Witness to a Witness
A reply to Ed Rettig
This post is a response to Ed Rettig, author of the Substack
(“We are witnesses” in Aramaic.) He wrote this post which elicited a harsh comment from me:
He countered by mentioning my comment in a new, thoughtful post:
To really understand the following you need to read those posts (you’re welcome, Ed). Still, for those short on time I will try to represent fairly what Ed has been saying.
The Moral Necessity of Absolute Victory Over Hamas
This is a quote from the second paragraph of his first post:
His supposed obsession with some sort of total defeat of Hamas illustrates his pathology. It is not an honest expression of a rational goal for the war against Hamas. It is a marketing tool, a slogan in his eternal election campaign. Netanyahu seeks to present himself in a way that he thinks will play well with his voting base and give him advantages in negotiations. His adopted persona is your extremist old uncle. You know the type, even if none of your biological uncles fit the description. He's on the crazy side. He's done some loony things in his day, but you know he loves you. As the crazy old uncle, Netanyahu enters any negotiations with the leverage that abusive people hold: "Hold me back, or I will do something crazy!"
I pray to God that Bibi is unequivocally obsessed with a total defeat of Hamas. I pray that all our leaders, political and military, share the same obsession. This is not something open for discussion. At least not until the cries of our slaughtered brothers and sisters are quieted. When will that be? Never. So, to define the term of total defeat of Hamas it is this: No rockets, No bombs, no attack tunnels, no gang-rapes, no beheadings, no baby-burnings in front of parents, no damn anything. Nothing. Forever. Never again. If the enemy wants to preserve an “idea” of Hamas, fine. Why should we care if they want to play-act underground? As long as they know that if they act on this idea and raise their heads, they will be killed.
It doesn't work all that well because Netanyahu's cold, disturbing personality makes it difficult to convey the sense that the uncle loves you. Netanyahu doesn't emote as others do, blush when he lies, or attend funerals for hostages or soldiers. Behind each PR maneuver lies just another maneuver.
Ed is talking here about Netanyahu as crazy uncle. (Tip to the author: if it doesn’t work well, do not include it). It doesn’t work well because the salient point of a “crazy uncle” is not whether he loves you. It is that despite his craziness, the family loves him. That’s the direction of love when it comes to a crazy uncle. That is obviously not what Ed wants to suggest when he compares Netanyahu to a crazy uncle. Again, I pray that our enemies see Netanyahu as crazy, capable of anything. They need to be running scared, and they will be.
Straw Man, Straw Man, Straw Man.
Ed quoted IDF spokesman Hagari:
The latest iteration of this behavior came in response to the altogether banal words of the IDF spokesperson, Rear Adm. Hagari, who stated the obvious: "Hamas is an idea. Anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong. The political echelon needs to find an alternative – or it will remain." Hagari punctured the balloon of Netanyahu's posturing that seeks to continue the war for "total victory" without articulating a clear goal for the morning after.
By saying what he said, Hagari exposed himself as a simpleton, a shallow buffoon who should never be seen on the public stage again. That he is still in our lives is a sign of the times. A little history. This position, the IDF spokesman, had a caterpillar-to-butterfly moment. It was during the first Gulf War, when Israel shamefully agreed not to attack Iraq, and to swallow the American-served frog of absorbing Scud attacks, in order to preserve the “Arab alliance” against Saddam. What was Shamir thinking, that the Arab nations would respect us for showing restraint in the face of ballistic missile attacks? What was made clear was that Israel had become the whore of America, as she remains to this day. But on television, to deflect the shame, was a cool, calm and collected individual named Nachman Shai, the IDF spokesman. He explained what was happening, he instructed us on what to do in case of an attack, he calmed us and became a star, and he eventually parlayed that performance into a seat in the Knesset. But let me deconstruct his performance. His calming voice was telling us: “Drop your trousers, bend over, and take what’s coming to you.” Our enemies took note. On October seventh, the terrorists filmed themselves raping girls in front of their parents, gently urging them to admit that they were enjoying the treatment that they were receiving, before being stabbed in the vagina and left to bleed to death. Today Nachman Shai is commenting on events as an “expert.” The window dressing that is the IDF spokesman is a perfect candidate for being replaced by artificial intelligence, because as it stands, it is only a source of real ignorance. For example:
"Hamas is an idea. Anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong. The political echelon needs to find an alternative – or it will remain."
“Hamas is an idea.” Up until his moment of ignorance when Hagari opened his mouth and uttered these words, the entire world knew that this term signified the actual people doing what they do. For Israelis, Hamas meant the actual enemy killing us, and for the supporters of Hamas, it meant the exact same thing. What’s not clear?
“Anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.” Notice that he did not say: “Anyone who thinks that we can eliminate the idea of Hamas is wrong.” Which of course Netanyahu, a man well-read in history, never said and would never say. We are not dealing with a straw man here, we are dealing with an imbedded straw man, hidden in syntax. Two sentences, a one-two punch to common sense. Note to the Israeli Parliament: make room for Hagari, he’s on his way.
