RUTHFULLY YOURS

When the ceasefire in Gaza broke down last week, Israel was roundly accused of escalating the violence. World leaders called for ‘restraint’ and condemned the resumption of the war as ‘unjustifiable’ and ‘intolerable’. But, typically for this conflict, this isn’t the full picture. From the off, Hamas showed it is not a good-faith partner for peace. It paraded hostages in grotesque ceremonies, flagrantly lied about which hostages were alive or dead, and used the pause in fighting to rearm and prepare for more attacks.

Writer and broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti joined The Brendan O’Neil Show last week to discuss why the ceasefire was always doomed to fail. What follows is an edited extract from that conversation. Listen to the full thing here.

Brendan O’Neill: What do you make of the resumption of hostilities between Israel and Hamas?

Jonathan Sacerdoti: Israel found itself trapped in an untenable situation. Active combat had largely ceased, and Hamas was regrouping and strengthening its position. At the same time, Hamas wasn’t releasing any more hostages, because phase one of the agreement had ended. Humanitarian aid intended for the citizens of Gaza was, once again, being taken control of by Hamas.

Hamas appeared very comfortable with that position. It miscalculated, assuming that internal political disputes within Israel would stop decisive action.

It also perhaps misinterpreted US diplomatic engagement. The US had sent Adam Boehler, its special envoy for hostage response, to negotiate directly with Hamas. Hamas leaders might have seen that as a sign of America’s willingness to tolerate them. So, from Hamas’s perspective, everything seemed good.

In effect, that added up to Israel deciding to resume the war. It was a strategic decision. Israel took out quite a few senior Hamas leaders in the first night of air strikes.

O’Neill: Hamas clearly hasn’t been a serious partner in peace. Why should Israel have to live next door to an existential enemy?

Sacerdoti: Nothing was working for Israel, except for the fact it was getting hostages back during phase one of the ceasefire deal. That is the central fact that we have to remember. Hundreds of people have been kept in horrific conditions, deliberately tortured, starved and killed.

If we’re looking at the letter of the law, Hamas broke the ceasefire many times over. For example, it sent back the body of a Palestinian woman, rather than an Israeli woman’s body as part of the hostage exchange.

Other very important factors have changed. The Trump administration has explicitly supported Israel’s efforts to weaken Hamas. That’s quite a difference from how things were under Joe Biden. Israel has also appointed a new head of the IDF, Eyal Zamir, who advocates for a much more aggressive strategy.

There is also more substantial military support now flowing from the US. The blockages the Biden administration would periodically place on shipments of weapons and ammunition have gone. All of those factors have come together now, and that’s why what we’re seeing is less likely to be a short, sharp shock.

O’Neill: 7 October denialism was almost instantaneous among the left-wing, activist section of society. Were you shocked by that?

Sacerdoti: The fact that it has become a left-wing issue is so strange to me. There is nothing progressive about standing up for a fanatical, Islamist worldview. When some of the ‘pro-Palestine’ crowd say things like, ‘Israel brought 7 October on itself’, I can’t think of anything that would justify the kidnapping of babies and old women, or keeping hostages and deliberately starving and torturing them.

I also don’t know how you could think that Israel deserved the events of 7 October, but not think Hamas brought Israel’s response upon itself. Deep inside, these people must know that this is not a logical position, nor a moral one.

O’Neill: What have you made of these anti-Israel protest movements?

Sacerdoti: It’s not the hysteria or the mobs that bother me the most, though they do bother me a lot. It’s the broader climate around them.

For example, there was the Israeli man who was recently kidnapped by three Muslims in Wales. They lured him to a cottage they had rented and tried to tie him to a radiator. Luckily, he managed to escape. They sounded like three morons, and thank goodness for that. But this story received so little media coverage. I couldn’t understand how it wasn’t frontpage news across most of the media. That’s the stuff that worries me. An Israeli Jewish man was kidnapped, and people have treated it as though it isn’t that remarkable.

So, I’m not optimistic about the anti-Israel movement at all. Even if it does quieten down, I don’t think any of it is going in the right direction.

O’Neill: What do you make of Labour’s planned Islamophobia law, and the obsession with Islamophobia among the ruling classes more broadly?

Sacerdoti: The issue is about whether people can criticise religions. As a Jewish person, I think people should be welcome to criticise Judaism. In fact, Judaism as a faith welcomes debate and discussion – it’s how the religion has developed over the years.

It’s a problem when critiquing, analysing or criticising Islam is forbidden. Because that’s basically a blasphemy law. In this country, we wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to criticise Christianity. We must also be allowed to do the same for Muslims or, more importantly, Islamic organisations or states.

That does not mean you should be able to do anything you like to Muslims and hate people for being Muslim. But it’s clear what the difference is. The effort to make a new definition around Islamophobia is, in my mind, probably a calculated move to pull the rug out from under the feet of Jews fighting anti-Semitism.

Jonathan Sacerdoti was talking to Brendan O’Neill on The Brendan O’Neill Show. Listen to the full conversation here: