On Wednesday, October 9th, Haverford Professor of Political Science Barak Mendelsohn delivered a teach-in titled Israel, A Year After 10.7. The teach-in was sponsored by Club Chai, the Bi-Co’s Jewish faculty and staff alliance, although Mendelsohn made it clear that the views he expressed were his own. The teach-in focused on analysis of the developments of the conflict in Israel over the past year in reflection of the conflict’s anniversary, with Mendelsohn relying on his professional expertise in the field of International Politics, and more specifically in Terrorism Studies.
This teach-in acted almost as a sequel to a teach-in Mendelsohn gave last year immediately following Hamas’s first attack on October 7th, 2023, that ignited the Israel-Hamas conflict. Last year’s lecture focused on and analyzed the build up to the conflict, while this year’s lecture picked up right where the last lecture left off. Mendelsohn provided academic insight on all that has happened since the beginning of the conflict, which he described as far too much in such a short amount of time.
Mendelsohn opened his lecture by making it clear that he was there to do his job, and that he would keep as much emotional persuasion and bias from his analysis as possible, although he recognized he was not infallible. The unspoken variable here is that as a natural-born Israeli and strong advocate for the Jewish community on campus, many may expect Mendelsohn to take a pro-Israel perspective on the conflict, or may even be biased in his analysis of the conflict. Mendelsohn aimed to deliver a neutral, academic analysis of the conflict- at some points even seeming more critical of Israeli officials than any other members of the conflict. In fact, the lecture took on the air of one of his classrooms- almost scientific, with Mendelsohn breaking down the complex politics and altercations of the conflict into analysis of strategies, capabilities, power balances, and motivations of each side.
Mendelsohn first recounted the list of occurrences in the conflict since the beginning of the war- a seemingly endless list of attacks and operations, warranting Mendelsohn’s description of the past year as the “worst in Israeli history.”
Mendelsohn then transitioned into an analysis of the actors in the war- Israel and Hamas as the primaries, and Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq as secondary actors. Mendelsohn noted that while Israel was facing opposition from all of these actors, the power dynamic in the region still leans in favor of Israel- however, his confidence in the Israeli government’s ability to capitalize on this power was low.
Mendelsohn spent much of the teach-in focused on Israel- its response to the attack, its leaders, its ethos, and its future. Mendelsohn viewed Israel’s response to Hamas’s initial attack as the only possible response for any regime if they wish to maintain popular support- even if it may not have been the most strategic. Hamas’s attack’s brutality also resulted in a changing ethos in Israel- from one that tried to avoid civilian casualty and never left any man behind, to one where the main objective was complete victory, regardless of what may be lost in the process. Mendelsohn attributed this in large part to desensitization of Israelis because of the high levels of violence and destruction of the status quo by the conflict’s belligerents.
However, this is not to say that Mendelsohn spoke heavily in support of Israel. In fact, much of Mendelsohn’s lecture remained highly critical of the Israeli government and its decision-making throughout the conflict, often decrying Israeli leadership as part of the radical right and excessively incompetent. And, while Mendelsohn argued that the best conclusion to the war would be political compromise, he acknowledged that neither side, Israel or Hamas, had governments that were willing or able to operate politically. He claimed that both would fight until victory had been achieved, leaving what Mendelsohn saw as a long and deadly conflict still ahead. In fact, in drawing his conclusions on how war would end, Mendelsohn relayed a rather unsettling message- he does not know how the conflict will end, largely because “Israel does not have the political leadership to finish the war.” Mendelsohn posited that a conclusion, absent of total victory, would require immense external pressure from world powers.
Mendelsohn then opened the floor to questions, all of which remained intellectually and academically oriented around the topic at hand, and Mendelsohn answered in stride. One attendee asked Mendelsohn how he would advise the U.S. government to act. Mendelsohn answered that the U.S. should remember to protect their own interests.
The teach-in concluded without interruption or disruption, a celebratory moment for Mendelsohn, who has been the target of much backlash over the past year due to his online statements about anti-Zionism and antisemitism at Haverford and the conflict overall. Moreover, the teach-in reflected an important step in remembering the losses that were suffered on October 7th, 2023, and have continuously been suffered since on all sides of the conflict. These sentiments were reflected in Mendelsohn’s closing remarks in which he thanked the audience, and added “This was an important event for us to do. I’m glad it went without any disruption” and finally, “May peace return to all people in the Middle East and beyond.”
Be First to Comment