Gaza is back in the political news thanks to protests at the DNC, which mostly seem to have fizzled out. I guess Killer Kamala doesn't have quite the same ring as Genocide Joe.
But I remain puzzled not by opposition to the Gaza War per se, but by the seemingly relentless, intransigent opposition to Israel having responded to October 7 at all. Where does this unquestioning sympathy for Israel's enemies come from?
For more than 70 years Arabs (and Iran) have been relentlessly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Over the decades this has taken the form of conventional wars, guerilla wars, blockades, terrorist attacks, organic uprisings, suicide bombers, and rockets from neighboring territories. When Arab nations effectively gave up, the PLO took over the killing. When the PLO gave up, Hamas and Hezbollah took over. No matter what Israel did or didn't do, someone remained fanatically devoted to killing Jews.
If you're one of the lunatics who thinks Israel is an illegal colonial settler on Palestinian land and it's therefore righteous to seek its destruction, go block a freeway or set up a bunch of tents or do something else stupid and pointless.
On the other hand, if you're someone who thinks the West Bank settlements are wrong and Israel has a lot to answer for—well, I agree. If you think Benjamin Netanyahu is an odious piece of shit, preach it. If you think Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, abused Palestinian prisoners, cavalierly bombed civilians, killed aid workers, and turned the entire region into a wasteland, you'll get no argument. If, in general, you think Israel could have done a whole lot of things better and more humanely over the years, you're right.
And yet, all that stuff didn't pop up out of nowhere. It happened because no matter how many wars they won or how many peace settlements they agreed to, their enemies single-mindedly kept trying to annihilate them. So what do you expect them to do? Is there a less brutal course that would ever get Israel's enemies to stop?
Maybe there is. But what? What precisely is it that Palestinian protesters want?
So what do you expect them to do?
Stop illegally occupying and colonizing others' territory. Same thing I'd want from any invader.
What precisely is it that Palestinian protesters want?
I don't know. I don't follow the movement very closely, and I agree a lot of them are extreme. Many also reject Israel's right to exist. Which is deeply unhinged. But nonetheless Israel shouldn't be occupying Palestinian lands. Territorial aggrandizement by force is against international law, Israel shouldn't be doing it, and we shouldn't giving billions and billions to a regime engaged in such illegal activity. I guess what I want personally is normalization of our relationship with Israel: normally, we wouldn't be forking over such vast aid to a country so blatantly engaged in illegal conquest.
@Jasper_in_Boston: "...from any invader"? Really? So you're also all over the US and Canada for their occupying and colonizing? And would be even if various Native American tribes were kidnapping, raping and murdering US civilians?
Color me dubious.
And before you start talking about different time scale, recall that Israel came into being 80 years ago. If you're willing to disregard what we've done as "ancient history" then please tell me what the cutoff is for ancient history. If Israel makes it to the century mark, are they then in the clear? Will they be at 200 years?
@Kevin: What do I want Israel to do? Simple. Stop killing children as part of internal political manuvering.
Israel continues to kill children daily, for purely political ends. That should be unacceptable.
To be clear, I view the deaths that occurred as part of the June rescue mission at Nusirat (sp?) as regrettable but justified. Any blame there accrues to Hamas for starting a firefight in a heavily populated area. But the vast majority of Israeli's supposed attempt to "destroy Hamas" is chipping away at a deliberately impossible task in an attempt to keep the Israeli government afloat.
So you're also all over the US and Canada for their occupying and colonizing?
If you can point to an instance of the United States illegally occupying the territory of another nation, I'm all ears, and I'll join you in pressuring Washington to give it back. If we currently are doing so, we're in violation of International law, just like Israel now is.
I guess lucky for us/unlucky for the Native Americans the United Nations didn’t exist until the 20th Century…
I guess lucky for us/unlucky for the Native Americans the United Nations didn’t exist until the 20th Century…
Definitely.
As I wrote below, every country on earth has invasion and conquest in its past, if we but look back far enough; at one point territorial expansion by force was not illegal. Thankfully it now is.
My reverence for international law doesn't flow from starry-eyed naiveté. Quite the opposite: it's the most powerful, practical tool we have to avoid the anarchy and ruin of "might makes right." A rules-based world is precisely what dictatorships like Russia and China despise, and what we supposedly value. What Israel is doing is a violation of the rules. We shouldn't undermine our own values—and weaken one of our most valuable protections—by ignoring Israel's illegal, colonial project.
