When Democrats held their convention in Chicago in 1968, in the midst of extraordinary dissension about the war in Vietnam and when we all knew (for better or for worse) that we were on the cusp of The Age of Aquarius, The Age of Aquarius (the last eight words to be sung, not read), we had a hard time trying to decide if we wanted to watch the shouting inside the convention hall or the shouting outside on the streets (and in the parks). Hopefully, this week’s Democratic convention, back in Chicago, will hold less drama, but……

the advocates for a Gaza ceasefire will be out in big numbers, with some estimates ranging up to 100,000 protesters and marchers. While each of these marchers will have their own ideas as to why they are marching, and what they would like to see happen, the overarching goal is to influence the Democratic ticket to change the country’s policies towards the conflict, the goal being a ceasefire, and the cessation of the United States sending military equipment to Israel that can be used in Gaza where it can continue to be used against non-combatant citizens, including children. They point to a number of things, including an American law that prohibits the transfer of military supplies to foreign governments who might (could? are likely to?) use them in furtherance of war crimes. And they point to various activities of the Israeli Defense Forces which they (and, to be sure, others) have concluded constitute war crimes.

As I have said before, the leadership on neither side seems to want a ceasefire. That makes things tough. I think there are two main reasons for this. First, each side wants to win a war that may be impossible for either side to win. Hamas wants to so destabilize and isolate Israel that it will in effect destroy itself, giving non-Jewish Palestinians the right to take over the governance of the entire area (with or without some Jews remaining). Israel’s current ultra, ultra, ultra right wing leadership wants to rid both Gaza and the West Bank of any semblance of Arab governance, and certainly to lessen the number of Arab residents, leading to a larger Israel. In other words, each side wants control from the river to the sea.

The second reason is that the leadership on each side wants to maintain its personal control of the two governmental bodies. Benjamin Netanyahu wants to remain out of prison on his various corruption charges and, in order to do so, is willing to bring together a coalition of right wing political parties who are unabashedly in favor of Arab displacement and Jewish expansion. Yahya Sinwar, political leader of Hamas, wants to stay alive (for one thing), but wants to make sure that the Palestinians do not fall under the influence of rival political groups on either the left (Islamic Jihad) or the right (the Palestinian Authority).

Both sides put their rationales in front of a third factor. That is, they both put long term goals, and short term personal status and protection, above the interests of their current citizens. If 40,000 Palestinians have been killed to date (that is Hamas’ claim), that means there are 40,000 martyrs. If it becomes, 80,000, glory to God. If the continuation of war in Gaza stokes more conflict in the West Bank (where for the first time in decades the Israeli government has approved a brand, spanking new settlement), or if it even brings about deeper conflict with Hezbollah forces in Lebanon or with Iran itself, so be it. It will be a tough conflict, Israeli leadership says, but we will survive and come out on top.

A few other things are clear. The Israeli lobby in the United States is very strong and very well funded, and is composed these days not only of numerous Jewish moneyed individuals, but has the support of much of right wing Christian America. Supporting the cut-off of military supplies to Israel, which after all is our ally and is a democracy and is refuge of the Jewish world, could come at a heavy political cost. If it comes at a truly heavy political cost, the choice would do no good, since the weakened advocate of the cut-off might never be elected in the first place. Refusal to cut off military supplies, on the other hand, could simply lead to continuing and growing protests, which could have a wide effect across the country, including increasing antisemitism, among other things.

So it is a real dilemma, and will constitute an early test for Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz.

I think it was Golda Meir long ago who said that it was a tragedy that young Israelis had to be killed in battle. But she added that it was a bigger tragedy that young Israelis had to kill, and learn to kill, young Arabs.

I think this is right, and it was the reason it was so difficult last night (Sunday night) to watch Ayman Mohyeldin on MSNBC when he told of camps being run by Israel in the Negev where Arabs captured from Gaza are being held, and where there have been many allegations of torture, including sexual torture, claimed by prisoners and their advocates. As you may have read, there have been several Israeli soldiers detained on account of these charges, and there have been large protests against their detention. It is one more very disturbing aspect of this entire situation, and parallels accusations of the way some West Bank settlers have treated their Arab neighbors and, of course, of some accusations of improper treatment of the citizens of Gaza inside of Gaza.

It’s easy (sort of) to discount all of this and say either (a) they are exaggerating for obvious reasons, or (b) well, this is war. But the allegations are too pervasive to allow us to do this. One of the documents cited last night on Ayman was a recent paper issued by B’tselem, a left-wing (to be sure) Israeli human rights organization, titled “Welcome to Hell: the Israeli Prison System as a Network of Torture Camps”. You can read it at http://www.btselem.org. In fact, the entire B’tselem website is instructive (they castigate Palestinians as well as Jewish Israelis), if you can stomach it.

Those of us Americans who think fondly of Israel for all sorts of good reasons, who have traveled there back and forth many times, and who have relatives and friends there, find it hard to believe some of these things, or – if we do – rationalize them as being necessary since Israel is under constant threat and/or attack by its neighbors. But we may be getting to the point where these excuses just won’t fly.

With the current Israeli government seeming now entrenched for an extended period of time, and with no chance of its Prime Minister giving up his power and immunity, and no chance of his dismissing his most despicable ministers for fear of upsetting his entire coalition, Israel may be in for more than just a bumpy road. A paradigm shift (yes, with international help) is crucial before Israel becomes not a light to the nations, but a source of perpetual darkness. But how and when such a shift will take place is far from clear. And Golda Meir’s statement will not only remain true, but will become something more. It may become a meme (I really don’t know what that word means, but others use it whenever they want, so I will, too) that will accurately describe the country for a long time to come.