DAY 204 OF THE WAR: Eliminating Hamas? Hostages, 204 Days and Counting, Campuses, Ben-Gvir Gets in an Accident

Tel Aviv Diary, April 27, 2024

October 1994—

My eyes closed, and when I opened them everything was black, said Mr. Sadan, 28 years old, the personnel director of a company in downtown Tel Aviv. I looked to see if everything was O.K., and then I jumped through the window, Sadan shared before quickly correcting himself—What used to be the window.

Sadan was among the few who survived the bombing of Bus-5 in Tel Aviv. This was the first successful attack in Tel Aviv and the third suicide bus bombing carried out by Hamas. Some passengers perished in their seats, while others were thrown from the bus, their bodies scattered near the wreckage like discarded dolls. Human remains were found on terraces and entangled in trees, prompting firefighters to prune branches to ensure no remnants were overlooked. Rescue teams, including Orthodox members from burial societies, meticulously combed through the debris, collecting limbs and other remains into transparent plastic bags for subsequent identification.

This atrocious attack took place on October 19, 1994, on Dizengoff Street, claiming the lives of 21 Israelis and one Dutch National — and was the first, but regrettably, not the last bombing in Tel Aviv. The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas, under the direction of Yahya Ayyash, carried out this brutal bombing.

The tragedy profoundly affected the typically nonchalant city of Tel Aviv, sparking widespread anger among its residents. Many urged for the halt of talks with the Palestinians. They advocated for a permanent closure of the Gaza Strip—a hub of anti-Israel sentiment—to prevent Palestinian workers from entering Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities.

If peace is only from our side, it isn't peace, said Moshe Bar, who ran a photography store at the intersection of Dizengoff and Frishman Streets, just a block from where the explosion occurred. I think the government isn't addressing this sufficiently. They don't understand that terrorism is the main issue. Address the terrorism first, then pursue peace.

The above passage is from the initial draft of my book covering Israel’s history from Rabin’s Assassination to the current Gaza War. The text will no doubt evolve over time. Nevertheless, I present it here to illustrate the magnitude of Israel's current dilemmas. The Hamas bombing described above was the third of three, with two taking place in 1994 following the signing of the Oslo Accords. Hamas was desperate to stop the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Immediately after October 7th, even some of the most left-leaning Israelis, such as Gershon Baskin—who had been deeply involved over the years in negotiations with Hamas—concluded that there was no alternative but to dismantle Hamas. The problem is that seven months on, and we have yet to achieve this goal. Was it ever possible to destroy Hamas? We will never know if a different plan might have worked.

This brings me to today’s article in the New York Times by Tomas Friedman: "Israel Has a Choice to Make: Rafah or Riyadh." In the article, Friedman outlines that Israel's options are either supporting the US initiative to end the war with a political deal that would temporarily leave Hamas in power and forge an alliance with Saudi Arabia and other moderate Sunni states or proceeding with its planned attack on Rafah. While Friedman's argument appears persuasive, he fails to explain what would happen to the hostages under these plans. Moreover, Friedman does not address one of the reported underlying reasons cited for Hamas starting this war was to thwart the developing rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. This omission raises the question: Does Friedman believe Hamas would now cooperate to allow this rapprochement to proceed?

On one hand, I love Friedman's vision for the future. However, it is unattainable as long as Hamas remains in power. On the other hand, I also fear that an incursion into Rafah might be as ineffective as our four-month stint in Khan Younis. We need some “out-of-the-box” thinking, something that has been sorely missing in prosecuting this war.

HOSTAGES, 204 DAYS AND COUNTING…

Although Hamas rejected the last proposal by the Egyptians and the Americans to secure release of the hostages, there appears to be a glimmer of hope that a deal could finally be reached. Israel has extended a final offer, sweetening the deal by agreeing to discuss a more permanent ceasefire, after the initial set of hostages are released. It's not clear if Hamas will accept this plan, or if Hamas does accept, whether Netanyahu might try to torpedo the deal at the last moment.

