"The Jews are Coming" looks back, while Samer Sinijlawi looks forward.
One suggests, even if implicitly, that nothing ever changes. Sinijlawi claims that change is possible. Disoriented by this past year and unsure of what awaits them, what should Israelis think?
We often speak about “life imitating art.” What about “weather imitating the state of the nation”?
It’s hot in Jerusalem today, very, very hot. And it’s only June 3. But it’s not only the weather that’s heating up. The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments over the legality of the government’s attempt to extend, once again, the exemption of Haredim from military service. The court has heard such arguments before, but never in the midst of an existential war, not at a time when the public, including much of the religious public (which is suffering a disproportionate percentage of the overall losses among its sons and daughters in battle), has completely lost its patience.
The court is expected to rule soon, perhaps even in a matter of days. But if the arguments, which were carried live on television, were any indication, the justices, too, have lost patience. One justice opened his remarks by reading a long list of all the times that the court has been complicit in allowing the country to kick the can down the road. Other justices, including those known as more conservative, similarly showed little patience.
Then, in “the blunder heard round the nation,” the lawyer representing the government (because the Attorney General refused to but allowed someone else to) sought to remind the court that what is at stake is “dinei nefashot” [a religious principle in cases in which lives are at stake] of 3,000 young Haredi men (the minimum number being discussed). One justice, clearly exerting a good bit of self-control, snapped back, “what’s at sake is the dinei nefashot of a lot more people than that.” She meant, obviously, the lives of all of those many tens of thousands who are serving.
If the government loses its court case and the government can find no way to fund the yeshivot, the Haredim will have gotten nothing out of being part of the coalition (this was their only reason for seeking to weaken the court in last year’s judicial reform battles), and are widely expected to bolt the government, thus bringing it down.
Bezalel Smotrich was also consulting with his rabbis today over whether he and his party should bolt the coalition not over the draft (Smotrich and Ben Gvir tiptoe around that issue, as Smotrich did a highly shortened, relatively meaningless military service, while Ben Gvir didn’t serve at all), but over the Israeli ceasefire proposal that would see the return of women, children and wounded hostages in the first round of exchanges.
Israelis are heatedly divided over the proposal—which many pundits note could in the long run lead to both normalization with Saudi Arabia as well as a new American mutual defense arrangement, but which at least at present would leave Hamas somewhat intact. As the headlines here have been putting it, Netanyahu may very soon have to choose between a ceasefire and a relationship with the Americans, or his government. It is far from clear what he would decide.
What about the families of the captives? What do they want?
While many of the hostage families are urging the government to take the deal, not all of them are. Yesterday, Yaron Or, father of the kidnapped Avinatan Or (who was taken hostage along with his now fairly well-known girlfriend, Noa Argamani) went on Israeli news to insist that Israel must decline the deal.
In Or’s case, the captive, his son, is a young, able-bodied male—who would be among the last to get released. “Why would Hamas ever release the last hostages?”, he asked. “Why would they give up that insurance policy? The only way for Israel to get the hostages back is to capture the entire Gaza Strip and to rule it. Period.”
He’s far from the only person who holds that view.
If this were a debate, one could make a very compelling case for either side. Except that it’s not a college competition—it’s life and death.
To give a sense of the different kinds of lenses through which Israelis now see their world, we’re reposting two videos that have garnered a great deal of attention here.
The first, part of a TV series called The Jews Are Coming is titled “Never Again, All Over Again.” For those not familiar, The Jews Are Coming is a comedy series, almost always about Jewish history, that is way more than a bit edgy. In this episode, they dropped the comedy and the snark. They just expressed a view of history that has become deeply rooted here.
Almost everyone I know who has seen it has said pretty much the same thing: “Yes, it’s a bit kitschy. But it’s still compelling. And the point is correct. Never again, all over again.”
Israelis look back in history, and see themselves as part of a never-ending, always repeating story. As you listen to it, you will hear the obvious implicit references to the events of October 7. They’re hard to miss.
Kan 12 News — The Day After Hamas
Samer Sinijlawi is a Palestinian politician who has long opposed Mahmud Abbas’ leadership over the PLO. In an interview to Kan News journalist Elior Levy, Sinijlawi describes his plan for a revised Palestinian Authority that could control Gaza after the war and even live in peace with Israel. Sinijlawi is considered close to Mohammad Dahlan (who now lives in Abu Dhabi).
The video was done by Kan 12 Television, and is part of a series called “The Day After Hamas.” You should watch this episode and draw your own conclusions.
Many of the comments, which we’re not translating (though you could copy them into Google Translate) stress that Sinijlawi didn’t actually answer any of the hard questions, but claim that he ducked every single one. I’m not taking a stand—you should be the judge.
If you’re interesting in paying special attention to at least some of those questions, look out for:
00:22—Why can’t you just say that it’s wrong for the PA to pay salaries to the families of terrorists?
04:40—How can three people who are not even in Ramallah or the West Bank be part of an alternative Palestinian leadership?
08:40—The security forces of Fatah/ PA cannot deal with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Tulkarm or Nablus [DG—in Judea Samara, West Bank]. Why would they be able to deal with Hamas in Gaza?
12:48—Given what happened on October 7, how can the Israeli public possibly trust the Palestinians?
15:36—Why was there not one Palestinian leader who on October 7th stood up and denounced the attacks?
17:45—If you and your group were to win the Palestinian Presidency, what would you change?
19:47—You say that Hamas should give its weapons over to the new Palestinian leadership in Gaza? Do you think they would actually do that?
20:24—Why would Hamas let you rule Gaza? Why wouldn’t they fight against you, too?
22:00—If we get out of Gaza and rockets start flying over my head again, what should we do? Just stay out?
25:35—It wasn’t Israel that tossed Fatah out of Gaza; it was Hamas. How could Israel be certain that Hamas wouldn’t throw out whoever tries to rule Gaza?
With all the humility I can muster, I confess I don’t know if this latest proposal is a good idea or not. What I do know is that this sentence is what drives me crazy about this newsletter: “Netanyahu may very soon have to choose between a cease-fire and a relationship with the Americans, or his government.” Maybe he’s choosing between a cease-fire and a relationship with the Americans, and what’s best for the future of Israel. At a book signing I once asked Yossi Klein Halevi if Islam needed a reformation. He thought for a long while and then said, “They need a new narrative, and there’s enough material in Islam for that.” It seems as if the UAE has chosen a new narrative. The Palestinian Arabs have not. Currently, they’re Amalek. If my child were being held captive, I would give the whole world to get him or her back. I’d even forfeit my life in the World to Come. But ending the war without total defeat of Hamas will certainly mean many more deaths in the future. Maybe the decent thing to do would be to give Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt on this.
It's difficult to know if Samer Sinijlawi is willfully blind or simply naïve. He completely ignores that something like 70% of Palestinians in the West Bank would choose Hamas today if it were an option. There have been so many opportunities for the Palestinians to build something positive and they have chosen death, destruction and victimhood. He's correct that there has been a huge failure in leadership, but there really are not any viable candidates. And while he brought up Sadat, he neglected to mention that he was assassinated because of the position he took and that the Egyptian street is anti-Zionist. Siniljlawi also was wrong that Israeli leaders don't publicly feel sorrow for the innocent deaths in Gaza. With possible exceptions of Ben G'vir and Smotrich, they all say this. But, they also say, rightfully IMHO, that it is ultimately Hamas that is responsible for these tragedies.