The case for restraint in the Middle East

What were Israel's goals in its latest invasion of Gaza? Two of its specific goals were to destroy Hamas' tunnels and stop its missile attacks. More generally, it wanted to weaken Hamas' ability to engage in terrorist activities. An often unstated goal of perhaps greater importance was to influence public opinion.

The crisis began with the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli students. That and the relentless missile attacks on Israel were the proximate reasons for the incursion into Gaza. Of course, Palestinians and Hamas might argue that their heinous acts were simply retaliations for earlier Israeli wrongs. Who provoked and who retaliated is largely a question of where you arbitrarily set the start date.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued forcefully that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas and the missiles that rain down daily on his country. Let's fully accept the right of Israel to defend itself. But let's ask: Has Israel's invasion of Gaza advanced any of its objectives?

A few nights back, I watched a news summary scrolled across the bottom of a TV screen: "300 Palestinians and at least one Israeli killed." Was that a satisfactory ratio? Was it a disproportionate response? The ratio later approached something like 25 to 1. The Israelis are much more effective at killing than Hamas. Three cheers for the Israelis?

Might it have been better to accept the tragic killing of three young men? By contrast, more than 250 Israelis die each year in traffic fatalities.

Might it have been better to accept the downpour of missiles? When occasionally they kill someone, might we accept that as well?

The balancing of lives against one another is a grim business. As of last week, there were more than 800 Palestinians and over 30 Israelis who would likely be alive today if the incursion had not occurred.

Has the loss of life achieved any of Israel's goals? In Europe, perhaps reflecting lingering anti-Semitic sentiments, support for the Palestinians has long been greater than in the United States. Some initial gains in European support seem to have been dissipated by the ferocity of the Israeli attack. As Netanyahu has emphasized, warnings to clear targeted areas were given, but in the fog of war, such warnings are, at best, of limited effectiveness. Many in the United States, too - including, apparently, Secretary of State John Kerry, judging by his comments caught on an open mic last week - were having reservations about the kill ratio. In short, Israel does not seem to be winning the battle to sway public opinion. And the missiles keep coming.

I believe that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have much right on their respective sides, which is the essence of tragedy. I believe both sides, the Palestinians especially, must recognize what exists now, not yearn for what once was. Of course, that's difficult. Is the question of Alsace-Lorraine finally settled? Perhaps; it took a long time.

I believe, too, that the Palestinians have regularly and perversely blown it. Do they really expect a more generous settlement than those previously offered and rejected?

But I also believe an announced policy of nonresponse for a specified duration would better serve Israel's objectives. I would urge Israeli officials to announce, say, a one-year moratorium on responding to any outrage. Accept the missiles; shoot them down. Accept a few kidnappings and suicide bombings; guard against them as well as possible. Allow, perhaps, a few covert eliminations, but no military actions. Be restrained in a hostile environment.

Will it work? Probably not. But it will cost fewer lives, theirs and yours. That's something.