This entire round of negotiations could merely be an attempt by Hamas to delay Israel’s operation into Rafah. As of tonight, word is that Israel’s latest offer has been transmitted to Yahya Sinwar, and a response is expected in the coming days. Meanwhile, in a move likely aimed at psychological warfare, tonight, Hamas released a video of Keith Siegal, abducted from Kfar Aza and Omri Miran, from Nahal Oz. Such footage is always bittersweet to watch. While both men appeared to be in decent physical health—as of two days ago when the videos were taken—it was heart-wrenching to hear both men plead that everything be done to get them home.

LOD

On Friday there was a lone terror attack in Lod, where a woman was critically wounded after being stabbed by a terrorist. That woman is currently recovering in a hospital. The terrorist was killed by a civilian present at the site of the attack. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir rushed to the scene, and after being photographed, quickly sped off to get home in time for Shabbat. In keeping with his usual disregard for traffic signals, Ben-Gvir’s driver ran a red light and was hit by a car crossing through the intersection on a green light.

The collision caused Ben-Gvir’s vehicle to overturn. Ben-Gvir, his daughter, their driver, and the driver of the other vehicle, all required hospitalization. In the evening, Ben-Gvir demanded to be moved to Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, a request that was accommodated. His daughter was released from the hospital today. Ben-Gvir will spend another night in the hospital. Ben-Gvir, currently in charge of the police, has a long history of traffic violations— with a total of 79 charges accumulated over the years. This traffic accident is the second he has been involved in during his tenure as a minister.

SANCTIONS

On Friday, it became clear that the Biden Administration would not issue sanctions against Netzach Yehudah or any other IDF units. This decision came after receiving assurances that the cited allegations of misconduct would be addressed. This embarrassment could have been avoided if we had a functioning Foreign Ministry. Throughout his entire tenure as Prime Minister, Netanyahu has never appointed a truly qualified Foreign Minister, who had the political power to get things done. Netanyahu has always seen himself as the most qualified person to be Foreign Minister, and perhaps justifiably so. However, being a Foreign Minister involves more than just meeting with foreign leaders. It involves overseeing all aspects of Israel’s foreign affairs. Israel urgently needs a first-class Foreign Minister now.

LEBANON

It had been a relatively quiet two days on the Northern Border. On Friday, Israeli aircraft killed one of the leaders of the Islamic Jihad deep in Lebanon. Friday and Saturday saw sporadic attacks along the border. Tonight however, Hezbollah launched 26 rockets at Israel’s radar base on Mt. Meron.

COLLEGES

I have received some criticism for calling the anti-Israel demonstrators anti-Semitic. While I am happy to admit that not all of the anti-Israel demonstrators are antisemitic, there are clearly a significant number who are. When you yell “From the river to the sea…,” you are being antisemitic. When you contend that all Zionists should be killed, you are being antisemitic. When you verbally or physically attack Jews, simply because you identify someone as Jewish, you are clearly an antisemite. And when you talk about a “global Jewish money cabal”, you are an antisemite.

Conversely, if you claim that Israel is “carrying out a genocide in Gaza”, then you are just a fool and not an antisemite. It is perfectly acceptable to criticize the government of Israel. I frequently express such criticisms in print, and for the past several weeks, I have been actively protesting on the streets every Saturday night. Along with tens of thousands of fellow Israelis, we have been calling for elections as soon as possible, since we do not trust the current government and consider it incompetent. However, there is a difference between criticizing a government and calling for the destruction of a country; the country I live in—it is the difference between legitimate criticism and antisemitism.

Although I seldom find myself in agreement with Elon Musk lately, I believe he was quite accurate in his tweet yesterday when he wrote:

The axiomatic error undermining much of Western Civilization is “weak makes right”. If someone accepts, explicitly or implicitly, that the oppressed are always the good guys, then the natural conclusion is that the strong are the bad guys.

Musk’s comment partly explains the support the left has for organizations—even though they share no values with most of the leftist protesters. In fact, many of these protesters would face severe consequences under Hamas rule, possibly even execution, if they were to live according to their beliefs in areas controlled by Hamas.

