Published: 29 May 2025
Last updated: 29 May 2025
Last Thursday night, I read The Jewish Independent’s editorial calling for an end to the Israel–Hamas war. It struck a chord. I agreed. So, though I’m more of a “Here’s a photo of my dog” kind of Facebook user, I shared the article with the comment: “I love Israel but surely it’s time for this to end!”
That was it. Eleven words. Less than a tweet. More concise than a café menu. And yet, they triggered a digital firestorm.
My Facebook page exploded. Friends, acquaintances, and vague connections piled on. My motives were questioned. My Zionism, doubted. My loyalty, scrutinised. Someone even suggested I should work for Al Jazeera. Most hadn’t read the article. But the Meta algorithm weaponised outrage at my naïve peacenik post. Likes came in — but so did yellow frowny emojis, sneering at me with jaundiced disdain.
Comments10
Noah Efron5 June at 03:15 pm
The posts and tweets you included in your essay were hardly incendiary. They were not even uncivil. Mostly, they just disagreed with the point of view you expressed in those 11 words and by endorsing the article.
Now I agree with the point of view you expressed in those 11 words and by endorsing the article. I (as an Israeli) think that the war causes more damage, pain and anguish that it could possibly present. But I know I could be wrong, and that others can reasonably disagree. So what was so bad with them disagreeing with what you posted, in the way they disagreed? Isn’t that what social media, at its best, is for – an exchange of ideas?
Simon Krite30 May at 02:30 pm
Peter, Thanks for writing this. It’s honest, vulnerable, and clearly comes from a place of love for Israel and deep inner conflict. That tension between the desire for peace and the need for security is something most Jews are wrestling with.
But with respect, and sadness, I also think we need to be clear-eyed about the moment we’re in. This isn’t just a war that we can “wish away.” Calls for an end to fighting, however well-intentioned, risk becoming dangerous when they’re disconnected from the reality on the ground and from the motivations of the enemy.
We are not watching a symmetrical war, and this isn’t a dispute over land or politics that can be resolved with mutual compromise. We are facing a genocidal terror group whose foundational charter calls for the eradication of Jews, not just Israelis. Hamas didn’t just commit atrocities on October 7, they bragged about it, filmed it, and said they want to do it again and again. They hold hostages still. They embed in civilian areas deliberately. They reject any notion of coexistence. But Im sure you know all this.
It’s uncomfortable when people react strongly to posts like yours, as the story it linked too. But it’s not just about “trauma” or tribal loyalty. It’s about existential fear. And justified fear. It’s about watching global opinion turn against Israel and Jews everywhere while knowing full well that if Hamas had the means, there would be no Jewish state left standing. It’s about seeing hostages forgotten and our grief made conditional.
Empathy for Palestinian civilians is right and moral. But we must not let that empathy blind us to who is truly prolonging this war. Israel didn’t choose this. Hamas did and continues to. A ceasefire that leaves them standing is not peace. Deep down every Jew knows this reality will just be an invitation to repeat the horror.
The problem isn’t that you’re calling for peace. It’s that too many calls for peace ignore the cost of peace without security. That kind of peace isn’t sustainable. In fact, it’s suicidal.
We do need more space for nuance. But nuance must come with clarity. And clarity means knowing the difference between regretting war and empowering evil.
Please, let’s not pretend the greatest threat to peace is the people defending themselves from annihilation. However ever much we want to “wish away” this war.