Dr. Chaim C. Cohen, whose PhD. is from Hebrew U., is a social worker and teacher at the Hebrew Univ. School of Social Work, and Efrata College.
Israel is still fighting a war for universal recognition of the 'legitimacy' of the Jewish people to establish a state of their own in the Land of Israel, seventy-seven years after its founding.
All of the present multi-nation calls for a "Palestine State' are in reality only thinly veiled antisemitic calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. All these diplomats know that there is no realistic option of a bi-national solution to the "Palestinian Arab problem'. In reality they are saying 'We want to give the Palestinians a state at the expense of the destruction of the Jewish State-as it now exists'.
Why , in the year 2025, 77 years after establishing our Jewish state, are so many 'well intentioned' diplomats- primarily liberal-left, openly willing to sacrifice the Jewish state, and thus also the Jewish people, on the bloody altar of Palestinian Arab demands?
To answer this question, two analyses are needed: one, a current geo-political analysis, and two, a historical -sociological analysis.
1. A current geo-political analysis of the eroding international legitimacy of our Jewish state
The liberal-left fails to take seriously the historical, factual legitimacy of a Jewish state, and the awesome dangers of a Palestinian Arab state
The world's 'educated liberal left elite' refuses to learn and look the simple, stark, undisputed following historical facts in the face: a) that the Jewish people were the real 'indigenous, culturally dominant' people of the land of Israel , from 1000 BCE to 300 CE, b) that they have suffered a cruel exile for almost two thousand years in which every hosting country persecuted them , c) for the last 150 years the Jewish people have miraculously struggled to return to their Homeland and successfully build a liberal, democratic, prosperous country , that has provided a renewed homeland for seven million Jews, and d) the Jewish state has provided a prosperous, secure , democratic civil society for its two million Israeli Arab citizens.
The same liberal-left elite sticks its head in the sand and also refuses to acknowledge that any possible 'Palestinian Arab state ' would be most likely a 'failed, dysfunctional, jihadist state'- like the one Hamas has created in Gaza over the last 17 years. It would be a poor, dangerous replica of all the destabilized, sectarian, feud ridden, severely non-democratic states surrounding Israel (like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt). Such a "Palestinian Arab" state would become a formula for ongoing, never-ending conflict, that would slowly destroy the Jewish state, and continue to ignite conflict in all of the Middle East.
Why does this liberal-left elite find it so hard to identify with the justness and legitimacy of the Jewish state's ongoing struggle for simple existence?
There is a historical-sociological explanation of the forces eroding the international legitimacy of our Jewish state, particularly among the liberal left
There are four reasons for the current erosion of the legitimacy of the Jewish state .
One, the conflict between Jews and Palestinian Arabs is an existential-nationalistic struggle not given to rational, 'win-win' solutions.
Two, Yihye Sinwar designed a brilliant strategy of urban insurgency, and the liberal-left failed to hold the Palestinian Arabs morally accountable for the war crimes and loss of civilian life on which the strategy was/is based.
Three, the increasing influence in the liberal-left,progressive belief in a relativistic , double standard of morality; that one set of moral standards applies to the 'oppressing' class (in this case Israel is the 'oppressor' because it is considered a 'colonial settler state'), and the Hamas/Palestinian Arabs who should be judged by a 'lower' set of morality as they are the 'oppressed' class.
Four, the rapidly rising 'comeback' of historic antisemitism
One: Israel's international legitimacy is eroding because it is still in the midst of a titanic, existential nationalistic struggle to survive, one not given to rational, compromise solutions.
The first reason for the eroding legitimacy of the Jewish state is that (tragically) the Jewish-Palestinian conflict is a titanic, existential struggle of two antagonists over one piece of land, a struggle not historically given to a rational, 'win-win' solution
Liberals like to think that every diplomatic dispute can be resolved if just both sides would think a little more rationally, in a less self-interested way, and accept a few pragmatic compromises, after which everybody will then 'live happily ever after'.
This rational, problem-solving approach has succeeded in creating peace accords with Egypt, Jordan and the Abraham Accords, because the disputes were over non existential issues such as territory and international issues such as water, commerce, and diplomatic relationship. Win-win compromises were relevant and helpful.