"If you can point to an instance of the United States illegally occupying the territory of another nation," How does someone become as stupid as you. There are innumerable examples of the US violating its treaties with native Americans and illegally occupying their land.
How does someone become as stupid as you. There are innumerable examples of the US violating its treaties with native Americans and illegally occupying their land..
How can anyone be as stupid as you so as not to grasp the discussion at hand involves international law. Not domestic.
It's abundantly clear from the words I wrote that I do not regard the United States (or indeed any nation) as pure as the driven snow when it comes to the morality of conquest. Nonetheless, given the overly broad scope of this area, we ought to confine ourselves to matters involving international law. What America did to the Cherokee was wrong. So, too, was what the Canadians did to the Cree. Or what the English did to the Welsh. Or what the Japanese did to the Ainu.
Not all wrongs are amenable to international law. But Israel's 1967 conquests are.
"If you can point to an instance of the United States illegally occupying the territory of another nation," How does someone become as stupid as you. There are innumerable examples of the US violating its treaties with native Americans and illegally occupying their land. " If we currently are doing so" again, how can someone be asoverwhelming ignorant as you. Of course the Us is still in violation of hundreds of the treaties it signed.
how can someone be asoverwhelming ignorant as you. Of course the Us is still in violation of hundreds of the treaties it signed..
How could someone be so imbecilic so as not to comprehend this discussion pertains to international law? But if the US is indeed the miscreant in this area you seem to think, I would urge any nation giving us hundreds of billions of military aid (current US aid==>Israel scaled up) to cease doing so. Deal?
@Kevin: What do I want Israel to do? Simple. Stop killing children as part of internal political maneuvering.
I’ll concede Bibi probably isn’t trying too hard to avoid short rounds but Gazans ELECTED a government they knew would (and still !) use violence and use civilians as shields. Not the best recipe for getting a benevolent reprisal after October.
This is nonsense because the majority of the people in Gaza today did not elect Hamas (they weren't born yet or were too young to participate). It's also worth mentioning that Israel and Bibi actually preferred Hamas over the alternative, so it's a pretty shitty thing to do to know try to blame it on the people of Gaza for getting blown up, or starved to death for the actions of people they did not gave power, an who Israel wanted to govern in the area.
Didn’t elect Hamas?
So, Bibi and Blinken have been negotiating with the wrong guys?
The Hamas "government" (hard to call it that, when a lot of the control of what happens in Gaza remained in Israel's hands), was "elected" in a single election that took place almost 20 years ago with no elections ever since.
The majority of the people currently living in Gaza DID NOT elect them for anything, so it's downright evil to now blame them for the actions of a group of people they played no role in giving power to.
Who did played a role in giving power to Hamas was Netanyahu, who looked as Hamas as a better alternative for his purposes.
If you're willing to disregard what we've done as "ancient history" then please tell me what the cutoff is for ancient history.
I'm sure that you ask this as a rhetorical question, convinced that there is no way to establish a firm date. Except that there is.
The cutoff is 1949.
That's when the 4th Geneva Convention was signed. It is when expanding territory through conquest became definitively illegal. Any territory acquired after that involved a violation of international law. It is proper to demand that it be returned.
Regarding Israel, this means that the establishment of the country in 1948, despite the fact that it was illegal in a number of ways, stands. Israel exists, and will continue to exist. But it must return all of the territory seized in 1967. It must also acknowledge that, under international law, all of those who fled or were expelled in 1948, and their descendants, have a right to return to there ancestral homes. (I find it grimly amusing that the Israelis argue that they have an alienable right to return to territory where some very distant ancestors lived, while also arguing that people who can actually remember being exiled have no such right.)
If Israel wants to retain some settlements and prevent the right of return, they will need to negotiate that with the Palestinians. But such negotiations start from the premise that the Israeli occupation is illegal and must be ended. The onus to come to a deal must be on the Israelis.
Well put:
"(I find it grimly amusing that the Israelis argue that they have an alienable right to return to territory where some very distant ancestors lived, while also arguing that people who can actually remember being exiled have no such right.)"
" I'm sure that you ask this as a rhetorical question, convinced that there is no way to establish a firm date. Except that there is.
