Jewish Lives Matter

The calls for Israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza are understandable, but they're misguided. Also Sidney Powell has flipped and we still don't have a Speaker of the House.

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.

Jewish Lives Matter

I have a longer piece coming out today on how the October 7 massacre — and how the reaction to it from progressives is having a catalytic effect on American Jews. But one point I wanted to hit on today is the rising calls for a cease-fire in Gaza.

A few days ago, Thomas Friedman called on the US to pressure Israel into not invading Gaza with some, um, creative logic.

If Israel announced today that it was forgoing, for now, a full-blown invasion of Gaza, who would be happy, and who would be relieved, and who would be upset? Iran would be totally frustrated, Hezbollah would be disappointed, Hamas would feel devastated — its whole war plan came to naught — and Vladimir Putin would be crushed, because Israel would not be burning up ammunition and weapons the U.S. needs to be sending to Ukraine. The settlers in the West Bank would be enraged.

Meanwhile, the parents of every Israeli soldier and every Israeli held hostage would be relieved, every Palestinian in Gaza caught in the crossfire would be relieved, and every friend and ally Israel has in the world — starting with one Joseph R. Biden — would be relieved. I rest my case.

This is a dreadful analysis. First, Hamas would be overjoyed not to be attacked by Israel’s military. Putting aside the obvious point that they wouldn't soon be dead, it would be an enormous propaganda victory for Israel to allow Hamas to remain in power after killing so many of its citizens. I can’t believe this even needs to be said.

Second, I can tell you who wouldn’t be relieved if Israel forgoes a full-blown invasion — the Israeli people. In the 13 days since Hamas killed more than 1300 Israelis in the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Palestinian militants are continuing to fire rockets into Israel, forcing Israeli civilians to scurry to safe rooms with their families. In addition, more than 200 Israelis remain hostages in Gaza, awaiting their release or, more likely, rescue. If Israel stands down, the message sent to Israelis — from their government — would be: your safety and security don’t matter. It would also send a message to Hamas that they can kill Israeli citizens and pay no significant price.

Lastly, the idea that Israel should implement a cease-fire means accepting the pre-October-7 status quo. It’s a demand that Israel tolerate a terrorist state on its border, seek no retribution for the butchering of its citizens, and accept the risk that Hamas can continue to threaten Israel with future attacks. Name any government in the world that would willingly allow that kind of situation.

Those who are calling for restraint are asking Israelis to accept the unacceptable.

I’m not oblivious to the risks of an Israeli invasion of Gaza (at Foreign Affairs, Marc Lynch lays out some of them). It will be ugly, and people will die needlessly. As I wrote a few days ago, I wish there was a way to square the circle on this, but alas, there isn’t. Quite simply, I’m at a loss to see any other approach that will protect Israel from future Hamas terror attacks.

I suspect that one of the reasons so many progressives are calling for restraint is a generalized aversion to war, a view with which I sympathize. But the tragic reality is that some wars are necessary — and this is one of them. Hamas must be destroyed, and Israelis must be protected from future atrocities. Any discussion about what happens in Gaza must begin at that starting point.

The Battle Of Mosul

Sky News

My good friend Jonathan Zasloff wrote a smart piece on the double standard of those calling for restraint in Gaza and the silence around the Battle of Mosul, which took place in 2016-17. With his permission, I’m republishing it here.

You might not have heard of the Battle of Mosul. I follow these things pretty closely, and I had not heard of it explicitly by name. I knew vaguely that coalition forces were moving north to destroy ISIS in 2016-2017, and we were going to win. We won.

And it was an absolute bloodbath, not just for the soldiers but for civilians. Amnesty International put it at nearly 6,000 civilians killed, and that was just for a small part of the battle. Other estimates have it at more than 40,000 civilians killed. These were all innocent people who most likely despised ISIS and were horribly persecuted by it. They were virtually all Arab, of course, although there were also substantial numbers of Kurds and Turkmen.

If there was an outcry in the West about it, I must have missed it. HRW and Amnesty International did issue reports setting forth their cases about violations of the laws of war -- which quickly disappeared onto bookshelves, gathering dust (or pixels).

As far as I know, no one said, "We need an immediate cease-fire because of the carnage this campaign is bringing to innocent civilians!" Certainly, no governments did. There were no emergency meetings of the Security Council or the United Nations Human Rights Council to decry it.

Did that mean that people didn't care about innocent civilians? No. Of course, they cared. What it meant is that they believed that this was worth it. ISIS was a horrific, brutal, genocidal terror group that had to be eliminated. And no one was saying, "Well, the Iraqi government brought it on itself because of the way that the Shiite majority together with Iran was oppressing Iraqi Sunnis [which of course, they had]."

You can see where this is going. When far fewer civilians are killed, Israel is put in the international dock. Why? Because preserving and protecting Israel is NOT seen as worth it. At some level, yes, this will endanger Jews, but no, that is not a reason to allow for civilian casualties.

I actually do not think that this is *necessarily* illegitimate. One of the many problems in international law lies in the neat and simple distinction between jus ad bellum -- just causes for war -- and jus in bello -- conducting war justly. But, like all legal distinctions, they blur. A lot. In the hard cases, they are inextricably linked.

We want to say, "The ends don't justify the means," but the problem is that we all know that the ends *might* justify the means in certain circumstances. If one person pushes an old lady in front of a bus, and another pushes her out of the way, we don't say, "Both sides push old ladies."

Back to the original point. Many people are saying, "Even though Hamas attacks were atrocious, we must protect innocent civilians." NO ONE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS. Certainly, no one said in 2016-17, "We must call a cease-fire against ISIS because of the terrible danger to Iraqi civilians."

What they are saying is, "Even though the Hamas attacks were atrocious, we want to protect the lives of innocent Palestinian civilians, and if that means that innocent Jewish civilians must be put at risk going forward, then that is a price worth paying." Alternatively, they are saying, "well yes, Hamas is terrible, but not as terrible as ISIS, because they are in some way representative of a legitimate political goal, so Jews just need to suck it up." That is a coherent, principled position. But while I don't want to impugn people's conscious motives, there used to be a word for that.

The Beatings Will Continue

I wish I could say something clever about the absolute shit show unfolding in the House of Representatives, but there’s no good way to polish this turd.