Secretary of State Antony Blinken, like his boss, often wears his heart on his sleeve when dealing with human tragedies. He is the child of a Holocaust survivor (his stepfather was the only member of his family to emerge from the Nazis’ extermination camps) and the father of two children. His willingness to draw on his personal experiences, rather than put them aside, has made him the perfect emissary of President Biden’s brand of empathy, optimism and persistence.
On Friday, Blinken reaffirmed Israel’s right and obligation to defend its people (“no country could or should tolerate the slaughter of innocents”). However, he also made very clear that Palestinians’ and Israelis’ deaths are tragic.
After viewing video of the Oct. 7 massacre, he told reporters:
There is no shortage of preening politicians who insist Israel must stop the war before Hamas is eliminated. But that equation would put Jewish lives at extreme risk because Hamas chooses to embed itself among innocent Palestinians. (Imagine insisting during World War II that the United States cease fighting after the Normandy invasion because innocents across Europe would die.)
Likewise, extreme voices on the right place zero value on Palestinians’ lives, attempting to absolve Israel of any responsibility to minimize casualties. That would violate a cardinal rule in the law of war requiring combatants to differentiate between military targets and civilians. (Despite the voices demonizing Israel, that is not what is going on. Israel is targeting Hamas personnel and installations; it has warned civilians to evacuate to the south of Gaza — which hundreds of thousands have done — and allowed humanitarian aid into Gaza.)
Biden and Blinken have the unenviable task of avoiding those two extremes, each of which denies the humanity of the other side. In specific situations, near-impossible military decisions must be made, often with imperfect information: Does Israel destroy a specific tunnel near a civilian apartment? What about an ambulance used by Hamas?
In Israel, Blinken urged humanitarian “pauses.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly responded that there would be no cease-fire without a prisoner exchange. Blinken didn’t take no for an answer. “We’ve agreed to have our teams continue to discuss practical solutions. I’ve instructed our special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues, David Satterfield, who has been doing remarkable work here over the last couple of weeks, to continue these discussions,” he told reporters. “Ultimately, we believe this can be a critical mechanism for protecting civilians while enabling Israel to achieve its objectives of defeating Hamas.” For Blinken, tenacious and detailed diplomacy in service of his empathy for victims is the only way forward.
But Blinken’s recognition of Israel’s plight does not mean he avoids candor in public:
Most remarkably, Blinken, in the midst of Israel’s fight for survival, pushes its government to think about what happens when the fighting ends (“there will be no partners for peace if they’re consumed by humanitarian catastrophe and alienated by any perceived indifference to their plight”). Blinken understands what Israel’s right-wing government won’t admit: Without a permanent resolution to Palestinians’ desire for independence and self-rule, violence will continue.
“Finally, and importantly, even as we work towards progress on each of these urgent needs, we’re focused on setting the conditions for a durable and sustainable peace and security,” he said Friday. “The United States continues to believe that the best viable path — indeed, the only path — is through a two-state solution.” He insisted that is the “the only way to end a cycle of violence once and for all.” In some of his strongest language yet, he argued that “it’s precisely now, in the darkest moments, that we have to fight hardest to preserve a path of stability, of security, of opportunity, of integration, of prosperity and of peace — not tomorrow, not after the war, but today.”
Regrettably but unsurprisingly, critics on both sides choose to hear only the part of Blinken’s message that serves their interest. Extremists spouting hateful slogans will be disappointed. He refuses to deny Israel’s right to defend itself or to deny the Palestinian tragedy. He will not call for Israel to surrender to terrorism, nor will he allow our ally to ignore the need to address Palestinian aspirations.
Blinken’s approach, inevitably met with harangues and criticism, remains the only humane, principled way for the United States to proceed. No one should envy the work ahead nor minimize the obstacles he faces.
On Friday, Blinken reaffirmed Israel’s right and obligation to defend its people (“no country could or should tolerate the slaughter of innocents”). However, he also made very clear that Palestinians’ and Israelis’ deaths are tragic.
