12 minute read
Conflict by Shammai Siskind
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE RECENT GAZA CONFLICT
BY SHAMMAI SISKIND
The mashov. It’s one of the hallmarks of Israeli society. Technically translated as “feedback,” the mashov in practice is something like a cross between group therapy and a formalized debriefing.
Like many features of Israel’s culture, the mashov originated in the military. Regardless of where they serve, soldiers in the IDF typically experience quite a few mashovim during their service. If the Logistics Corps has to execute a massive delivery of field supplies, everyone from the truck drivers to the gunsmiths will have a mashov. If an armored company conducts some routine maneuvers, there’ll be a mashov. If a lone infantry soldier is ordered to simulate taking a hill, he can expect a mashov at the end of it all dissecting how well he ran to the top.
This may sound a bit excessive, but in actuality, it is a very useful practice to inculcate. You see, far from being a dry top-down examination by superiors, all participants in a mashov are encouraged (read: required) to speak up and offer their views and comments. In this way, soldiers are taught to maintain better self-awareness and – most importantly – be comfortable with a program of learning and progressing. This democratized form of collective self-reflection has gradually infiltrated the private sector, especially into Israel’s perpetually booming start-up scene. Today, it is very common for managers and team leads to gather their people together at the end of the work week or at the conclusion of a big project and have a candid, face-to-face chat about what they’ve succeeded or failed at over the past several days. Such scenes are not just young professionals trying to reenact their army days. It’s applying a practice that seems to work quite well. While far from a foolproof method, soberly recalling a group attempt to do something (whatever that thing might be) improves everyone’s ability to do it.
As the smoke clears from the most recent round of conflict in Gaza, you can bet your house there are more than a few Israeli high-ups, from military brass to policymakers, that are finding themselves in lengthy mashov sessions right now. There’s no reason, however, that this should be the sole domain of the leaders. A well-executed mashov might just give us all a bit of clarity into what went down over the last few weeks – and maybe even some invaluable insight for the future.
While any Israeli-Arab flareup can be broken down to an infinite array of factors, I think it’s incumbent on us all to hone in on the bigger picture. And that picture is, unfortunately, not very good.
EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL
The entire ten-day crisis in Israel, which culminated in a full-fledged IDF operation in Gaza, was instigated by a series of land disputes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.
The first point worth noting is that disputes in this area of the capital are nothing new. Disputes over ownership rights in Sheikh Jarrah have been going on for the better part of twenty years. These court cases have always consisted of complex legal claims going back decades and across eras of legal sovereignty over the neighborhood. To put this into perspective, in a census conducted by the Ottoman authorities in the early 1900s, the Sheikh Jarrah “district” consisted of “quarters” which were distinctly Jewish, Christian, and Muslim respectively.
The residents of the Jewish quarters named Shimon Hatsadik and Nahalat Shimon, both established at the end of the 19th century by various communal groups, were forced to abandon their homes when Jordan took control of the eastern part of the city in 1948. Beginning in the early 2000s, several Israeli groups began efforts to retake control of properties they claimed were, in fact, owned by the Jewish community. The very
first incident in the neighborhood to attract attention began in 2001, when a group of Israeli Jews moved Israelis into a sealed section of a house owned by an Arab family, the al-Kurds. The group claimed the property was owned by Jews. After years of litigation, the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the property was part of the original Shimon HaTzadik neighborhood and as such belonged to the Sephardi Community Committee, one of the groups that had established the settlement in 1890. Despite this ruling, the Arab residents were not required to leave. Instead, they received “protected tenant” status and could remain as long as they paid rent to the legal owners. Some (but not all) of the Arab families refused to pay, however, which led to their forced eviction.
Over the years, there have been several similar cases, nearly all of which could have been the basis for a legal drama film. In one case from 2009, lawyers from both sides argued for years on the authenticity of mutually contradicting bills of sale dating from the Ottoman era. Attorneys literally flew to foreign official archives to dig up support for their clients. The case eventually ended with the Israeli Supreme Court validating the documents presented by the Jewish plaintiffs.
But it is the most recent case, the one that sparked the powder keg, that without a doubt takes the prize for most sensational. That case, one involving the possible eviction of some seventeen families, was not a new dispute at all but rather one that has been ongoing for decades. The legal claims of the Jewish plaintiffs were resolved decades ago in their favor. The owners in these disputes acquired their rights through an uninterrupted chain of transactions beginning in the Ottoman period. The Arab residents, on the other hand, acquired their leasehold rights through a chain of transactions which began in the 1950s and originated from the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property, Amman’s agency for administering areas it conquered in 1948. Similar to other cases in Sheikh Jarrah, the Arab residents were not forced to leave their homes but were required to pay rent to the rightful Jewish owners. All received protected tenant leases on the homes they occupied. The planned evictions (which incidentally have yet to be carried out due to the personal intervention of Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit) were the result of either years of contract breach by the tenants or the natural expiration of the leases.
While this is all very interesting, the main point to focus on is that this and other similar cases that preceded it are civil disputes between Israeli citizens, not a systematic attempt to rid the city of Arab residents. Not all land disputes between Arabs and Jews, whether in Jerusalem or other parts of Israel, are decided in favor of the Jewish litigant in the Holy Land. However, this case was quickly framed by Israel’s antagonists as just another symptom of the country’s racist and discriminatory policies.
