PASSIONATE INTENSITIES: Some say it's an occupation!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2023

Some say it's a blockade: We don't think that the people we'll name are actually "the worst."

In our view, their behavior has been astoundingly dumb and extremely unhelpful. But according to experts, this is the way we humans are inclined to behave at times of passionate intensity—at deeply challenging times like these.

Once again, here's the way Yeats famously limned it in the aftermath of the first world war:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

The worst are full of passionate intensity? In our view, so were Batya Ungar-Sargon and Alan Dershowitz as they made remarkable statements on a pair of Fox "cable news" shows.

Yesterday, we focused on the very first thing the Harvard professor said. 

To his credit, he didn't say that Barack Obama needs a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews." That was the Newsweek editor's astonishing statement or suggestion when she appeared on Fox & Friends. 

As for Dershowitz, when he appeared on Mornings with Maria, he started his lecture as shown:

BARTIROMO: (11/10/23): I want to get you to tell me more about what exactly Obama said that was—he did have moral equivalency between, you know, the terrorists of Hamas and Israel!

DERSHOWITZ: Well first, he said that the occupation is unbearable. He just lied through his teeth.

There is no occupation of Gaza. In 2005, and if life is unbearable in Gaza, it's because Hamas has been in control—the kleptocracy. People have stolen billions of dollars that were intended for humanitarian aid for their own bank accts in Qatar.

As far as the occupation of the West Bank, he's been to Ramallah. He knows Ramallah—there's no occupation. It's a beautiful city, as nice as Jerusalem, except a lot safer, because there's no terrorism.

And to compare those disputed claims with the rapes, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, it's just obscene and despicable. And what it does is it lends support to those students, basically, who are saying, "Well, what Hamas really did was not so bad. It was in response to the occupation."

The professor disputed Obama's use of one key word. That key word was "occupation." 

There is no occupation, the irate professor said. Indeed, Obama had been "lying through his teeth" when he used that key word.

The professor went to say that Obama had finally revealed his "deep hatred of Israel." There was no mention of a sign, but his presentation had been "obscene and despicable."

As he started, the professor focused on that one key word. And in fact, as part of a multi-faceted statement, Barack Obama had said such things as these:

[W]hat Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. 

And what is also true is that the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable.

"The occupation is unbearable," Obama had plainly said! As the professor spouted and fumed, the passion took over from there.

By the time the professor was through, Obama had actually said or suggested that the mass slaughter performed by Hamas was actually "not so bad!" Mainly, though, the professor was appalled by Obama's use of that one key word:

There is no occupation, he said. The fact that Oabam had used that word showed that he was "lying through his teeth."

What's in a word? the sages have long asked. In this instance, let' walk through a partial answer to that age-old question.

Did Gaza lay under an "occupation" as of October 7? For the record, some have said the answer is yes. Others have chosen to opt for a different key term.

In the aftermath of October 7, some news orgs offered background information about the situation. Under the headline shown below, CNBC offered this thumbnail account on October 17:

What is the Gaza Strip? What you need to know about the territory at the heart of the Israel-Hamas war

[...]

Following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war, Israel seized land from the Palestinian Arab-allocated state and ended up with 77% of the total territory. More than half of the Palestinian Arab population was expelled or fled as refugees to Gaza, the West Bank and neighboring countries.

Gaza was under the control of Egypt from 1948 until 1967. Israel subsequently gained control of and occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank following its victory in the 1967 Six-Day War against Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The United Nations classifies Israel as an occupier state over the Palestinian territories.

Say what? The United Nations classified the existing state of play as an "occupation?" 

Just because the U.N. says it, that doesn't mean that it's right! At any rate, CNBC might have been wrong about that matter—but the more blue-friendly NBC News had already offered this:

Gaza Strip explained: Who controls it and what to know

[...]

In 2005, under international and domestic pressure, Israel withdrew around 9,000 Israeli settlers and its military forces from Gaza, leaving the enclave to be governed by the Palestinian Authority, which also controlled parts of the occupied West Bank.

Today, with over 2 million Palestinians living within roughly 140 square miles, it is “one of the world’s most densely populated territories,” according to Gisha, an Israeli nongovernmental organization. Half of Palestinians living in Gaza are under age 19, but they have few to no prospects for socioeconomic growth and limited access to the outside world.