After viewing video of the Oct. 7 massacre, he told reporters:
He does not shy from the central dilemma: How does the United States support Israel’s right to exist and prevent future atrocities and also protect the lives of Palestinians? His approach begins with principled empathy, which precludes snap conclusions and all-or-nothing answers. Unlike armchair pundits and instant experts in Congress, he knows there is no easy resolution.
There is no shortage of preening politicians who insist Israel must stop the war before Hamas is eliminated. But that equation would put Jewish lives at extreme risk because Hamas chooses to embed itself among innocent Palestinians. (Imagine insisting during World War II that the United States cease fighting after the Normandy invasion because innocents across Europe would die.)
Likewise, extreme voices on the right place zero value on Palestinians’ lives, attempting to absolve Israel of any responsibility to minimize casualties. That would violate a cardinal rule in the law of war requiring combatants to differentiate between military targets and civilians. (Despite the voices demonizing Israel, that is not what is going on. Israel is targeting Hamas personnel and installations; it has warned civilians to evacuate to the south of Gaza — which hundreds of thousands have done — and allowed humanitarian aid into Gaza.)
Biden and Blinken have the unenviable task of avoiding those two extremes, each of which denies the humanity of the other side. In specific situations, near-impossible military decisions must be made, often with imperfect information: Does Israel destroy a specific tunnel near a civilian apartment? What about an ambulance used by Hamas?
In Israel, Blinken urged humanitarian “pauses.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly responded that there would be no cease-fire without a prisoner exchange. Blinken didn’t take no for an answer. “We’ve agreed to have our teams continue to discuss practical solutions. I’ve instructed our special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues, David Satterfield, who has been doing remarkable work here over the last couple of weeks, to continue these discussions,” he told reporters. “Ultimately, we believe this can be a critical mechanism for protecting civilians while enabling Israel to achieve its objectives of defeating Hamas.” For Blinken, tenacious and detailed diplomacy in service of his empathy for victims is the only way forward.
But Blinken’s recognition of Israel’s plight does not mean he avoids candor in public:
Blinken operates with nuance in a raging and often uninformed political debate that argues in black and white. He recognizes, for example, that Israel has “legitimate questions … including how to use any period of pause to maximize the full humanitarian assistance, how to connect a pause to the release of hostages, how to ensure that Hamas doesn’t use these pauses or arrangements to its own advantage.” He can understand that Israel is pursuing military objectives but also push for greater efforts to protect innocent lives.
Most remarkably, Blinken, in the midst of Israel’s fight for survival, pushes its government to think about what happens when the fighting ends (“there will be no partners for peace if they’re consumed by humanitarian catastrophe and alienated by any perceived indifference to their plight”). Blinken understands what Israel’s right-wing government won’t admit: Without a permanent resolution to Palestinians’ desire for independence and self-rule, violence will continue.
“Finally, and importantly, even as we work towards progress on each of these urgent needs, we’re focused on setting the conditions for a durable and sustainable peace and security,” he said Friday. “The United States continues to believe that the best viable path — indeed, the only path — is through a two-state solution.” He insisted that is the “the only way to end a cycle of violence once and for all.” In some of his strongest language yet, he argued that “it’s precisely now, in the darkest moments, that we have to fight hardest to preserve a path of stability, of security, of opportunity, of integration, of prosperity and of peace — not tomorrow, not after the war, but today.”
Regrettably but unsurprisingly, critics on both sides choose to hear only the part of Blinken’s message that serves their interest. Extremists spouting hateful slogans will be disappointed. He refuses to deny Israel’s right to defend itself or to deny the Palestinian tragedy. He will not call for Israel to surrender to terrorism, nor will he allow our ally to ignore the need to address Palestinian aspirations.
Blinken’s approach, inevitably met with harangues and criticism, remains the only humane, principled way for the United States to proceed. No one should envy the work ahead nor minimize the obstacles he faces.
