By Grant Newman
The current conflict between Israel and Hamas raises not just the question of whether Israel has the right to defend itself — and more specifically whether the State of Israel has the duty to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks — but also raises the question of Israel's sovereignty as it pertains to developing state policy. The only party in the current conflict between Israel and Hamas that genuinely has Israel's interest in mind is the State of Israel and its citizens. Even the United States is conflicted, as the Biden Administration attempts to juggle America's historic support for Israel with a Democratic Party succumbing more and more to anti-Semitism. Israel must stand firm in the face of global anti-Israel sentiment and not allow such anti-Israel sentiment to influence its domestic decision-making mechanisms in order to ensure that Israel’s future remains in Israel’s hands.
The past week has seen protests around the world supporting Hamas and condemning Israel. A pro-Hamas protest in front of the Consulate General of Israel in Midtown Manhattan resulted in the closure of 2nd Avenue. Hamas supporters in London cried profanities and curses repugnantly aimed at Jews (and, even more repugnantly, their daughters), while their compatriots in Los Angeles attacked diners at a restaurant after asking them whether they were Jewish (they were). Similar occurrences and mass protests were seen across the United States, Great Britain, and Europe. For all the talk of anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitism being entirely separate categories, such events indicate that there is an alarming level of cross-pollination occurring between these two supposedly separate categories. Nevertheless, these non-Israeli protesters undoubtedly have sway over their own non-Israeli political leaders, and these non-Israeli political leaders in turn are trying to influence Israel’s political leaders.
Meanwhile, in the diplomatic realm, these same non-Israeli political leaders, who are beholden to the protesters at home, are increasingly calling for a deescalation of the conflict, and talks of negotiating a ceasefire are reportedly ongoing, with the United Nations holding votes on the matter. As with everything the United Nations does, these votes serve no legitimate purpose, lack any binding effect whatsoever on Israel, and should be entirely ignored by serious individuals. Likewise, mutual efforts between the United States and Russia to find solutions to the conflict should be viewed with skepticism, as the two powers look to the Middle East not so much for the sake of the Middle East, but rather as a proxy situation through which they can sort out their own relations which have effectively been put on life-support since Biden entered the White House and called Putin a “killer”. Indeed, the United States and Russia are self-interested parties on issues pertaining to Israel, and any efforts to assert pressure on Israel have undoubtedly been calculated according to an algorithm meant to benefit first and foremost the United States and Russia, respectively.
Whatever the global consensus regarding the Israel conflict might be, a substantial portion of Israelis — the backbone of the nation of Israel — appear committed to continuing military operations against Hamas. Polls by the Times of Israel and Channel 9 suggest that between 70 percent and 80 percent of responding Israelis support a continuation of Operation Guardian of the Walls, with many residents of Israel's southern regions voicing support for a continuation of military operations if doing so will result in an extended period of peace. Whether the Times of Israel and Channel 9 polls are representative of Israel's population as a whole is perhaps debatable. But these polls do suggest that significant portions of Israelis — who, unlike the protestors in the United States and Europe and their political leaders in Washington and Paris, are in Hamas' line of fire — are in favor of continuing Operation Guardian of the Walls.
In the face of such worldly influences, Israel must act in such a way that will enable it to maintain its sovereignty and ensure that Israel's domestic mechanisms are making the decisions that affect Israel, and not allow outside forces to influence those decisions. For example, if Israel were to decide to a ceasefire at this moment in the conflict after the aforementioned wave of anti-Israel protests and anti-Semitic attacks, then Israel risks setting a dangerous precedent whereby it is willing to make such decisions based on outside pressure from foreign streets. In other words, a ceasefire now could signal to the rest of the world that if enough protesters take to the streets and maintain their presence there long enough, then international media outlets will promote an information campaign against Israel, foreign political leaders will be influenced to pressure Israel's political leaders, and Israel will ultimately acquiesce to the demands of the protesters. This would be a massive hit to Israel’s sovereignty as it would effectively cause Israel to become a hostage to anonymous protesters marching on foreign soil.
This is not necessarily to suggest that Operation Guardian of the Walls should continue solely for the purpose of showing the world that Israel will not give in to external street pressure. It would likely be unjust for a state to bomb an enemy simply to teach the world a lesson in sovereignty — even if the enemy were a terrorist organization and even if the world desperately needed such a lesson. Rather, Israel should enter into a ceasefire with Hamas only because it has concluded that doing so is in its national interest, and not because supporters of Hamas flooded the streets of foreign cities.
Oftentimes the means by which a decision is made are just as important as the decision itself. It is essential for Israel to make known to the world that, whatever decision it makes regarding the continuation of military operations against Hamas, such a decision was made without even the slightest bit of influence from Hamas' supporters in the West. By doing so, Israel can ensure that its future remains in its own hands.
Grant Newman graduated from Harvard Law School where he was an executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Grant was the recipient of the Federalist Society’s James Madison Award in 2019, and was active in the Alliance for Israel. Prior to law school, Grant graduated from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, with a degree in Business Strategy. Read full bio here.