Imagery.

 “Long before the Israel-Gaza war, it was becoming increasingly apparent that the Palestinians had missed—or were about to miss—their historic opportunity to ever achieve a fully independent state. Their never-ending rejection of every possible peace proposal, along with Israel’s ongoing expansion of settlements, meant that a two-state solution was, at very best, in its last throes. All crises create new opportunities for change, and it is not inconceivable that some life can still be breathed into a two-state solution, but the likelihood of this happening has decreased exponentially.

One clear conclusion is that Israel cannot continue to ignore the Palestinian problem indefinitely,” wrote Professor Chuck Freilich, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies affiliated with Tel Aviv University (INSS).                         

I was about to conclude that he is just another “Peace Now” advocate, but I was wrong. “Rarely in recent decades have Israel’s wartime objectives been so straightforward: destroy Hamas as a coherent fighting force, topple it as the governing body in Gaza, and bring home as many of the hostages as possible. Hamas is not an existential threat, but if this war ends without its destruction, it will conduct similar attacks in the future—as it has already proclaimed publicly—as will Hezbollah and Iran, and a non-existential war may become one. For them, it is part of a long-term strategy designed to bring about Israel’s ultimate destruction through ongoing attrition.” Chuck Freilich warned and added that we could thwart this threat by changing the intercessors, preferring Riyadh to Doha.

“How do we rescue the normalisation of relations with the Saudis that would have had a transformational effect on Israel’s standing in the region and on the region as a whole, especially the critically important attempt to prevent Iran from crossing the final threshold to operational nuclear capabilities? How can the Saudis be prevailed upon to play a constructive role in the peace process and the reconstruction of Gaza?” He asked.

Other ME affairs analysts agree that Saudi Arabia is preferable to Qatar, though both lack human rights credibility.

The references to Professor Freilich quoted here are from his article posted last week in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. However, I have resorted to ‘cherry-picking’ again, choosing what I believe is relevant to the limited scope of this week’s post.  

“Israel is extraordinarily fortunate to have as deep and committed a friend in the White House as President Joe Biden. His response to the crisis has been nothing short of extraordinary: steadfast support for Israel’s right to defend itself and for the destruction of Hamas; rejection of a ceasefire that would in essence cement a Hamas victory.” ……..” Unsurprisingly, the administration is under growing international and domestic pressure to try to force Israel into curtailing its operations completely, or at least doing so in ways that would render them largely ineffective. From the outset, the president has continually emphasized the need for Israel to demonstrate maximal concern for humanitarian considerations and to minimize casualties. A deeply traumatized Israel, reeling from the barbaric attack of October 7 and galled by the thought that it should dispense humanitarian assistance at a time when so many Israelis were in Hamas captivity, initially opted for a more traditional siege approach. As justified as this may have been, it was inappropriate for the mood of the times and detrimental to the preservation of Israel’s international standing and, most importantly, Biden’s ability to continue providing unreserved long-term support.

It remains to be seen whether American defense officials have any concrete proposals to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza that do not both significantly diminish the effectiveness of Israeli operations and greatly increase the number of Israeli casualties. American support for Israel is a critical strategic consideration at all times, and it is always incumbent upon Jerusalem to do whatever it can to address Washington’s concerns. Nevertheless, it must accord overarching priority to IDF lives, and an Israeli failure to achieve its military objectives would also constitute a significant setback for US policy.”

And although Professor Freilich wants to change the intercessor, Qatar is still ’calling the shots.’

According to multiple reports in Israeli news outlets Mossad chief David Barnea met on Monday with CIA director Bill Burns and Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in Warsaw to discuss efforts to reach a new hostage deal with Hamas.

Barnea was previously widely reported to have met with Al Thani in Norway on Friday night.

Cairo is another venue where talks are taking place to reach a new hostage deal with Hamas.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Egyptian officials said that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are demanding that Israel halt military operations in the Gaza enclave before they’ll discuss a potential deal. Under the terms of the rejected proposal, Hamas would also free elderly male hostages who require urgent medical care. In exchange, Israel would halt air and ground operations in Gaza for a week and allow increased aid into the coastal territory. But Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad reportedly told Egyptian mediators Israel must pause its offensive in the Gaza Strip before they will discuss any potential deal. Furthermore, the report said Islamic Jihad demanded that Israel free all Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of all remaining hostages. In response, Israel is reported to have stated that it will not halt its military campaign, and that the pre-negotiation conditions laid down by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have effectively precluded the negotiations.

There’s more bad news.  Much to our chagrin, the elusive Muhammed Deif is in a much better physical shape than previously thought. The Hebrew language daily Maariv daily cited video evidence of Deif apparently found recently by IDF troops in Gaza. In the clips the arch-terrorist is seen walking, albeit with a slight limp.  Little is known of Deif, but repeated reports in Israel for over a decade have described him as missing both his legs an arm, and an eye. The injuries were allegedly caused by seven failed Israeli attempts to assassinate him. Unlike many other Hamas leaders Deif has lived his life in the shadows, and pictures or videos of him are extremely rare.

The Shin Bet security service “wouldn’t recognise him if they passed him on the street,” investigative journalist Shlomi Eldar told The Economist recently. That being said, IDF Radio reported that the army was not surprised by the discovery. Citing two unnamed Israeli sources, it said the IDF has known about Deif’s condition for several years. Nevertheless, camera-shy Mohammed Deif managed to maintain a low profile until recently.

Let’s continue on the topic if imagery, but this time from the profane to the sacred.

The Dura-Europos synagogue was an ancient synagogue uncovered at Dura-Europos, Syria, in 1932. The synagogue contains a forecourt and house of assembly with painted walls depicting people and animals, and a Torah shrine in the western wall facing Jerusalem. The last phase of its construction was dated by an Aramaic inscription to 244 CE, making it one of the oldest synagogues in the world. It was unique among the many ancient synagogues that have emerged from archaeological excavations as the structure was preserved virtually intact, and it had extensive figurative wall-paintings, which came as a considerable surprise to scholars. These paintings are now displayed in the National Museum of Damascus. They are by far superior to images depicted in the mosaic floors of early sixth century synagogues.

The Catholic church also values images of its saints, especially its popes. It counts 265 popes starting with the apostle Peter. Although there are many images of St. Peter, it’s unlikely that any of them could be considered portraits. The same could be said for most if not all of the popes for the first two or three hundred centuries after St. Peter.            

While kings, noblemen and even a few commoners were able to commission artists to paint them, Oliver Cromwell's instruction to portrait painter Sir Peter Lely was the most precise of all. “Remark all these blemishes, pimples, warts, and everything as you see in me, otherwise I will never pay a farthing for it.”

The painting is on display at the National Portrait Gallery, St Martin’s Place​
London. It’s not for sale, but admission to the gallery is free.

 

Have a good weekend.

Beni,

21^st of December, 2023.