(1) What does it mean to wipe out Hamas? That’s an important question. A corollary question is: who is Hamas?

I don’t have the answer to either of these questions. Maybe Israel does (and maybe even the U.S. does), but I don’t. I ask this question for two basic reasons (and several other subordinate reasons). I heard yesterday that there have been about 15,000 Gazans killed so far in this war, and that of those, about 1/3 were Hamas and 2/3 were not. I have also heard that over 60% have been either women or children.

Assuming those are accurate statistics, what does it mean? None of the children could be Hamas. But what percentage of the men killed are Hamas? Of the women? Do we even know exactly who has been killed? Can someone say that a man named Abdul bin Abdul was killed and he was (or was not) Hamas?

And if we can’t identify Hamas, how do we know when Israel has destroyed Hamas and how do we know that 2/3 of those killed have not been Hamas?

See my problem? I can make it even more complicated. We are told that the major leaders of Hamas are in Qatar, or maybe in Lebanon. Until these men are killed, does Hamas still exist? And, putting Hamas aside, what about other Islamist groups, such as Islamic Jihad? Assuming some of those already killed were affiliated with Islamic Jihad, are they part of the 2/3 killed so far in Gaza who are not Hamas? And if that is right, how many of them have been killed?

(2) I read an interesting article – It was titled “How Israel Missed Its Chance to Eliminate the Leadership of Hamas”, but was really more generally about proportionality in war, when responding to an attack. When does a response become too much. It’s in part a technical article, looking at various definitions created over the years, which focus on things like the military importance of the response, the likelihood of success, the anticipated collateral damage, the danger of not going so far. On this basis, the author determines that, notwithstanding all of the criticism thrown at it, Israel is within its rights to inflict death and injury on civilians.

The article also focuses on examples, citing instances where Israel did not pursue certain enemies because of the fear of collateral damage, where the result was that the spared enemy became responsible for many more innocent Israeli deaths than Israel would have killed had the Israelis targeted the specific individual.

The author then talks about the Allies in World War II, when they did not institute any proportionality analysis and killed untold numbers, writing them off as a cost of winning the war. He talks about the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. And he concludes that Israel is simply being held to a different, and unreasonable, standard.

The article was written by Shlomo Brody – not a name I new. I was surprised to see that he is a rabbi, and the author of a recent book, Ethics of Our Fighters: a Jewish View on War and Morality.

(3) The world seems to be adopting the definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. I have discussed it in some detail earlier. One of its facets is to equate certain statements opposed to Israeli policy as being within the definition of antisemitism.

For various reasons, I disagree with this. I think it is clear that one can be against various Israeli policies without being antisemitic, and I even think one can be against the existence of the state of Israel without being antisemitic (although I think in most cases today, they cannot be separated). I think, on the other hand, it is in the interest of the State of Israel to equate anti-Israel sentiments to evidencing antisemitism. And I think Israel has pushed along this identification when it passed the law that declared Israel a Jewish State, something I also disagreed with. I can devote a full post to how I, Jewish and pro-Israel, can hold this position. There isn’t enough time to do so now.

I just want to point out that the House of Representatives yesterday passed a resolution condemning antisemitism, using the IHRA definition. It is now the position of the House and those who speak against Israel are antisemitic. I find this very dangerous. I also want to point out that this resolution was passed by the Republican majority House, in spite of the majority of Democrats voting either no or present. And that the opposition to the resolution using the language it did was led by three Jewish representatives and it was in large part based on the use of the IRHA definition So I am not the only one holding the position I do.

But was this a good political move by the Democrats? Here, I would say it wasn’t. I think it will increase the concern of so many that the Democrat and Israel are drifting apart. I think it would have been better to state the reasons they wish the bill were drafted differently, but then to hold one’s nose and voting for it. But when is the last time the Democrats made a good political choice?

(4) Did you see yesterday’s hearing on campus antisemitism? I watched part of it, before C-Span cut off its TV coverage to cover the Senate voting on a newly nominated potential federal judge. The witnesses included the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn (all women, interestingly) and they were all questioned on the degree of pro-Palestinian and antisemitic activity on campus. I can’t say that I found any of the presidents’ answers satisfactory. They generally answered in platitudes about the importance of free speech – even if you don’t like the content – and the need to make sure it doesn’t cross the line – a line which is impossible both to describe and to recognize. They were being too careful in their answers, perhaps, shying away from specific instances, and not making any specific promises for the future.

On the other hand, the Congressional Republicans were, of course, even worse. Elena Stefanik was operating a decibel level which was hard to take, as she yelled and screamed at Harvard President Claudine Gray “I think you should resign!!!!!” All I could think of was how much Claudine Gay must think that Elena Stefanik (Harvard graduate, by the way) should herself resign.

(Digression: why in Congressional hearings are members of Congress allowed to yell and scream and berate and humiliate witnesses, while witnesses can’t respond in kind?)

And then there was Congressman Grothman from Wisconsin, who was focusing on diversity at Harvard. He was berating Gay for Harvard’s lack of diversity. Huh?, you may ask. Grothman was referring to support for Trump and to various statistics (probably not valid) that suggested that only 2% of Harvard faculty members voted for Trump (or supported Trump, or didn’t think that Trump was evil incarnate, or something), and that this was evidence that there was no diversity at Harvard. He asked Gay why she thought Harvard’s faculty was so slanted in their political views.

Gay’s response was double edged, to be sure. Harvard is very careful in selecting its faculty, she said (my words, not hers), always looking for the smartest and most talented in their field of study.