What is ironic about all this is that the specific topic of property law involved in this case is an area pointed to by all sectors of Israeli society as one that is in serious need of reform. One does not have to hold Israel as a colonialist repressive entity to believe this. Determining property status in Israel is a tricky business, even without adding politics to the mix. Communities and ancestral lines of ownership in Israel are old – often much older than the state itself. Coming to a conclusive ruling on disputes often involves scouring through ancient records and relying on unclear evidence. And that is precisely the point.
When courts in Israel hear land disputes, they are very often doing the best they can in an almost impossible situation. Can individual cases be criticized? Absolutely. Many often are and are then subsequently overturned. But to suggest that any and all rulings to the detriment of an Arab is part of a state-sanctioned program of discrimination against non-Jews is simply a vicious distortion of reality and frankly quite ridiculous.
This highlights the first of the important lessons from the last several weeks. The enemies of Israel are not, and probably never will be,
A Palestinian outside the home of the Ghawi family in Sheikh Jarrah in Jerusalem
interested in the nuances of what goes on here. Everything and anything will be weaponized to the greatest extent possible, which means that Israel has little hope of being able to run its own affairs in a way that will ever be acceptable to its detractors.
THE SHIFTING CONVERSATION
In the May 20, 2021 edition of the right-leaning Commentary Magazine, conservative pundit and former staffer of the Reagan White House John Podhoretz wrote an article entitled, “As Pogromists Activate, Chuck Schumer Cowers.”
In the article, Podhoretz brings up the disturbing trend of attacks against Jewish targets in the United States and other Western nations during the Gaza campaign. He also brings up the relatively weak response by many elected officials in the U.S.
Podhoretz specifically goes after New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a man who has spent years promoting himself as the “shomer” (a cute pun on his surname) of both the American Jewish community and Israel. According to Podhoretz, Schumer’s response to this string of incidents has
been, at best, low-key. At the same time, Schumer has all but refrained from speaking out against other elected officials openly vilifying Israel during the recent Gaza war.
While the senator may well deserve this critique, I think Podhoretz focuses too much on summing up Schumer and not enough on a much more important phenomena. That more essential question is this: why does Schumer, who can tout pro-Israel credentials going back decades, feel compelled to sensor himself in this way?
The answer to this question seems pretty clear: the conversation in American politics on Israel has changed. That is not to say that policy toward Israel has shifted (at least not yet), but clearly the Overton window has expanded. Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that any elected official, from either party, would spew the vitriol against Israel that has been heard over the past twenty days. These attacks have not been against specific Israeli action but against Israel’s very existence. Terms like “colonialist” and “apartheid” are now loosely thrown around. It’s important to understand that in order for someone to believe these epithets apply to Israel, they have to believe that Israel in its very existence is a grave moral injustice. Of course, this view has been held by millions of people around the world since Israel’s very inception. Typically, however, those voices haven’t been heard in the halls of Capitol Hill.
Granted, for the time being, at least, the high-handed remarks are coming from the more “radical” fringes of Congress, the likes of the so-called Squad and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. There is, however, a more broad effect taking hold, namely the political acceptability for those types of statements to be made. Obviously, any official, or citizen for that matter, is entitled to whatever unhinged opinion they wish to espouse. Usually, however, when that happens, fellow party members will try to rein in on those more extreme voices either publicly or privately, if for no other reason than the fact that such outbursts are a liability to the party’s image. But alas, no reining in has occurred. Indeed, many have pointed out that what we are witnessing now with anti-Israel rhetoric is merely the continuation of a trend. In 2019, House Democrats put forth a resolution condemning “anti-Semitism” following a series of statements against Israel by Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar. The resolution did not mention Omar by name and made no mention of support for Israel to counter the congresswoman’s remarks. The watered-down resolution was tacit consent by the Democratic establishment for adopting putting forth anti-Israel positions.
So now, old-school politicians like Schumer find themselves in an awkward situation. The policy lines they have become accustomed to toeing are no longer what they were just a few short years ago. It’s not that people like Senator Schumer have suddenly sold out on any principles
A burnt out bus in Holon that was hit by rockets fired from Gaza A car on fire in Ashkelon after being hit by a rocket launched from Gaza
A car set on fire by Arab residents in Lod A home in Ashkelon damaged by rocket fire
they’ve held in the past. It’s simply that they find themselves in a political milieu significantly different than what they were ever used to. Which brings us to lesson number two: the conversation on Israel among many of Israel’s allies has shifted. This does not mean substantial changes to policies are in the pipe. But it is certainly a red flag.
This reality has already been recognized for facing new levels of challenges, challenges that will probably get worse before they get better.
Indeed, any immediate change that will come from the last round in Gaza will probably be at Israel’s diplomatic level. To be sure, Jerusalem will certainly not be diminishing ties with its traditional allies. What it will do, however, is seek ways to diversify its international relationships and alliances. The very important trend of Israel
solidifying regional ties, kickstarted by last year’s Abraham Accords, will almost certainly be bolstered. Looking even farther afield, Israel will probably seek out more trading partners, suppliers, and even sources for its defense equipment and hardware.
Whatever concrete policy changes await, in either the short- or long-term, one thing is certain: Israel’s leadership is feeling the political ground shifting under its feet. Sooner or later, they will have to shift in response.
some time by Israel’s diplomatic establishment. In the halls of the Foreign Ministry, an agency with a notorious progressive political slant, many senior officials are still reeling from the shock triggered by this new escalation of anti-Israel political discourse. It was probably for this reason that, according to the Prime Minister’s Office, Netanyahu himself briefed Israeli ambassadors on how to conduct interviews and deliver diplomatic addresses during the course of the recent conflict. Israel’s international representatives are