Hamas, which has clashed repeatedly with the Palestinian leaders in the West Bank who negotiated the Oslo Peace Accords, is a militant Palestinian nationalist movement currently led by Ismail Haniyeh. It took control of Gaza after it won elections there in 2006. Since then, no elections have been held.

Despite pleas from the United Nations and human rights groups, Israel has maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007 that has had a devastating effect on Palestinian civilians. Israel says the blockade, which gives it control of Gaza's borders and is also enforced by Egypt, is necessary to protect Israeli citizens from Hamas.

The International Committee of the Red Cross considers the blockade illegal and says it violates the Geneva Convention, a charge Israeli officials deny. The U.N., various human rights groups and legal scholars, citing the blockade, consider Gaza to still be under military occupation by Israel. 

According to that report, it isn't just the United Nations. It's also "various human rights groups and legal scholars" who still considered Gaza to be under occupation.

For the record, yes! The International Committee of the Red Cross is one of those groups. That doesn't mean that its view is correct. But Obama has a fair amount of company in the use of that one key word.

Meanwhile, notice this! In that report by NBC News, a new term has appeared. 

That new term is "blockade." According to some observers, Gaza hadn't been suffering from an "occupation." It had been suffering from a "blockade."

According to NBC News, Israel has (rightly or wrongly) "maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007." 

Also according to NBC News, that blockade "has had a devastating effect on Palestinian civilians." For its part, Israel says the blockade "is necessary to protect Israeli citizens from Hamas."

Who is "right" in all of this? Different people will answer that question in a wide array of ways. But suppose Obama had made the statement shown below. Would that statement have been acceptable to the furious professor?

[W]hat Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. 

And what is also true is that the blockade, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable.

Would Obama have been "lying through his teeth" if he'd simply gone with "blockade?" Would he still have been revealing his long-hidden "deep hatred of Israel?"

We don't know what the professor would have said if Obama had chosen that alternate word. But had the existing state of affairs really been "unbearable" for Palestinians in Gaza? 

For the professor, "unbearable" seemed to be another forbidden term. But for the record, that CNBC report had included this call of the roll:

Between 2008 and 2023 before the current conflict, Israeli airstrikes had killed 6,407 Palestinians in the occupied territories, 5,360 of whom were in Gaza, according to the U.N. Over the same period, 308 Israelis were killed.

That doesn't mean that the airstrikes in question were "wrong." That said, this is the kind of information which has rarely been cited as cable news stars have shouted and yelled in the course of saying that they can't imagine why These College Kids Today may adopt a view concerning this matter which differs from their own infallible view.

Let's return to that NBC News report. "Half of Palestinians living in Gaza are under age 19," the report said, "but they have few to no prospects for socioeconomic growth and limited access to the outside world."

Could a person have that sort of thing in mind when he calls the situation "unbearable?" Could that person have made a fairer presentation by choosing a softer term?

Obama needs a sign, the lady said to the cable news friends. Barack Obama needs a yard sign which says, "Kill the Jews."

According to experts, that is the astonishing way we human beings may behave when the intensity of our passion grips us on "cable news" programs.

To his credit, the Harvard professor didn't say that—but was what he said much wiser, much more helpful? We can't really say that it was. 

In our view, it's unfortunate when college students exercise what may be limited judgment. In our view, when their famous professors spout and fume, the center may struggle to hold. 

The situation in Gaza has gone on for many years. It's very, very, very hard to untangle the right and the wrong of various actions which have been taken down through the many long years by the various parties.

Moral and mental breakdowns on cable don't help us move toward better understanding. Instead, they may show what Yeats was talking about. They may also show that the kind of spinouts he was citing aren't restricted to "the worst."

For ourselves, we'd like to see peace and prosperity come to the people of Israel and to the people of Palestine. We'd like to see their winning example spread elsewhere in the world.

Tomorrow, we'll riddle this a bit further. For this morning, though, we leave you with a question:

Who do you prefer, the lady or the tiger? Which key word would make everything right—occupation or blockade?

Tomorrow: Nicholas Kristof

This afternoon: A New York Times formulation concerning these key words