The cutoff is 1949. "
Tibet?
Please stop this nonsense. Tibet obviously doesn't count. The Chinese aren't Jews.
Legally, Tibet is a very different situation. Tibet was a part of Qing Dynasty China from 1720 to 1912. The Chinese never relinquished its claim during the period from 1912 to 1951. (And before someone makes a dumb argument, a state maintaining a claim for 40 years is not the same thing as a people maintaining a claim for 1,800. There wasn't an international legal regime in 135 CE.) From a legal perspective, China didn't acquire new territory through conquest.
Morally, of course, the Chinese absorption of Tibet is both appalling and wrong. Working to end it is the right thing to do. But this will require different tools than ending the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
It is worth looking at the date each country actually ratified the 4th Geneva Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
Where does Tibet fit into 1949?
Yeah, I don't understand why this is so complicated.
I'd like them to stop committing war crimes please. That's all. It's not a high bar. With the possible exception of the Oslo accords, they haven't met it during my entire lifetime. And I'm not sure I can even count that as an exception given that those in control of the country now are part of the faction that assassinated the guy was leading Israel towards not committing war crimes.
> Stop illegally occupying and colonizing others' territory. Same thing I'd want from any invader.
Well, that's the question, isn't it? Is the "occupied territory" just Gaza and the West Bank, or the whole of Israel?
The problem is that enough people with guns believe that the whole of Israel is an illegal occupation, and are willing to kill as many Israelis as it takes to correct that perceived transgression. What should Israel do with those people?
I would say that the problem is that people use the "but then we'd have to figure it out" as an excuse to not figure it out.
Actually, the problem is that Israel believes it is entitled to the entire territory despite having a minority of the population that lives there. That means that both the people who think there should be no Israel and the people who think the Palestinians should have their basic human rights respected are on the side of wanted Israel to stop being awful. That is a gift to the people you claim are the problem.
It should be obvious that the expansion of settlements across the West Bank is the last thing Israel would do if its main concern was to protect themselves from the people who think that Israel is al an invader. It simply sets up Israeli citizens as easier targets. Israel is taking land in the West Bank despite the fact that this is a gift to the people you think are the problem, not because it is a sensible way to respond to them.
Withdraw to 1967 borders. What a weird ask.
For the record I do think Israel is a colonial state. A pack of foreigners showed up in land that they had no connection to except in delusions and took it over. I also however think wiping it off the map would also be a crime and support aid to resist that.
For the record I do think Israel is a colonial state.A pack of foreigners showed up in land that they had no connection to except in delusions and took it over.
Every country is an "invader state" by that definition. There's literally not a state whose territory wasn't "invaded" by one group or another of human beings if we peer far back enough into the mists of time. Often that "invasion" is simply immigration, which is morally unobjectionable. Israel's existence and 1949-1967 borders are legitimate per international law. Is there a case to be made that Palestinians got screwed over in 1949? Sure, just like the Sioux, the Welsh and Catalans. We can't rectify every grievance.
Israel is a colonial state not because of the circumstances of its birth, but because it conquered a bunch of territory in 1967, and has been steadily engaged in colonizing activities (denial of civil rights, ethnic cleansing, land theft, destruction of property, annexations, human rights abuses, etc) ever since.
> Israel is a colonial state not because of the circumstances of its birth, but because it conquered a bunch of territory in 1967
I agree with you, but what do you want to do with the armed people who oppose the existence of Israel? Or moreover, what should Israel do to the people who object not to its post-1967 activities, but to its post-1949 activities?
I agree with you, but what do you want to do with the armed people who oppose the existence of Israel?
The exact same thing that is done with the armed people who oppose the existence of Palestine. They are all going to have to figure out how to live with each other.
That's not much of an answer.
There's no indication that people on either side have any interest or ability in "figuring it out."
It's the only answer your question merits. It comes from a presupposition that the Israelis have a right to demand that "something be done" about the Palestinian rejectionists, but that the Palestinians have no equivalent right.
I never said Palestinians have no rights to seek solutions. But if they were interested in peaceful solutions, I haven't seen any indication of that.
You really can't give up on demanding things of the Palestinians, while remaining silent about what the Israelis need to do, can you?
The PLO accepting Israel in the 1990's and committing to peacefully pursuing a 2-state solution is not an indication?