However, after one hundred and fifty years of nationalist conflict between Jews and Arabs in the 'land between the river and the sea' this liberal perspective seems increasingly impractical because both sides feel their very existential existence is at stake. Both feel that if "I lose this struggle I will no longer exist." No one truly sees a permanent 'win-win' solution as being feasible.
And the problem is exacerbated by the reality that while most Israeli Jews still possess a lingering rational-Western political culture, and thus are probably open to non-existentially threatening compromises, in contrast, the Palestinian Arabs are part and parcel of the Arab social- political culture. This culture is based on a never ending cycle of tribal sectarianism, violence and domination (as testified everyday by the political reality of all the non-liberal, non democratic regimes in the Arab world surrounding the Jewish state). The Arab socio-political culture thus makes a 'win-win', rational, 'even-handed, 'middle of road, problem solving approach to this titanic, nationalistic existential struggle highly irrelevant.
And the best proof of the irrelevance of a 'liberal-win win' answer to this existential-national struggle is that the Jewish state has already tried it. As they say in baseball' three strikes and you are out'. Three times Israel tried a liberal, 'win win' solution ( Oslo agreements, unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, and unilateral withdrawal from Gaza), and has paid the price of thousands of deaths by Palestinian Arab terrorists, and only enhanced Palestinian Arab resistance to the legitimacy of our Jewish state.
In brief, all liberal, 'win-win' 'solutions'(proposed up to now) to our existential struggle for legitimacy have 'blown up in our face' and have truly been a 'no win-no win' for both sides.
Two: Israel's international legitimacy is eroding because Yahya Sinwar devised an innovative urban, guerilla insurgent warfare (that completely and intentionally violates all international laws on warfare).
Sinwar probably agreed with my above analysis of the Jewish-Palestinian national-existential struggle, that a win -win solution is not at hand, and thus decided to fight back and initiate a revolutionary type of urban insurgency.
He designed a brilliant, innovative type of urban warfare. His invention tears apart and makes senseless and irrelevant all the international agreements on warfare, made after World War One and Two, then composed to combat the excesses of conventional, open battle field combat, but irrelevant to urban guerilla insurgency.
Sinwar's brilliant, innovative urban war plan was composed of the following key elements. His thesis can be summarized in one sentence, 'Jihad Unlimited. If we sacrifice an unlimited number of OUR civilians, we will win. Our self-initiated death of Palestinian Arab civilians will be the cheapest, most readily available weapon available to us.'
1. First use terror against civilians of the opposing nationalism-or competing political power (In this case the Jews of Israel) This will invite an 'oppressive armed response' by the opposing forces (the IDF), and lead to radicalization, and increased identification, of the civilian population supporting your cause. This principle was based on tactics of the communists in South Vietnam and the FLN in Algeria.
2. Sinwar then had to answer the question, "How do you fight a guerilla warfare when your fighters can not hide and ambush behind the trees of jungles (as in Vietnam and South America, and the mountains of Algeria)?.
Sinwar answered "No problem. We will build and hide in underground tunnels (instead of trees ) and 'conceal ' our fighting bases and arms caches in children's bedrooms, mosques, hospitals, schools, and community and recreational centers (instead of a jungle). Civilians will replace the trees of the jungle). All of these locations are forbidden according to international laws of warfare. Palestinian civilian deaths, again, will be our most potent weapon.
Sinwar was very confident that he could count on the liberal-left dominated media 'to do his job for him', converting Hamas instigated civilian deaths (housed in hospitals, schools, hospitals etc.) into propaganda using the Gazan civilian deaths to create worldwide sympathy, and even political support, for a Hamas initiated war based on urban terror and massive Palestinian Arab civilian deaths
And the liberal-left social media has fulfilled Sinwar's hopes 'beyond' his wildest dreams. Simply put, when the IDF attack a Hamas cell and arms cache hidden in a mosque, who gets 'blamed' for the 'war crime'? Almost all social media blame the IDF, and never, never ever, mention that that the Hamas's initial violation of the laws of war ( using a civilian site to conduct war) brought about the IDF response.
3. Hamas then 'brilliantly' initiated a terror attack in Israel (Oct. 7th) and took 250 hostages, in horrendous violation of all international laws. In order not to endanger the hostages, the IDF could not launch an immediate massive military operation that would gain a swift victory. Again, Sinwar's thinking was correct. He successfully used the hostages to turn a quick military victory into a very draining war of attrition.
