is indeed an unusual criticism, is that it is too good. It proves far too much.
To summarize his thesis, Israel should not invade Rafah since it can never, ever, fully succeed in its mission of obliterating Hamas. This author makes a strong case in support of that conclusion. The difficulty is that if Israel should not invade Rafah since full success is beyond it, then, it should not have entered Gaza at all, and for the same reasons. What is the logical implication of Kristof's advice to Israel? It is that this country should have turned the other cheek to Hamas, starting on October 8, 2023. It should have adopted the failed policy of Mexico when confronted with its gangs and drug cartels: hugs, not bullets.
Let us consider the specifics offered by this New York Times editorial writer. He starts off with a gratuitous and unwarranted dig at the Prime Minister of that country: "It may be in Netanyahu's interest to flatten Rafah because anything that prolongs the war keeps him in office, but it's not in Israel's interest." Here, he joins President Biden, Senator Chuck Schumer, and other fair-weather friends of Israel in engaging in unsupported motive-mongering. It is also in President Biden's interest to flatten the inflation rate now plaguing the country and to deal with the incursions at the southern border. Does that mean it is not in the interest, also, of the US? Of course not. No more is it true that anything in Netanyahu's interest, if such be the case, is for that reason not of benefit to Israel. The logic, here, is appalling.
Next in the batter's box is this statement: "… the premise of those favoring a Rafah invasion is that the assault might be bloody but would enable the destruction of Hamas. But … Israel is unlikely to eradicate Hamas, any more than the United States eradicated the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Vietcong in Vietnam, or violent militias in Iraq."
The "logic," here, seems to be that unless there is an all but certain guarantee of total success, do nothing. One might as well say: "If at first you do not succeed, the hell with it." That is a recipe for total inaction. The US did not totally eradicate the Nazis in World War II. There are still neo-Nazis floating all around the place, nowadays making common cause with left-wing campus radicals protesting in favor of Hamas (My favorite by far is "Queers for Palestine"). So, Americans should have left the Nazis alone? That seems to be the logical implication now being pushed by Kristof.
There is also quite a bit of a disanalogy between the US vis a vis Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq, on the one hand, and Israel vis a vis Hamas on the other. In the first case, there are a goodly number of miles separating the first mentioned country from the other three. In the second case, the two nations are located cheek by jowl each with the other. A Canadian attack on the US, as featured by South Park, would be far more apropos. One can only wonder how the Newspaper of Record would react to any such. Turn the other cheek? Maybe not. Secondly, neither Afghanistan, Vietnam nor Iraq ever invaded the US. The same, unhappily, cannot be said for Hamas and Israel.
Further, these three countries never came within a million miles of conquering the United States. The same cannot be said for Hamas, along with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran concerning Israel. (The monstrous attack on the US on 9/11 was peopled by citizens of Saudi Arabia, a country which also does not credibly threaten the very existence of the US.)
Now consider this doozy: "Indeed, Biden may be the most pro-Israel president in American history." What? This back-stabber who threatened and then actually stopped military supplies from entering that country at the time of an important need of Israel for more armaments, upon which they were counting? Donald Trump never did anything remotely resembling stabbing Israel in the back. Instead, he moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and promoted the Abraham Accords.
Here is yet another goodie: "One reason to be skeptical of the Israeli plan to deal with Rafah is that there isn't one." There most certainly is a plan: root out Hamas while inflicting the least possible collateral damage on the civilian population, within whom these terrorists embed themselves and use as shields. Which other country first drops leaflets on civilians, before bombing? If Israel were not concerned with minimizing civilian deaths, this war would have been over in six days (there is precedent for that) instead of still being carried on some six months after October 7, 2023. Another criticism of Israel is that it does not have a post-war plan. It does, several of them, including banishment, if the so-called right-wing members of the Likud party coalition such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir have their way. But why is this even necessary? Surely, it is enough, for the moment, to end Hamas?
We cannot allow to pass without comment this last Kristoff comment: "An important reason I doubt that invading Rafah is in Israel's security interest is a lesson the U.S. forces learned in Iraq: Pay attention not only to the number of fighters you kill but also to the number you create… Gazans reacted [to Israel's military operations in Gaza] by wanting more than ever to hit back at Israel. I talked to Ahmed Jundiya, then a 14-year-old boy, who told me that he aspired to massacre Israelis. "War made us feel we will die anyway, so why not die with dignity," Ahmed told me. He added: "Maybe we can kill all of them, and then it will get better."
"I have no idea what became of Ahmed, but I wonder if angry kids like him grew up to be those who brutalized Israeli civilians on Oct. 7. I likewise fear that children who are bombed and starved by Israel today may be among those who attack Israel a decade from now."
Here, I must acknowledge, Kristof has a point. But he draws the exact opposite of the rational conclusion from these remarks. Palestinians have been attacking Jews from time immemorial. They engaged in pogroms against the Hebrews long before the establishment of Israel in 1948. What is the cause of this? Sheer unadulterated hatred. Stated Golda Meir: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."
The explanation for the hatred of Ahmed Jundiya is that in the past the Israelis have been too soft in their response to Palestinian murders, rapes, rockets, bombs, suicide killings, and other depredations. They have engaged in "lawn mowing": slight wrist-slappings in response to these vicious attacks. The US and its allies did not slap the wrists of its enemies in World War II. When and only when the Palestinians learn that their continual ravages against the Israelis will be met with overwhelming repercussions, will Ahmed Jundiya and his ilk no longer launch any brutal attacks on Jews, Kristof to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sorry, I am ambivalent about the Iron Dome. Yes, it saves Israeli lives. But with it, the attacks continue, forever it seems. Without it, there would be no more such invasions.