The PLO and the Palestinian Authority recognized the existence of Israel. The Hamas charter (2017) indicates a willingness to recognize the right of Israel to exist in exchange for Israel recognizing the right of a Palestinian state to exist. There are presumably a lot of individual Palestinians who own guns and oppose the existence of Israel.
If Israel agreed to a two state solution, the new Palestinian state would be unlikely to go to war with Israel, or to allow non-governmental groups to do things like fire missiles at Israel. Israeli border security would have to keep out potential terrorists, just as they do today.
A two state solution would not be risk free, but neither is the status quo.
Exactly. People love to say a 2-state solution cannot work, ignoring:
1. It has not been tried.
2. It stands to reason people might be less angrya and violent if they have a place they can call their own and live in peace.
Arguments that Palestinians are irreparably vile stink of racism.
but what do you want to do with the armed people who oppose the existence of Israel?
I personally don't want to do anything about them. Just like I'm not losing sleep over Houthi aggression against Yemen. I don't dispute any sovereign nation's right to defend itself, if that's what your asking. But unless the country involved is a vital strategic interest of the US (ie, Ukraine), I'd prefer we stay out of it.
The Middle East just isn't that important at this point for the US. Our obsession with the region flows entirely from old habits and domestic politics.
I'll tell you -- what should have been happening the West Bank already -- as long as the PA prevents terrorists from setting up camp in the West Bank, Israel should be removing settlements gradually, and turning over all non-military government operation, including land allocation, to the PA.
Create a de facto Palestinian state.
Of course Israel is a colonial state. I realized not long ago that it resembles Liberia in a lot of ways.
I learned nothing of Liberia in any history class I ever took but the gist of it is that U.S. presidents starting with Munroe and Jackson were of the opinion that free Africans in the U.S. should be sent the fuck back to Africa. Enslaved Africans would have to remain enslaved, of course. The plan was to send them to a strip of land in West Africa, never mind that people were already living there and had been living there for a zillion years. They probably thought "all Black people are the same so they'll get along fine" which makes about as much sense as Germans and French (white Europeans, all) getting along fine between the 2 world wars. YAY for African Colony!
Great Britain had its share of antisemitism and some brainiac came up with the Balfour Declaration which said, in effect, that getting Jews out of Britain was a great idea but you need to give them somewhere to go. Having taken over territory that belonged to the now-defunct Ottoman Empire, Britain encouraged all the British Jews to go to Palestine, never mind that people were already living there and had been living there for a hell of a long time. YAY for Middle East Colony!
"the seemingly relentless, intransigent opposition to Israel having responded to October 7 at all"
From whom? I'm sure such exists, as all sorts of opinions exist. But are you suggesting there's some large contingent of people who believe this? Of such people in positions of prominence and power within the Democratic Party? Maybe I don't get out to the local DNC bar crawls enough but I haven't seen it.
+1
This is about as fragile as a strawman can get.
To understand the meaning of irony.
If I may mix an idiom with a proverb, for want of a nail they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
On the other hand, if you're someone who thinks the West Bank settlements are wrong and Israel has a lot to answer for—well, I agree.
You agree only so long as you don't have to advocate doing anything about it. You ask why the Israelis should trust the Palestinians, and avoid the question of why the Palestinians should trust the Israelis. You allow Palestinian terrorism to justify Israeli intransigence, but never arrive at the conclusion that Israeli terrorism justifies intransigence by the Palestinians.
Your entire argument rests upon having wildly different standards of how the two sides should react to the crimes committed by the other. I understand that it is antisemitic that Israelis should be held responsible for their own actions.
If you think Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, abused Palestinian prisoners, cavalierly bombed civilians, killed aid workers, and turned the entire region into a wasteland, you'll get no argument.
We'll get no argument from you only so long as we don't demand that Israel stop committing crimes, backed with any sort of sanctions upon them if they don't.
And yet, all that stuff didn't pop up out of nowhere. It happened because no matter how many wars they won or how many peace settlements they agreed to, their enemies single-mindedly kept trying to annihilate them.
Here, again, you hold an enormous double standard. Keep in mind that this entire problem began when the Zionists formulated a plan for large scale immigration to a place where Jews made up less than 5% of the population, committed to creating a state that definitionally excluded the other 95% from full citizenship. Then, the Zionists rejected being a part of the state of Palestine and rebelled against the legal government.
