Thomas Friedman poses a seemingly clever question in his New York Times column: How can Israel precisely target sites in Iran 1,200 miles away but struggle to safely deliver food to Gazans just 40 miles from Tel Aviv?  The answer reveals the fundamental flaw in Friedman’s analysis.

The Reality of Food Distribution in Gaza

When Friedman envisions food distribution in Gaza, he apparently imagines orderly queues of civilians patiently waiting their turn.  The reality could not be more different.  These are chaotic scenes, with dozens-thick crowds, often including Hamas fighters embedded among civilians.  These are not peaceful recipients, but frequently hostile mobs who view Israeli soldiers as occupying forces.

Hamas deliberately exploits these distribution points as strategic assets, using civilian desperation as cover for military operations.  Hamas operatives steal aid supplies for their own fighters, sell humanitarian goods on black markets, and position weapons near distribution sites to provoke Israeli responses that generate negative publicity.  Even Friedman describes Gazans “swarming” Israeli distribution sites, inadvertently confirming that these are not orderly queues, but chaotic mob scenes that pose genuine security threats.

When armed distributors face potential overrun by aggressive crowds, they respond in self-defense.  Tragically, some innocents die in these mêlées.  What alternative does Friedman suggest?  Should Israel cease food distribution entirely?  He would undoubtedly then accuse the Jewish state of promulgating deliberate starvation.  Notably, no other nation in history has been expected to feed enemy civilians during active combat while that enemy continues holding its citizens hostage.

In stark contrast, Israel’s technological superiority enables precise long-distance strikes against terrorists 1,200 miles away.  The comparison is absurd: One involves cutting-edge military technology against static targets; the other requires managing hostile crowds in active combat zones.

Friedman’s Accusations Fall Apart

Friedman suggests that these deaths result from “something deeper, something quite shameful” within Netanyahu’s government, implying the deliberate targeting of hungry civilians.  This accusation is both illogical and offensive.

According to Hamas’s own statistics, 65,000 Gazans have died in military operations.  Does it make sense that Israel would now need to lure them with food to kill them?  The premise is absurd.  If elimination were the goal, why engage in the complex and dangerous process of food distribution at all?

Friedman’s inflammatory language extends to calling Israeli officials “Jewish supremacist thugs.”  Such rhetoric replaces reasoned argument with character assassination.

The Real Culprits

Friedman mentions “terrible pictures of malnourished children” from Gaza.  These images are indeed tragic, but who bears responsibility?

Hamas could end all civilian suffering immediately through two simple actions: release all remaining hostages unconditionally, and surrender or leave Gaza entirely.  They have chosen neither path.  Instead, Hamas continues to prioritize its genocidal ideology over Palestinian welfare.

Consider the resources Hamas has diverted from civilian needs: billions spent on tunnel networks instead of hospitals, rockets instead of schools, weapons instead of water treatment facilities.  Hamas has consistently chosen war over the prosperity of its own people.  Gaza could have been the Singapore of the Middle East with proper leadership focused on development rather than destruction.

Hamas bears sole responsibility for Gaza’s dire circumstances by prolonging a conflict it initiated and refusing the clear path to end Palestinian suffering.

Why This War Has Lasted So Long

Friedman correctly identifies Hamas as “the worst, most fanatical, murderous organization in Palestinian history.”  However, his characterization of Israel’s government as equally extreme reveals his bias.

The war’s duration stems from two primary factors:

Hamas’s tactics: They systematically used civilians as human shields, placing weapons in hospitals, mosques, schools, and residential areas.  This forced the IDF to attack civilian areas, creating collateral damage.  No other military force in history, including the Nazis, employed this tactic so extensively.

Israel’s restraint: Paradoxically, Israeli efforts to minimize civilian casualties prolonged the conflict.  The IDF provided warning leaflets before strikes, introduced ground troops prematurely to reduce civilian deaths, and operated with extraordinary care.  The typical military ratio of civilian to soldier deaths is 9:1.  Israel achieved an unprecedented 1.5:1 ratio.

Had Israel conducted a swift, decisive air campaign similar to the Six-Day War model, fewer people would have died on both sides.

International Law and Precedent

Friedman’s critique ignores crucial legal and historical context.  Under international humanitarian law, the responsibility for civilian welfare in occupied territory lies with the controlling authority.  In Gaza, that authority is Hamas, not Israel, which withdrew completely in 2005.  Hamas governs Gaza and bears primary responsibility for its civilian population.

Moreover, Israel’s efforts exceed legal requirements.  The Geneva Conventions do not obligate a nation to feed enemy civilians during active hostilities, especially when that enemy holds its citizens hostage and continues attacking.  Israel’s humanitarian efforts represent unprecedented restraint and generosity, not legal obligation.

Historical precedent supports Israel’s position.  During World War II, the Allies imposed total blockades on Axis powers, causing civilian hardship but shortening the war.  No one accused Churchill or Roosevelt of war crimes for these strategies.  The moral standard applied uniquely to Israel lacks historical or legal foundation.

Unlike Friedman, we see a clear resolution: complete Israeli victory, as achieved repeatedly since 1948.  Hamas will be defeated, sending a powerful message to Israel’s other enemies about the consequences of attacking a technologically superior democratic state.

Some Israeli officials, like finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, have suggested that blocking humanitarian aid might be “justified and moral” if it secures hostage releases.  Though this sounds harsh, such pressure might have ended the conflict sooner with fewer total casualties.  Sometimes firmness prevents greater suffering than misplaced compassion.

The Judicial Reform Context

Friedman opposes Netanyahu’s judicial reforms, claiming they aim to annex the West Bank without legal restraints.  However, Israel’s Supreme Court has become an unaccountable institution where justices select their own replacements and rule based on subjective standards of “reasonableness” rather than law.  Democratic societies require judicial accountability.

Regarding territorial claims, historical homesteading theory supports Jewish presence in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, where Jews worked the land long before Arab arrival.

Conclusion

Friedman’s analysis fails because it applies false moral equivalencies and ignores the fundamental reality: Hamas initiated this conflict through the October 7 massacre while Gazans celebrated in the streets.  When facing such barbarism, the appropriate response is not the “sissification” that Friedman advocates, but the firm resolve that ensures that “never again” actually means never again.

Israel will achieve total victory, as it has in every conflict since its founding.  Peace will follow strength, not appeasement.  The lesson for Israel’s enemies will be clear: Don’t challenge a technologically advanced democracy defending its right to exist.

The real question isn’t why Israel struggles with food distribution in hostile territory while excelling at precision strikes.  The question is why commentators like Friedman expect Israel to fight with both hands tied behind its back while facing enemies who deliberately target civilians and use their own people as human shields.

Victory, not compromise with terrorists, remains the path to lasting peace.

Image via Pxhere.