Published: Hamas v Israel - David D. Lentz, Attorney at Law

The following article written by David D Lentz has been published:

HAMAS v. ISRAEL: Important Concerns

[OPINION and ANALYSIS]

In an event with huge Middle Eastern and global ramifications, Hamas militants attacked innocent attendees at an Israeli music festival. They apparently murdered, kidnapped and committed other horrific atrocities on what now appears to be well over 1,000 Israelis and foreign visitors. In turn, Israel has launched a full scale military response and attacked Hamas’ home in Gaza causing widespread, death, damage and destruction to Gazans, the majority of whom probably were/are not members of Hamas. Hundreds of thousands are being forced to flee in mass while war and bloodshed are raging about them. Thousands of innocent lives are being lost and families torn apart.

Extreme violence merely engenders hatred and condemns future generations to the Hell that is eternal conflict. Too many important countries, including China, Russia U.S. and those in the EU have a vital interest in Middle Eastern peace because of its strategic location and the presence there of oil. The stakes are too high, efforts at lasting peace must be made, world peace hangs in the balance.

A multitude of factors must be considered before political positions harden and any further action taken It is beyond rational dispute that the Holocaust did, in fact, occur. Millions of innocent Jews were mercilessly slaughtered at the hands of Hitler and Nazi Germany. There are, however, other very significant questions that must be answered. These questions include: (i) Were the Israelis the very first settlers of Palestine? (ii) Wasn’t modern Israel created largely because of the holocaust and/or the persecution that the Jews suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany, and before that by Russia and all European powers during and prior to World War II? (iii) What role did the United Nations, the U.S. Britain, Russia and other European countries play in the establishment of modern day Israel? (iv) Has not Israel since its founding expanded its borders at the expense of the Palestinians through (A) prior wars with its Arab/Egyptian/Syrian/Palestinian neighbors; and/ (B) expanding residential Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands? (v) Do not the majority of Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere live in a state of overcrowded poverty?(vi) Have not Israeli sanctions and control over Palestinian access to important life-sustaining resources contributed to the very poor living conditions of most Palestinians? (vii) Given the answers to the foregoing, was not the Hamas attack foreseeable? Of course, there are other important questions as well, but the unsettling fact is that the answers to many of the foregoing questions will either be “yes” or will further complicate matters.

This is not to say that the killing and harming of innocent people is justified. Unfortunately, however, a few employers have already rescinded job offers and fired employees and for expressing their opinions concerning this extremely volatile situation. While there are limits as to how far one should go in expressing their views, it must also be remembered that public debate allows governmental policy makers and voters to consider factors that they might not have otherwise considered. Unfortunately, employers firing employees and/or rescinding job offers and/or the actions of benefactors cutting off donations to various collegiate institutions stifles healthy public debate. All of this only makes the censor look like an intellectual bully who is unwilling to allow expression and debate or to let the facts speak for themselves. They look like they want governmental policy to be based upon incomplete and misleading data. This is not good because it eventually leads not only to bad policy but is also a hallmark of oligarchy and repression. It must be remembered that educational institutions were established largely to help society discover objective truth—regardless of what the truth is and who it helps or who it hurts. Moreover, this particular type of censorship only feeds into the narrative that the religion of the would-be censors has been far too influential on governmental policy-making. Moreover, if all companies and large donors do the same thing, it will eventually gut everyone’s right to freedom of speech. The public would, in essence, be barred from debate by large corporations and the rich. In a free society all must occasionally bear the burden of listening to people loudly express opinions and advocate for policy positions that are at odds with their own. That’s but one price of freedom that everyone must bear.

There’s also, of course, the never-ending religious issue. Rational actors, were they thinking clearly, would minimize it. Why? Historically, religion has repeatedly been shown to be the fuel for the fires of endless war and conflict. And what’s just as bad, is that all religions, incorporate into their belief system concepts that defy human experience and logic. That means their religious faith-based beliefs don’t make sense to anyone except to true believers of the religion in question who, in turn, believe based merely on faith alone—and not because it makes any worldly logical sense to anyone who does not share their beliefs. This means that conflicts based in significant part on religion are almost always extremely difficult to resolve because rational thought is often not the primary determining factor in decision-making. Moreover, religion tends to cause bigotry which in turn causes the bigot to minimize the importance of the life of the non-believer. This is dangerous. And, although the devout will vehemently disagree, being against the state of Israel on any policy issue is not the same thing as being antisemitic. Similarly, being against the Palestinians or against terrorist acts is not the same thing as being anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian. Although it may seem impossible to do, religious issues and identities should, to the extent possible, be kept separate and apart from the political ones. The point is that while the political reality is that religion will be a big issue, the more that the parties can minimize its importance (and convince the public to do likewise), the better off the entire planet will be.

David Dixon Lentz November 10, 2023