Arguing that the Arabs started it all requires ignoring the actual history. Once again, you argue that Israelis are justified in using the history of the conflict to inform its actions, but that Palestinians are not.
This position requires ignoring the fact that, dating all the way back to the early years of the 20th century, the Zionists have been every bit as intent on eliminating a Palestinian presence as the Palestinians have been to eliminate a Jewish presence. But only one side has to pay a price for these policies.
So what do you expect them to do? Is there a less brutal course that would ever get Israel's enemies to stop?
The Israelis could try not committing crimes against the Palestinians. They could try obeying international law. They could try treating the Palestinians as legitimate inhabitants of the land that have legitimate grievances.
I don't know whether that would work, but the Israelis have never even attempted it.
For the round and round files… how did Jews come to be only five percent of that area’s population?
You may want to talk to the Romans about that...
Because things change over 1,800 years. However, the true story of what happened differs vastly from the myth that the Zionists told.
That myth is that the Jews were exiled by the Romans, in 70 CE at the destruction of the Second Temple, and in 135 CE, after the crushing of the Bar Kokhba revolt. This created a diaspora of the exiles. What was left behind was almost entirely non-Jewish, and the land had been seized from its rightful inhabitants.
This myth is bullshit.
In fact, the diaspora was created over centuries, starting long before 70 CE. Almost all of those who left Palestine did so voluntarily, for the same reasons people often migrate. Palestine was poor, and many of them left to pursue economic opportunities elsewhere. Very few of them ever returned.
The myth is also false, because the Romans did not exile all the Jews. They exiled the elites, who they blamed for the various revolts. The large majority of the Jews, who, like the bulk of the population everywhere, were peasants, with a fairly small contingent of middle class craftsmen. They stayed.
Most of the Jews never left. They "disappeared" because, for several centuries after Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, most of that population also converted. Only a tiny number remained Jewish. Then, after the Muslim Arabs conquered the area, most of the locals converted to Islam.
The Palestinians are, for the most part, the descendants of Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. But, to the extent that they understood this history, the Zionists' policy was that those who were no longer Jewish forfeited their right to be considered the legitimate inhabitants of the land.
Well, that was an interesting take.
An especially interesting part of it is that Theodore Herzl and other early Zionists knew and acknowledged this. The myth, in its pure form, is of more recent vintage.
But, at least implicitly, the Zionists believed that, by converting from Judaism, the population forfeited their claim to the land.
Well said. I wish KD would address your arguments.
Agreed. I had been entertaining some hope that KD's views were being informed over the last months by some of the very high quality posts in the comments on this subject (like TheMelancholyDonkey's above). It did seem he was starting to see the ludicrous nature of the main stream "kindergarten" (ala Lon Becker) narrative.
Sadly this post exhibits all the intolerable cognitive dissonance one must tolerate when asking this post's rhetorical question. "Okay, okay, it's war crime after war crime, but what are they supposed to do when their victims keep struggling?"
"...the seemingly relentless, intransigent opposition to Israel having responded to October 7 at all. "
Huh? I don't think many would have had an issue with an incursion going into Gaza to get hostages back, and some response. But after the first week this was not about responding to October 7th and about retribution and destruction.
And, as someone else above said, Israel has continued to expand settlements since Oct 7 so the sympathy from Hamas' attack is stunted by that.
I'm more shocked by the people who seem to think that anything Israel does is just fine, no matter how brutal or how many innocents are harmed ... and radicalized.
A good faith effort to implement a two-state solution, starting with a serious reversal of all the encroachments in the West Bank. This would likely not stop all Arab hostilities, but I have a hard time seeing that this would not result in a situation better for all parties than the one we have now -- or had prior to Oct. 7.
I primarily blame the US for not insisting upon this in exchange for our support.
And I blame AIPAC for fostering and promoting a political environment in the US that prevents anything but blind support for Israeli colonialism.
Yep. Are we really so helpless? Sad!!
Israel *should* grant suffrage and ban religious discrimination anywhere under its control. I don't *expect* it to do anything of the sort.
> Israel *should* grant suffrage and ban religious discrimination anywhere under its control.
If they did that, do you think Hamas would disband?
