Decision Making Tool to Understand Political Position of non-Politician – Part II

There are three major issues that arose for me while writing Part I of this two-part article. Part I, that should be read first, comprises a cost-cost exercise regarding ending the Hamas-Gaza war ASAP (now) versus continuing the war and a discussion with a friend I called Molly .

It is important to note that this is not the way I would have conducted this exercise were I to have the privilege of doing it with someone who actually has responsibility for making decisions — it was one more attempt on my part to understand those who are out blocking traffic on the streets and making a lot of noise demanding we end the war NOW to bring the hostages home NOW.

For convenience, I am copying the cost-cost table here. Note that risk to the hostages is common to both alternatives and, therefore, cancels out as a factor impacting upon the decision of which way to go.

When asked for what characterized each list, Molly responded:

a.        Nature of the costs of ending the war: the threat remains that even ending the war will not stop war and we will still not be safe

b.      Nature of the costs of continuing to fight: further damage to everyone without an end in sight.

As I reviewed the material, I came to see that I would have characterized them very differently.

For me, Alternative A, ending the war now, would be a capitulation and loss of deterrence while Alternative B, continuing the war, is the ongoing anxiety-ridden tragedy with an unknown date of expiry. What are the values attached to these?

There is value, in my opinion, in Israel being strong, not only appearing strong but being strong. And I consider many of our errors before and during the fighting related to us not acting like a strong sovereign country should. I am still at a loss for what value I would attach to Alternative B.

Now let us look at where the discussion with Molly yesterday and today led me:

Regarding the Hostages

Firstly, the cost-cost table indicates that the hostages are fairly ill-fated regardless of what Israel does at this point. Short of heroic rescue, there is no guarantee that either a deal now or continued military pressure will bring home alive those who have survived to this point. Therefore, the hostage issue seems to have less impact than many would want at this point regarding the government’s decision to either keep fighting or to commit to a deal, especially since there is little chance that Hamas would agree to a deal that would ensure Israel’s security in the future.

In the news today, we see that Defence Minister Gallant and Prime Minister Netanyahu represent Alternatives A and B, respectively.

Confidence that Hamas would abide by the deal at least in returning ALL the hostages (dead and alive) would be the only justification, in my opinion, for potentially ending the war prematurely. In the previous temporary ceasefire during which hostages were released, the remaining hostages, as agreed to by Hamas, were supposed to have been visited by the Red Cross and to have received medications sent to them. This never happened. Reach your own conclusions regarding this element. I have.

Israeli Deterrence

Secondly, the idea of neglecting to take advantage of this unbidden war situation by which we can regain Israel’s deterrence is intolerable to me. I am far less concerned than Molly is with the destruction we see in Gaza and the humanitarian concerns that are totally Hamas’ doing both before and during the war, and I have far less faith in the existence of a large number of Gazans who just want to get on with their lives and let us get on with ours. Therefore, these are not costs of continuing the war that tip the scales for me in even the slightest way. I ascribe no value to saving the lives of those who try to take mine and promise to keep trying.

While there were local leaders who recently attempted to establish alternatives to Hamas civilian rule, indicating, perhaps, that there are some leaders who do value their lives and those of their followers more than they value killing Jews, they were killed by Hamas. Israel is not responsible for this. In this vein, a cost I would add to the list under Alternative A, ending the war ASAP (i.e., prematurely), would be the cost of loss of the opportunity to have local leaders empowered sufficiently to lead their people to a different kind of life than that allowed to them by Hamas.

Antisemitism

Molly listed the ongoing increasing antisemitism if we continue the war. I see it differently — we Jews are hated regardless of what we do. I do not believe that ending the war prematurely would have any impact on reducing antisemitism. On the contrary, I believe it would only whet the haters’ appetite for bashing us more in whatever ways possible: physically, legally on the international legal stage, in the UN via impossible resolutions, etc. And individual Jews would be no safer that they are now, rather less and less so.

Believing we are oppressors

Thirdly, yesterday, when I expressed my inability to understand Avi Dabush, CEO of Rabbis for Human Rights, who, in spite of narrowly escaping murder or abduction on Oct 7^th, maintains his belief that Israel is oppressing the Palestinian Arabs, Molly said she understands him and, it turns out, she feels the same as he does. Again today, she suggested that the only way out of war is to make peace with the Arabs and end our occupation of them. It does not seem to matter to her that Palestinian Arabs consider Haifa, the city in which we both live, occupied territory, and all that that implies.

This reminded me of a conversation I had with a long-time left-wing friend in the first days after Oct 7^th. In shock, like the rest of us, she asked if what we saw meant that we will be in a constant state of war with our Palestinian Arab neighbours. She was depressed for some time and this was one reason. Israel not having the ability to change this unending state of war and terror and the hopelessness that this engenders is as intolerable for some people as giving in is to me. I still do not understand how they can believe what they believe.

Personal decision making versus political decision making

When I have done this cost-cost exercise with clients, the values at play were clearer than they proved to be in this instance. They generally consisted of present-day costs versus future costs, or costs to oneself versus costs to another person, or a personal cost versus a social group cost. This provided material for fruitful discussion which helped the individual make a choice based on their values, being prepared for the difficulties that may follow and having some pre-determined means for reducing the potential negative consequences.

In the case here, we saw that both alternatives were potentially harmful to the hostages, protection of whom is the supposed reason demonstrators around the country are asking for the war to stop NOW.

And we came up against a seemingly non-negotiable factor — seeing Israel as an oppressor and the only way out being a two-state-solution even if that is far in the future, as Molly admitted.

As a result, I suddenly realized that the real question underlying everything concerns whether or not Israel is an occupying force over the Palestinian Arabs, preventing them from having equality, justice, dignity, and freedom. I think all political activism related to our dealings with our Palestinian Arab neighbours and even with the Israeli Arabs is ultimately related to this issue. Therefore, I have a challenge for Molly — are you willing to do this cost-cost table with me again, this time with Alternative A = seeing Israel as an occupier and oppressor versus Alternative B = not seeing Israel as an occupier? I suggest this because I know of no other way to break through the impasse.

Anybody else want to take me up on it? We could all do this exercise on our own, but it works better when we do it with at least one other person and we can discuss what we come up with.