When does “never again” mean never again?

Joseph Henson, President

Change is a theme that is often discussed. There is the very successful book about change from 1999 that is still read today: “Who Moved My Cheese?” Change is at the heart of my favorite song from “Fiddler on the Roof:” “sunrise, sunset swiftly flow the days.” Probably the best-known quote about change is from Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who in 500 BCE, famously wrote, “There is nothing more constant than change.”

As Jews, we celebrated Purim last March, which took place about the time Heraclitus was writing. The Purim story tells of a reversal of destiny as Queen Esther, whose Jewishness was revived when confronted with calamitous events placed before her, puts her life on the line to stop the impending destruction of the Jews at the hand of unremorseful antisemites.

Since that event 2,500 years ago, one thing that has not seemed to change is the recurring blood lust by a revolving set of individuals for the uncontrolled slaughter, torture and moral depravity toward the Jewish people. The latest iteration of this was the savage terrorist attack of Oct. 7. This was the wickedest mass slaying of Jews since the Shoah.

Almost immediately, Israel’s allies issued statements of strong support. In Israel on Oct. 18, the President said “to families of the hostages: You’re not alone. We’re working with partners throughout the region, pursuing every avenue to bring home those who are being held captive by Hamas.” Now, not even six months removed from that horrendous event, comes a neck-snapping change from one side to the other. On March 25, the United States’ UN delegation, by abstaining, allowed passage of a Security Counsel cease-fire resolution without requiring at least a partial return of hostages.

With this possible rift between the U.S. and Israel, Hamas and Iran’s leaders are delighting in the cease-fire call and the United States’ non-vote, saying a “fateful turning point” as Iran praised Hamas for proving the “myth” of Israel's “invincibility” in the region. Both boasting that the existence of even a handful of Hamas fighters and leaders is a Hamas victory as Israel could not dislodge them from Rafah.

With that abstention, Hamas (again) has Israel right where it wants them. Should Israel begin military operations in Rafah to achieve its justified objectives of removing Hamas as Gaza’s governing authority and eliminating Hamas as an organized military force with the capability of carrying out another Oct. 7 pogrom, Hamas can then cry “Occupiers,” “Colonizers,” “Palestinian Genocide” even louder.

Simultaneously, Hamas turns its powerful PR megaphone up another notch to provoke the students and faculty at generally elite universities in the U.S. and Europe, and their compatriots, in the street. They are protesting with the intent of increasing pressure on elected officials, not to do the right thing, but to do what the protesters deem is the politically correct action of cease-fire and withdrawal. For the politicians, it is quite likely the politically expedient thing to enhance election support among some voter segments.

By the time this article is in publication, we should know if Israel has accepted a cease-fire that will last until Hamas breaks it again. Since the establishment of the Gaza blockade, Israel has been involved in many military confrontations with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza — rocket attacks, incendiary ballons and tunnel incursions. Cease-fires have proceeded the last four previous major hostilities between Israel and Hamas: in 2008–2009, 2012, 2014 and 2021.

If Israel does not eliminate Hamas from Rafah this time, will this cease-fire be different than those that came before it? Just when does “never again” actually mean never again?