A fly came into our house yesterday, through the front door. It didn’t want to be here, that’s for sure. It buzzed and buzzed and flew around with great angst and great energy. I felt for it. I didn’t want to swat it, I wanted to free it. But I couldn’t figure out how to do that.

So far this morning, I haven’t seen it or heard it. I assume it is gathering its strength and will continue its hopeless quest for freedom later during the day.

Similarly, a few weeks ago, I saw one lone ant, crawling around a counter in an upstairs bathroom. I wondered how it got there? Through a series of walls? Unlikely. More likely it attached itself to someone’s clothes and, unbeknownst to all, found it self away from its fellow ants in our bathroom. It was a very active ant, and I really didn’t want to harm it. So I didn’t. And I was surprised when, the next day, I saw it again. Or, at least I assume it was the same ant, diligently looking for a way out, a way where it could get on with its life. I did not see it again after that second day. (I didn’t ask Edie about it, for fear that she might have engaged in some violent action that would lead me to have to make a citizen’s arrest. And then where would I be?)

But it’s not only ants and flies that find themselves in situations that they had never dreamed about. It happens to people all of the time. Think, for example, of the 2 million people of Gaza. They aren’t by themselves, but they are as hopeless as if they were. And then there are those non-Americans who feel forced to leave their homes and come to America, and especially those who had no choice, such as the children who are brought here by a parent, and who all of a sudden find themselves a target of an incessant manhunt. Or the millions who live in, say, Sudan, who I am sure have no idea what is going on that leads to constant violence, hunger and danger.

What can one do to help any of them when you see that the world’s most prominent and selfless individuals are stymied?

I saw the results of a recent study performed by a group from Yale about the relationship between public opinion and governmental policy. I was surprised at the results. I am not looking at the polling information now, and I didn’t try to memorize any of the details, but the gist of the findings were that governments did what governments wanted to do and, to the extent they were influenced by anyone outside the governments, it was influence from wealthy people who helped keep the governments in power. The influence of the masses of citizens, particularly when expressed in mass movements, protests, marches and so forth, was almost non-existent in changing or redirecting government policy. It may make you feel good, but that’s about it.

I wasn’t anticipating that as a result of such a study and, again, I didn’t look at its methodology too closely (read: at all). But I found it quite depressing.

So what do you do about, say, Gaza? How would you feel if you were living there, had had at least 18 months of hell rained down upon you, had relatives or friends killed, no job, no food to speak of, and so on. And then you hear that Israel, your enemy, was not letting up, but was going to increase their military operations exponentially, drive the entire population of Gaza into a small section of a very small territory, and maintain an indefinite military presence, continuing to control all imports?

On the other hand, if you lived in Israel, although your physical danger might be less imminent, you had the long term security of your children and their children to worry about, you had guilt feelings (perhaps) over the treatment of innocent Gazans, but you knew that if you let up the pressure, you could quickly be in a situation like they find themselves in today.

As an outsider, on the third hand, what are you to think?

As for me, and I have said this before, my thinking today is different from my thinking several years ago. Today, I actually think that permitting, or encouraging, the majority of residents of Gaza to leave is the best alternative. It’s a big world, and they can find their place elsewhere, and if they can’t, their children will be able to. No good will come from 2 million people, with a relatively high birth rate, staying in a territory about the size of the City of Philadelphia, with no way to travel in or out or control their own economic destiny.

Let me be clear about something else. I blame their situation largely on the Arab leaders, who have refused to recognize or come to terms with Israel or a Jewish population in Palestine over the past 100 years or so. Had the United Nations partition of Palestine been accepted in 1947, none of this would have happened, and the area could have been peaceful and prosperous (putting aside the human predilection to always make things complicated). And the Palestinians’ failure to recognize Israel or come to terms with its existence has led not only to occasional skirmishes and wars, but to growing feelings in Israel that the Arab enemy was eternal and could never be accommodated.

The current situation in Gaza cannot be allowed to continue. And Hamas, the governing body of Gaza, a body now with no capacity to govern, is not going to give up.

Donald Trump’s concept that Gaza should be turned over to the United States of America, Canada, Greenland and Panama is ridiculous, to be sure. But someone, perhaps the Arab Peninsula countries working along with Israel need to come up with a way to (1) displace Hamas, (2) free the remaining hostages, (3) relocate the majority of the current population of Gaza safely and with assistance, (4) come up with a viable plan for the future of the land itself, and (5) use this opportunity to set boundaries and rules for the future of the West Bank. And the first of these 5 necessary steps? Provide for the safe transfer of Gazans somewhere where they will not be considered permanent refugees, but will be able to be integrated into their new lands of residence.

Our role? Money, support, advice. And, yes, we need to agree to take in a share of those being displaced from Gaza. The number? Not sure. How about 180,000? And I would concentrate on family solidity in making the choices of whom to admit. I wouldn’t work too hard trying to eliminate those whose pasts might make them be (or appear to be) dangerous. We can handle that, if we set our minds to it.

I understand that if I was reading what I just wrote, rather than writing it, I would say: That is a ridiculous idea. And I am not sure I would even argue against my arguing against it. But we have to start the conversation somewhere, don’t we? We can’t just watch bombs being dropped on innocent people, can we? Yes, I guess I already forgot what the Yale studies showed. It showed that what we think is not relevant. Our writings, our protests, and so forth? Meaningless. Completely meaningless.

This human condition sure is depressing, isn’t it?

I will concentrate elsewhere. Right now, I am watching a bunch of cardinals marching into the Sistine Chapel to select a new pope. Okay, now imagine the Sistine Chapel (beautiful as it is) sealed off from the outside world (as it will be), and the cardinals being dependent on the outside world for food and sustenance, which is not forthcoming. Or imagine not the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel in this position, but the prisoners we sent to CECOT in El Salvador. Or the impoverished families in Sudan. Or……you get the picture. Or the people of Gaza.