A Banal Truth?
In typical Netanyahu fashion, when challenged by Hagari's statement of a banal truth, his office released a statement that side-stepped. He did not acknowledge the accuracy of the criticism or take responsibility for demagogically misleading the public. The text of the response did not even deny Hagari's statement: "'Netanyahu has defined one of the war's objectives as the destruction of Hamas's military and governmental capabilities,' his office tweeted in response. 'The IDF is, of course, committed to this.'"
If what the IDF spokesman said was true, it would hardly be banal. It would be tragic to the extreme.
“The text of the response did not even deny Hagari's statement: “
Hagari made two statements, conflating two conflicting meanings. How could such statements be denied? How can they be addressed at all? However, Netanyahu was compelled to reply.
"'Netanyahu has defined one of the war's objectives as the destruction of Hamas's military and governmental capabilities,' his office tweeted in response. 'The IDF is, of course, committed to this.'"
Straightforward, without hedging, and without insulting the IDF spokesman whose overstepping demanded at least an insult, if not a firing, Netanyahu framed his terms. Total victory includes the destruction of Hamas’s military and governmental capabilities. That statement is clear enough. It is not only an achievable objective, but also a moral necessity. We can leave the “Idea of Hamas” to the Ivy League.
A Valuable Follow-Up
Now look what Ed did in a follow-up post:
A Substack writer whose work I read often and appreciate,
@Ehudneor, got me thinking. He wrote a note in response to my recent post on Netanyahu suggesting that my post was “nothing but ‘but Bibi.’” I disagree with him, but that is not the point. The critical point is, how do I know I successfully wrote more than a screed against a failed leader? I believe I am correct in my assessment, but that self-justifying sense of my righteousness will not do. It reminds me of a story that may be apocryphal. In the 1950s, two larger-than-life personalities dominated the dovish Leftist MaPaM party. They were Meir Yaari and Yaakov Hazan. Hazan was a fierce ideological polemicist. At one point, the MaPaM Central Committee debated an issue into the night without resolving it. (It is hard to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a Marxist pin, after all.) They resolved to continue the debate in the morning. Hazan appeared the next day and made the legendary announcement: “I was up all night thinking about our debate, weighing the points others made against the points I made. Finally, I concluded that I was right!” Hazan’s ideological over-confidence is a permanent fixture among our leaders, Left, Right, and Center. Let’s face it: it also plays a role among us, the citizens who fight the wars and pay the bills. Does it plague bloggers who want to evaluate their work?
This is touching to me in so many ways, and not because he mentions
. I suggest that Ed, though not conceding mistaken thinking, still wants to re-evaluate. Who does that? I will tell you. Honest people. That, my friends, is what we want in writers. He then proceeds to bring a story to illustrate his point, and this is his best writing of both posts. What touched me while reading the passage was how easy it was to chuckle at the shenanigans of the crazy leftists. Those nuts! Then this:Hazan’s ideological over-confidence is a permanent fixture among our leaders, Left, Right, and Center. Let’s face it: it also plays a role among us, the citizens who fight the wars and pay the bills. Does it plague bloggers who want to evaluate their work?
At this precise point in reading that, and at this point in writing this, I found, and find myself, Ed’s student. Though Ed might say after reading what I’ve written here that I could use a bit more re-evaluating, I would answer: that’s it for now. Keep writing and we’ll meet again.
So here it is again:
p.s. His story reminded me of a story, which will be my next post, so thanks for that too, Ed.
Thanks Ehud. I appreciate the tone and content of our conversation. It makes blog writing a kind of limud bihevruta, the learning in teams of two, characteristic of yeshivas where the learners debate each other as much as they debate and analyze the text. It is the most effective learning technique of which I am aware! The record shows that when it comes to accurately understanding reality, we all have a lot to learn!
There is one point I want to clarify. I was not suggesting less than complete military and political defeat of Hamas. We agree on that goal for the war and I think an overwhelming majority of Israelis do as well.
What I was pointing to was the unreliability of Netanyahu when he uses the term "total victory." The term is useless as a clarifier of his goals, or of any goals. My point was the pathology of the man's conduct and his conduct of our nation's affairs. I think this lack of clarity was deliberate, in a pathological way. I also think Hagari's statement was simply a common sense clarification of why the term is useless as anything but a shallow slogan. That was the reason Tzchi Hanegbi used almost identical language speaking recently at the Herzliah Conference. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-plan-to-replace-hamas-to-begin-in-northern-gaza-in-coming-days-hanegbi/].
May we know better days than these,
Anan Sahadei
This conversation is profound on many levels. It is honest, and it is a conversation!
I don’t know what to think of Bibi, and he will probably be a gonner when all has come out. But he is such an easy scapegoat for people who hated him before. It’s sort of like Jew hatred: it changes its colors according to the times.
You have expressed the idea so clearly, Mr. Neor (Rabbi Neor?). Like Nikki Haley says, “Finish them.”