What should the Israeli hierarchies be? What are the most important desiderata, and in what order of preference should they rank? The first is easy. All men of goodwill, Israeli or not, Jewish or not, should welcome the following goals:
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Ending Hamas. Improving the Israeli economy. The return of the hostages now languishing in Gaza. Accomplishing these tasks without spilling more IDF blood. Resolving the Supreme Court imbroglio. But which are the proper priorities? What is the ranking in terms of importance?
Before we answer this question, a confession. In even asking it, we are in grave danger of violating an important economic insight: marginalism. We are risking engaging in the diamonds-water fallacy.
Which is more important for human happiness? Diamonds or water? Obviously, the latter. Without it, we would all perish in a matter of hours, days at most. In comparison, the former are mere baubles. Yes, they are a "girl's best friend" but if she has to do with pearls, rubies, or gold, she will be just fine. Why, then, is a cupful of diamonds worth an immense more than an equal volume of water (there are free water fountains all over the place)? How to solve this paradox? We are never confronted with any such all-or-none choice. If we had to choose between all water and all diamonds, it would not be much of a challenge. In reality, we only have to select between a small or marginal amount of both, and diamonds win in a landslide. We have so much of the one, given our need for it, and so little of the other, given our desire, that the solution is obvious. Water beats out diamonds on a theoretical all-or-none basis, but when it comes to actual marginal decision-making, the reverse occurs.
But the present essay is an attempt to wrestle with the hierarchy between IDF lives, hostage return, and Hamas obliteration. (I think we can safely leave the economy, and the Supreme Court situation to another day). Which is the most important? With all due respect to marginalism, I think the demise of the terrorists takes first place. Without that, Israel is vulnerable, in a few years hence, to a reprise of October 7, 2023, and that would be intolerable. What is second on the list? I plunk for the return of the hostages, certainly, if this costs no more IDF lives than the number of these prisoners who would be repatriated but otherwise murdered. After all, harsh as it may sound, military men are more expendable. They are there to protect civilians, not the other way around.
Now for an entirely different set of rank orderings. There are roughly three means Israel can use to attain any or all of the three goals mentioned above. These are the following: denying humanitarian aid; bombing; invasion. I rank them in that precise order.
Invasion by IDF foot soldiers, even ensconced in tanks, is by far the most perilous and thus the worst of these three options. Already X number of the Israeli military have perished in their attempt to rid this scourge of civilization (in the initial version of this essay I placed an "X" where that number now appears; every day this figure creeps up, sometimes at a gallop; each day I am saddened by this increase. Every one of those lives is precious). Yes, the IDF is a far better fighting force than the murderous Hamas. But only by a small multiple. My guess is four to one. For every four such monsters killed, one hero dies.
Thus, I favor bombing Hamas back to the stone age vis a vis risking members of the IDF in fighting them. If it were a choice between the two modalities, I would remove each and every member of the Israeli military from Gaza, forthwith. This would be coupled with a heavily stepped-up initiative from the air. There, Israel is 100 to 1, maybe 1000 to 1, more effective than Hamas. Why not utilize the comparative advantage of the former compared to the latter, to employ yet another insight from the dismal science?
What about denying humanitarian aid? I find it preposterous that food, water, and medical supplies, are allowed to enter Gaza while Hamas still holds Israeli hostages. Yes, this means is horrid, perhaps, even likely more so than a massive bombing. But whose fault would it be if this method were employed? Israel's? Of course not. The blame would rest solely and squarely with Hamas. What people do not realize is that Hamas does not hold only some one hundred or so Israeli hostages. In addition, it has imprisoned in a similar manner some two million Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. If they starve, it will be all the fault of these despicable terrorists.
So, yes, I advocate not only an immediate pullback of all IDF personnel, but also a complete cessation of bombing with the hope that finally, Hamas will see the error of its ways, release all of its hostages, Jewish as well as Gazan, and surrender. Not one morsel in, not one person out, until total hostage release and capitulation. Not even one truck allowed in for every hostage let go. It is time, it is past time, to get serious.
Does this sound like the ravings of a lunatic? When I first thought of this idea, that is exactly how I, too, saw it. But, how is the present plan working out? Not at all too well. The Israeli hostages are still imprisoned. The IDF fatalities are piling up. Weeks of bombing has not attained any of the three ends mentioned above. It is time to try something else.
Biden, the UN, and all those who urge on the Israelis "proportionality" or warn against "genocide" rank these means in the reverse order. They call for a scalpel, not a bludgeon. They are more concerned about Gazan than Israeli deaths. They are apoplectic about the bombing. They would be appalled even more so about the proposal herein. They do not mind all that much about a body count pile-up of the IDF. They are no friends of the only democratic civilized country in the Middle East.
But will not the proverbial "world opinion" pounce upon the Israelis if they implement this plan? One response is to give the familiar Bronx cheer in response. Another is to realize that this source also bitterly opposes present bombing practice, and if you are going to be blamed anyway, it might as well be for some that works better, than not. But will not several countries in the area respond militarily? They had better not, if they value their safety.
