Gaza Death Statistics Part II: Why Jewish Assimilation Fuels Asymmetrical Warfare
Over the past year, American Jews have been forced into a conversation about Jewish identity and antisemitism. However, I’ve found few personal accounts. That’s why I’ve chosen to share my personal experience with virulent, but “nonviolent” antisemitism. However, I’ve limited the description to just one paragraph in this essay. Because what happened isn’t about me exclusively. It’s about how the Jewish community at large responds to stories like mine and keeps us atomized.
I invite you to read my story in this light and share your own experiences.
Recently, the Times of Israel presented excerpts from a document written by Rafa’a Salameh, the former commander of Hamas's Khan Younis Brigade. The document was released by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. It offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of Hamas that is in stark contrast to the group's public façade of resilience and power.
In this dispatch, Salameh informed Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar of severe casualties and equipment losses. According to Salameh, Hamas lost 90-95% of its rocket capabilities, 60% of personal weapons, 65-70% of anti-tank launchers, and around 50% of its fighters. The remaining 25% of fighters were described as mentally and physically broken. The document is dated before Salameh's death on July 13, 2024.
In May of this year, I wrote a piece about inconsistencies in Gaza death statistics and how progressive American Jews are disregarding strong statistical evidence of American antisemitism at home as they place their humanitarian sympathies abroad. This latest evidence from Salameh underscores the extent to which some of the American left has willfully ignored Hamas's manipulations. Right from the beginning of the war, Hamas claimed that 70% of casualties were civilians, a number that seemed suspicious. Salameh's report confirms these suspicions. It demonstrates that the true civilian casualty rate was closer to 50%, with roughly 20-30% being civilian men and 20-30% women and children. These numbers are consistent with casualty patterns in urban warfare.
This new data confirms that Israel delivered what it promised in this war: a low ratio of combatant to civilian casualties of about 1:1.67, rather than 1:2.33, as Hamas claims. This ratio is below that of most urban conflicts, including the U.S. campaign in Mosul, where the combatant to civilian casualty ratio was approximately 1: 2.25-2.75 civilian deaths.
Unfortunately, it took almost a year to gather the evidence for what supporters of Israel have long known. We have been dealing with a large-scale version of Brandolini’s law: the energy required to refute misinformation is exponentially greater than the effort needed to create it.
Brandolini’s law is the essence of asymmetrical warfare. When a warring party is out-manned and outgunned, it will turn to propaganda to hamper the enemy in the court of public opinion.
We Jews have responded inefficiently and sometimes poorly to the information wars during the Israel-Hamas war, perhaps because of our traditions of evidence, argument, and law. Whether from the Israeli Defense Force or from the average social media account, no amount of factual reporting and truth-telling has contained the vitriol that Jews around the world have been facing since last October. We haven’t been able to keep up and contain misrepresentations of the war, and we’ve had a tendency to play defense, not offense. Hamas, on the other hand, has no interest in logos, and we have discovered the hard way that logos can be a poor defense against pathos when there is a high body count.
One reason the American Jewish community, in particular, has struggled to counter the misinformation is because of a high level of denial. This denial is most likely more prevalent among more assimilated Jews, rather than the Orthodox. The Orthodox are often visibly Jewish in their dress, making them more likely to suffer discrimination, even in peacetime. They probably are reminded far more on a daily basis of their minority status in the US. On the other hand, Jews who have chosen to keep their identity private are more shielded from antisemitic behavior. This ability to blend in, unlike minorities who can’t hide their differences, has led to an unfortunate self-protection strategy: rather than confront the latent antisemitism in the United States, secular Jews until the last year have relied on their invisibility to maintain their safety. They have prioritized fitting in over combatting existing prejudices and hostile behavior in American society.
This “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy may have worked during peacetime, but not during an all out propaganda war on the ethics and dignity of world Jewry. On the contrary, this strategy makes honest conversations about antisemitism within the Jewish community less likely. Faced with eternal American optimism, where Hollywood happy endings are preferred and there is pressure not to speak of bad outcomes, the choice to remain hidden can undermine solidarity.
I’ve personally witnessed this denial and disunity in action. Here are some examples:
Dismissing the Complaints of Eyewitnesses
Last fall, I attended a synagogue forum featuring panelists with 20 years' expertise in Jewish issues at institutions of higher education. The rabbi was not convinced of the rising tide of antisemitism on campuses. As a parent of two college-aged kids, he asked whether the problems were just "parental projection." This comment reflects a broader pattern of denial or avoidance, as it downplays and ignores first-hand testimony.Self-Sabotage
About a year before Hamas’s invasion of Israel, I experienced workplace antisemitism. It started with strange and contradictory behavior from the employer and quickly escalated into blatant, discriminatory incidents. I was told a concentration camp joke at a staff meeting and was left with no recourse within the organization. I was also referred to as "you people," and subjected to violent behavior, such as colleagues banging on my office door daily and yelling through the walls. When I sought help, both from a private Jewish lawyer and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), my experiences were not only dismissed, but turned against me. The private lawyer said I was dealing with difficult coworkers, not hostility and discrimination. The ADL, an organization meant to support Jews facing mistreatment, wasn’t willing to record my testimony until I sent them a strongly worded email.
This kind of internal denial and dismissal weakens us and prevents collective action when it’s most needed. When the people who are supposed to protect you remain in denial and hold fast to delusional beliefs about antisemitism in America, it becomes impossible to defend yourself against it quickly and efficiently.
Under these conditions, we actively work against ourselves. That is how Hamas wins an asymmetrical war. Indeed, over the last year, many American Jews initially played into Hamas’s hands through denial and disunity until they were able to regroup and started fighting back against powerful domestic opponents. In other words, American Jews are now engaging in asymmetrical warfare to maintain a favorable position in their own country.
“Those who embrace the world and reject Judaism, and those who embrace Judaism and reject the world” endanger Jews and Judaism equally. “This is very dangerous, because if there is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism in the future, who is going to fight it? The Jews who abandon Judaism? Or the Jews who abandon the world?”
— Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
In order to be victorious, we invisible American Jews must first acknowledge our identity publicly and demand acceptance, as other more visible minorities do. Owning who you are demonstrates strength. Assimilation, on the other hand, requires ceding power to the demands of the majority culture since we give up a say in the terms and conditions of our citizenship.
When we willingly reveal our identity, however, we become full-partners in negotiating our place in American society. This means worrying less about fitting into our places of employment and neighborhoods and placing more emphasis on creating strong, durable alliances. This also means exercising greater social discernment. We should be pickier about selecting our friends and acquaintances. We should choose employment — when feasible — where we can be as open about our identity as any other visible minority. We may have to reconsider where we live, choosing instead — if possible — to relocate to parts of the country where Jews have critical mass and exercise more power. By being more visible and creating strong, long-lasting alliances inside and outside the Jewish community, we set the terms and conditions for maintaining our identity without shame. But first, we have to stop being in denial.