No, Hamas would not disband. But that's not a useful question. The more relevant one is how much support from the Palestinian population they would lose once that population had political rights. That is a question no one knows the answer to. But that ignorance is not a valid excuse to continue denying the Palestinians basic human rights.
It doesn't matter.
ZOMG! They are lying liars telling lies! No enemy is trying to annihilate Israel. No enemy has the capacity to annihilate Israel. The annihilation is of Palestinians. Israel's and America's policy. What do you expect Palestinians to do?
> No enemy is trying to annihilate Israel.
What are the publicly stated political goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis?
Israel has the means to completely destroy Palestine and doesn’t. (No, they are not currently doing so.)
Hamas does not have the means to completely destroy Israel, but I have no doubt they would if they could. (If Hamas could get a nuclear device or chemical weapon into the middle of Tel Aviv does anyone think they wouldn’t use it?)
Israel doesn't have the means to completely destroy Palestine, at least without irradiating large parts of their own territory.
Yeah. Comments like Jambo's strike me as 'I really want to hate on Palestinians, must not think carefully'.
No Palestinians, including Hamas, would accept the use of these weapons to oust the colonizers unless they were first used by the Zionists. Palestinians imitation of Zionist terrorism has not succeeded, which is why they adopted the defensive strategies developed by Qasem Soleimani.
i don't understand why this is so difficult; ethno-religious zealots are usually so accommodating
thank god there's no major party in the US agitating for ethno-religious purity
Ethno-religious zealots about sums it up.
If some religious nutball walked up to Kevin as he was heading into town and said "I hold in my hand the word of god, and that word is that this house and lot belong to me," well I doubt Kevin would accept that. "Go check the county records, pal, sez Kevin, and you'll see that this is my property."
So Kevin gets back from town and sees that the nutball has killed his wife and burned down his house. "Now get the fuck out of here before I kill you" sez the nutball, "and stay off my property."
That is the Israeli settler movement in a nutshell and this has been SOP for decades, but go ahead and pretend that doesn't matter.
> That is the Israeli settler movement in a nutshell and this has been SOP for decades,
True. But then why were the Arabs trying to destroy Israel pre-1967, when "Israeli settlers" weren't a thing?
In other words, there is no history worth bothering with before 1967.
Maybe large scale immigration to a land that already has inhabitants with the open goal of creating a state in which 95% of those inhabitants are definitionally excluded from full citizenship was a really bad idea.
Bavaria post-WW2, for that I could construct a moral argument.
I understand why a lot of Jews wanted out of Europe entirely. They just never grappled with the problem that establishing themselves somewhere else wouldn't remove them from the midst of those who hate them. It just created a a whole new set of peoples who hate them even more than the last set of antisemites they lived amongst.
I'm not sure what Israel should do, but it's clear that they shouldn't act in a way that not only perpetuates but exacerbates the cycle of revenge. It's worth remembering that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is a limiting clause; it says that retribution should not be more severe than the offence that triggers the retribution. The Israelis are FAR beyond that in Gaza. Does anybody have any idea what their objective is? I hope it's not just simple slaughter.
It's reifying the maxim, "never again."
I think their objective is abundantly clear, if not well thought through. They have stated what it is and have been doing it for 10 months.
Israel wants to leave all of Gaza in utter ruin and make it unlivable. That goal takes priority over any constraints of international law or humanitarian principal. Achieving that goal requires the destruction of the health care system (hospitals, medical workers), water and power infrastructure, civil society (universities, mosques, churches, elementary schools), agricultural capability. It requires leaving the hostages in horrifying limbo until their eventual deaths.
They are systematically meeting all these requirements and all indications are that it will continue. Sadly, at this point it is hard to hold out any hope that they will not succeed.
That thing you're worried about (Netanyahu dragging the USA into a regional war in order to prop up his government and stay out of jail)? It's not a big deal to Kevin Drum because he hasn't really been paying attention to the big picture despite decades of considering himself a wise pundit and is just openly telling everyone he doesn't know WTF is going on.
This is one of Mr. Drum's most loathsomely ignorant posts and I'm probably done with this blog, it has outlived its usefulness.
Not picking sides. Their gods will decide who’s right.
I thought that Drum had moved away from his child's understanding of the conflict and was trying to find excuses why Israel, although acting immorally shouldn't be thought of too badly. But here the understanding of a child returns.
