Opinion: Why a progressive Jew would demand a cease-fire

The Centre Daily Times recently published Dr. Joshua Wretzel’s op-ed, “Why a progressive Jew would oppose a cease-fire.” As a queer Jewish woman, I must respond to his attempt to reconcile “left-leaning” values with Israel’s mass murder of 22,000 Palestinians. Jewish suffering cannot be exceptionalized to excuse the vastly disproportionate killing of Palestinians.

Relying on an appeal to authority, Wretzel cites his anti-Islamophobic leftist credentials without locating himself or past organizing in relation to Palestinian solidarity. His argument props up double standards to claim that antisemitism justifies Israel’s attacks on Gaza. He appeals to emotion in claiming that Hamas wants him, specifically, dead due to his progressivism. Wretzel perceives himself to be at great risk, despite living 6,000 miles from Gaza in an overwhelmingly liberal town with a robust Jewish community. I must also note that to my knowledge there has never been a Hamas attack in Centre County.

Wretzel roots his trepidation about cease fire in Hamas’ antisemitism. He cites their 1988 charter’s use of religious texts calling for the killing of Jews. However, he fails to mention that Hamas’ 2017 charter rejects antisemitism: “Hamas affirms that its conflict is ... not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.” The 2017 charter affirms the pluralism of Palestine prior to the second aliyah, after which far-right militias committed explicitly anti-Arab violence to create a Jewish ethnostate, expelling 750,000 Palestinians in the 1948 Nakba. The 2017 charter emphasizes that “Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety.” Whether one takes Hamas at its word, it is disingenuous to cite their 1988 charter without mention of its 2017 overhaul. I have to wonder if Wretzel’s omission is one of bad faith or ignorance.

While antisemitism alarms me as a Jewish person, I am more concerned by Israel’s calls for Palestinian extermination when it boasts one of the world’s most well-resourced militaries, funded and armed by the United States. Prime Minister Netanyahu likens Gaza to Amalek, a biblical nation whose inhabitants God ordered Saul to eradicate. Netanyahu invokes biblical prophecy to conjure a battle between good and evil. Even absent religious justification, Israeli officials persistently call for the eradication of Palestinians and Gaza. Wretzel either chooses to ignore Israel’s explicitly genocidal intent or implies that genocide is acceptable should it result in eliminating Hamas.

To provide perspective, the Palestinian death toll has exceeded 25 times the civilian deaths attributed to Hamas on Oct. 7. In three months, the number of Palestinians killed by Israel is more than 10 times that of all Israeli casualties between 1987-2021. Palestinian deaths will mount long after any cease-fire – whether due to injury, illness or starvation. The scale of destruction is “unprecedented,” according to the United Nations.

The closest Wretzel comes to critiquing Israel is a brief mention of “flawed” tactics, a shocking understatement. While Wretzel claims to be horrified by the “death and destruction that has befallen Palestinians,” he makes no call for Israel to curtail its violence. It would seem that Palestinians must simply tolerate being killed by the tens of thousands.

Boiled down, Wretzel argues that antisemitism motivated the Oct. 7 attack, justifying Israel’s response and opposition to cease-fire. Yet, Israel calls for Palestinian genocide and continues to exercise violence at unprecedented scale. By Wretzel’s own logic, is military retaliation only acceptable when countering anti-Israeli violence? Is it more acceptable to call for the genocide of Palestinians than for that of Jews? Are Israeli lives more valuable than Palestinian lives?

Calling for a permanent cease-fire is indeed a minimal demand. If fellow Jews oppose cease-fire, they must be willing to accept that their position can never be one of social good.

This story was originally published January 5, 2024 at 7:00 AM.