And the taking of hostages turned into a successful way to manipulate and cause emotional trauma and discord among the Israeli public and weaken the public's resolve to achieve military victory.
Israel's left leaning media (like the international media) openly cooperated and 'fulfilled Sinwar's hopes 'beyond his wildest dreams', publicizing the plight of the hostage's non-stop, and never ever presenting to the public the horrendous price Israel has to pay in our national security priorities (that is dangerously releasing thousands of convicted terrorists, limiting offensive military operations, and legitimizing hostage deals as a 'legitimate' weapon of urban warfare).
Three: Israel's international legitimacy is being eroded because the liberal-left is slowly adopting the progressive relativistic, double standard of international morality.
Progressive ideology argues that that the modern Jewish state was born as a colonial enterprise (the historical falsehood of this claim is argued above) and thus automatically ascribes to the Jewish state the role/status of the 'oppressor', and the Palestinian Arabs that of the 'oppressed class'. This justifies ascribing one set of morality for the 'oppressor' class, and another set of morality for the 'oppressed class'.
The implications for understanding and narrating the military conflict in Gaza are obvious. What is permitted to the Hamas in terms of civilian deaths is not permitted to Israel in self-defense. The Hamas is negligibly responsible for civilian deaths, and Israel is automatically held responsible.
And unfortunately, the liberal-left media has both consciously, and less consciously, adopted this moral double standard in narrating and explaining the war to the public. Israel is paying a very heavy,' deadly ' price for the libera-left's subtle, but steady, adoption of the horribly false progressive moral double standard (Here is not the place to psychologically explain why the liberal-left allows itself be seduced by the progressive standard of morality)
One personal note. I have been a daily reader of the New York Times for seventy years, and continue to be. Since Oct., almost all their articles emphasize great sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinian Arabs, virtually no criticism of the Hamas, they accept reports of the Hamas Health Ministry without reservation, and post, endless articles that always present Israel's effort to defend itself in a negative way. Their coverage is clear proof of the growing influence of the progressive relativistic, double standard of social morality on the editorial staff of the Times.
Four: Israels international legitimacy is being eroded because of the 'comeback' of 2,500 years of historical antisemitism (after a post holocaust 'hibernation')
By historical antisemitism I do not mean the vulgar, cheap antisemitism of burning synagogues, attacking students on subways, and cancelling people on social media because of a Jewish last name or pro-Israel statement.
By historical antisemitism I mean the historical phenomenon of the Jewish people (when they are proud and live Jewish lives) always making the host country feel uncomfortable. If the Jews are successful the host country feels uncomfortable, and if the Jews are oppressed, they make the host country feel uncomfortable. And usually this 'discomfort' eventually evolves into hate, violence or death (America was an exception, up until the last ten years)
So now historical antisemitism is pouring kerosene on the bonfire lit by the Hamas strategy of 'more civilian Palestinian Arab deaths, the closer the victory ', and the progressives relativistic, double standard of social morality.
Two current examples of the ' phenomenon of historical antisemitism born out of host country discomfort' are that the Arab world feels very 'uncomfortable' that there is a strong prosperous liberal Jewish democracy stuck in the middle of an all-Arab Middle East.
Similarly, the Western world feels discomfort that there is a very powerful Jewish state located at the crossroad of three continents.
The West, in 'good historic antisemitic tradition' prefers the Jews to 'be weak, vulnerable and humble', as in the 'two state solution'.
The result is a very powerful, growing, international antisemitism ('globalize the intifada') that is seriously eroding our international legitimacy.
Conclusion; To survive this current erosion of international legitimacy Israel must prepare itself to be a 'Jewish Sparta'
A month after Oct. 7th I wrote a very (pessimistic) prophetic article for Arutz Sheva entitled "Israel as a Jewish Sparta' predicting that the war against the Hamas would be a long war of attrition, causing Israel to become increasingly internationally politically isolated, and requiring tremendous emotional, family, economic and military sacrifice from Israel's Jewish population. This prediction has become true.
In the diplomatic short run the world is now blackmailing Israel to choose between 'legitimacy' and survival. (They like it when the Jewish state is humble and vulnerable.) Israel must choose survival.
In the short run, I predict that for Israel to survive, it must proudly choose to see itself as a Jewish Sparta. We are in the 77th year of our struggle for our survival and independence in very ancient Jewish homeland and , with G-d's help, we will surely triumph.
.