The Arabs have not been relentless on their attacks on Israel. The countries that Israel has tried to reach peace with have reached peace, and have stood by it in the face of Israeli bad behavior. (Jordan ignored an attack on its soil after it made peace with Israel.)
In 1993 Israel and the Palestinians agreed to a peace process. The peace was premised on the idea that the slightly under 50% of the population that was Jewish would get 78% of the territory and that the millions of Palestinians who were ethnically cleanses from Israel would go to that 22%. The Palestinians spent the next 7 years working to improve security to make it easier for Israel to agree to peace. Israel spent those 7 years building settlements to make it impossible for the Palestinians to agree to what would not be peace and then made an offer in which they retained all of those settlements, meaning it offered endless occupation. To answer your question, Israel should not have done that.
Since then Israel has accelerated its settlement program to the point that nobody was even talking about peace until the Hamas attack. Since Israel was thriving and nobody cares about the Palestinians who cared about peace? Instead Israel has followed a policy of killing a few thousand Palestinians every few years in the face of comparatively minimal resistance to a truly cruel blockade of Gaza. And in the West Bank Israel has abused its occupation to lock the majority population into comparative ghettos and made use of pograms to empty some of the more isolated Palestinian villages. Again to answer your question Israel should not have done those things.
Despite all of this, I think even comparatively few of the critics of Israel think that Israel should have done nothing in the face of the 10/7 attack. There are a few scattered voices claiming that, but pretending that is representative of what Israel faces is nonsense to the point of dishonesty. There have been people, I would include myself, who think that Israel should not have engaged in the kind of mass slaughter of a helpless people, and the abandonment of all rules of war, like targeting hospitals, aid trucks, schools, journalists, etc. But there is plenty of room between that and doing nothing.
The problem with asking what Israel should have done besides what has not unreasonable been called a genocide in Gaza is that there is not enough room in these boxes to cover all of the things that Israel should have done instead. And really none of them involve shrugging their shoulders after 10/7 and doing nothing.
+100
Thank you for taking the time to make these comments, Lon.
Good grief. First you set up a veritable army of strawmen, then you answer your own question:
On the other hand, if you're someone who thinks the West Bank settlements are wrong and Israel has a lot to answer for—well, I agree. If you think Benjamin Netanyahu is an odious piece of shit, preach it. If you think Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, abused Palestinian prisoners, cavalierly bombed civilians, killed aid workers, and turned the entire region into a wasteland, you'll get no argument. If, in general, you think Israel could have done a whole lot of things better and more humanely over the years, you're right.
Isn't this enough? Then you finish with this:
It happened because no matter how many wars they won or how many peace settlements they agreed to, their enemies single-mindedly kept trying to annihilate them.
Yes, they've agreed to a number of peace settlements. But there was never any intent to abide by these agreements and they never have. If anything, they've done their damnedest to undermine them. What do we expect Israel to do? How about acting in good faith for a change? If they expect their enemies to stop trying to annihilate them, maybe they should stop trying to annihilate the Palestinians.
Well, this is it for me and this blog. Kevin’s derision for Palestinians, his apparent inability to care about the deaths of more than 40,000 people—many of them children—is unbearable. You’ve lost part of your soul, Kevin. And you are blind to it. Have a good life, asshole.
For starters stop bombing the fuck out of Gaza.
A nice follow-up would be letting food, medical supplies, clean water & energy into Gaza. On a slightly longer time scale treat Gaza as an independent city state with it's own airport and seaport so that the people living there aren't dependent on Israel's good will.
Last but not least, dismantle all the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and let the Palestinian have a viable State with East Jerusalem as it's capital...
I don't think any of that is unreasonable, now do you?
Really? At a minimum Israel needs to stop expanding the settlements, dropping bombs where people live and stop torturing prisoners. How is that for starters? If one really believes in defending Israel one would seek a peaceful solution. Instead, as of today, instead of having 50% of Palestinians hating Israel you have 100%. Israel is setting the course for its own destruction but hey Masada.
It would be a ghastly irony of history if the world's next Holocaust was perpetrated by Israel.
Looking at current events, is anyone willing to bet that it won't actually happen?
No reporter asks the beaten and downtrodden in Gaza...Do you give up your Right of Return? Do you give up claims on East Jerusalem? Are you willing to live at peace with Israel within the boarders of Gaza?