I recommend two articles on the subject. The first, by Ross Douthat, titled: “What Students Read Before They Protest.” In the article, Douthat discusses the Contemporary Civilization course, a required course at Columbia College, that I wrote about months ago. He outlines all the far-left readings that make up the 20th-century section of the CC course reading list. I should note that in my time, CC had no readings from the 20th century, which I felt was lacking. It's tragic, however, that they chose the readings they did.

The other significant article, by Paul Berman in the Washington Post, is titled “At Columbia, Excuse the Students, But Not the Faculty.” It's a fascinating piece on how the faculty of Columbia during the 60s riots understood the impact that the riots had earlier in history, especially on the rise of the Nazis.

On a personal note, Bernstein mentions David Sidorsky, a professor I knew pretty well. I was saddened to learn, after looking him up following the article, that he had passed away two years ago.

–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––∞–––––

A PIECE OF HISTORY

Election Reform

Tonight, I delve into a little-known piece of history, or perhaps more aptly, a “what could have been” scenario. It’s a small piece of history that I only recently discovered.

I was aware that in 1948 Ben Gurion had proposed that Israel adopt an election system similar to that of England, with the country divided up into constituencies. However, his proposal was overruled by others who opposed the idea. Organizing such a system in 1948, with 20% of the country serving in the Army would have indeed been difficult. What I hadn't realized until now was that Ben Gurion didn't abandon this idea. Ben Gurion wrote what was wrong with the current electoral system in his memoir.

In the election to the first Knesset, there were half 1 million eligible voters and 21 party lists though none of these, including Greenbaum’s personal list did not return a single candidate. The Knesset ended up with 12 different blocks that one of which had a majority. The small factions, without whom no majority government could be formed or interested in preserving the proportional election system. Thus that came into being a large number of small parties, whose programs held no interest for majority of the nation, which was denied its basic democratic right of real choice of the government. Composition was decided after the election by parties alone. The elector had no connection with his representative, in turn had no say, drawing up the list of candidates. Consequently, the interest parties, as conceived by the leadership of their central committees, became paramount.

Ben Gurion wrote about issues in the first and second Knesset that still plague Israel’s political system today: Elected representatives who are not accountable to the voters and governments that often implement policies opposed by the majority of the country.

Ben Gurion  went on to write:

There were those who say there is nothing you can do that is what the nation wants.” We doubt if that is really what the nation wants. The people of Israel were never asked if they desire a proportional national election system that would divide and disperse its strength. It is highly doubtful if the small factions of the Knesset would agree to a referendum on these issues. Surely, the nation does not want perpetual fragmentation and multiplicity. No election system can provide a mathematically correct reflection of the opinions among the nation. A system, and conditions for the effective operation of democracy and maintenance of civil rights should

1. Provide the opportunity for people from time to time and fundamental issues. The nation need not resolve the problems of an internal metaphysical, religious, or ideological nature that outside the sphere of practical affairs.

1. Enable the  Voters to choose a representative who will be responsible and bound to them in a reciprocal relationship. From time to time will inform his electors of matters tabled for debate in the Knesset and electors may express their opinions in the matter.

1. Enable the nation to choose the government desires only a two party system can be chosen in which the majority have confidence.

Those are insured under the British election system. Under the system in Israel the elector has no contact with his legislator. He must vote for a list of candidates, most of whom he does not even know, and it is the party apparatus that decides who will be on the list, in what position, and whether he stands the chance of being elected. Only after the election is the composition of the government established by negotiations of various parties.

Ben Gurion attempted to initiate changes. He managed to secure support for the change from his party, Mapai, which was the leading party in the Knesset. However, on October 8, 1956, Ben Gurion proposed the Knesset overhaul the current electoral system and replace it with 120 regional candidates, with regions to be delineated by the Supreme Court. The proposal was rejected 72 to 40, because, ultimately, no one wanted to give up power. A subsequent proposal to hold a national referendum on the idea was also defeated.

And now, we are left to ponder what could have been.