The answer will inevitably be No...so it is hard for me to see the People of Gaza as blameless victims...they are choosing this path of self destruction.
"With the implementation of the plan, IDF installations and forces were removed and over 9000 Israeli citizens living in 25 settlements were evicted. By 22 September 2005, Israel's withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip to the 1967 Green Line, and the eviction of the four settlements in Samaria, was completed."
Traveller
PS There is no need for Lebanon to again risk their destruction by bombing Northern Israel.
Do you give up your Right of Return? . . . The answer will inevitably be No
Funny how people are unwilling to give up their legal rights in exchange for nothing. Under international law, refugees have a right to return to their original homes. Israel has been abrogating this right for 70 years. If they want the Palestinians to give up this right, their going to have to offer something in exchange.
Are you willing to live at peace with Israel within the boarders of Gaza?
Given that the Israelis are plainly unwilling to live within their own borders and and at peace with the Palestinians, this argument doesn't do much for the Israeli case.
it is hard for me to see the People of Gaza as blameless victims...they are choosing this path of self destruction.
But the Israelis get a free pass for choosing a path of destruction of others.
"With the implementation of the plan, IDF installations and forces were removed and over 9000 Israeli citizens living in 25 settlements were evicted. By 22 September 2005, Israel's withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip to the 1967 Green Line, and the eviction of the four settlements in Samaria, was completed."
Left unsaid:
1) The Israelis imposed an economic blockade of Gaza. Importantly, this started before Hamas won the 2006 election. Israel agreed to keep the Karni Crossing open for exports from Gaza. In practice, it was closed on about 2/3 of the days between the evacuation of the settlements and the election. On the otherdays, it was generally kept open for only a few hours. Gazan export firms went bankrupt because their goods rotted while waiting for the Israelis to let them through.
2) Since 1999, the Israeli Navy has patrolled Gazan territorial waters, which extend 20 miles from shore. They refuse to allow fishing beyond an arbitrary an arbitrary and frequently changing distance that has varied from 3 to 12 miles, making the best fishing grounds off-limits. This never stopped at any point, and destroyed the Gazan fishing industry.
3) The Israelis declared a significant portion of Gaza, including a third of the arable land, to be off-limits. They shot Palestinians that entered it.
4) The Israelis destroyed Gaza's airport in 2003, and an under construction seaport in 2001. They made sure that the Gazans couldn't build replacements.
5) The Israelis kept control of Gaza's airspace.
6) The Israelis kept control of Gaza's electromagnetic spectrum. If a Palestinian business or wanted to use a portion of it, they had to get a license from the Israeli government.
The Israelis never actually withdrew from Gaza.
+1
Not noted is that despite these restriction that are so complained of, the citizens of Gaza bent their efforts not to enhance their economic viability or the betterment of the lives of their citizens, but rather towards war...always war, always the importation of rockets and ammunition, the misdirection of building materials not towards actual buildings, but rather to tunnels, and all forms of making war.
The blockades were very ineffective...were Gaza their own 3 State solution, (see Singapore) as I once recommended, the importation of weapons would have been vastly higher, vastly more deadly.
The Gazans had the opportunity to build a society...but this giving cover for their barbarity by the sympathetic West only prevents the people of Gaza from accepting the fact that they brought this on themselves. Without this admission they can never move forward into the bright lights of modern civilization. Traveller
Not noted is that despite these restriction that are so complained of, the citizens of Gaza bent their efforts not to enhance their economic viability or the betterment of the lives of their citizens, but rather towards war
Then the Israelis shouldn't have deliberately destroyed the Gazan economy. Your entire argument rests upon the idea that the Gazans were free to choose peace and prosperity. This is a lie.
The blockades were very ineffective
They were ineffective at preventing the smuggling of military items. What Hamas was smuggling in was small and easily concealed. On the other had, the blockade was very effective at preventing the import of economically vital things, such as concrete and construction materials.
Given what the blockade was good for, and where it was ineffective, one suspects that the only real Israeli goal was destroying the Gazan economy.
The Gazans had the opportunity to build a society
This is another lie. The Israelis suffocated their economy and prevented them from building necessary infrastructure. They made sure that Gazan export businesses went bankrupt because the crossings were closed.
.but this giving cover for their barbarity by the sympathetic West only prevents the people of Gaza from accepting the fact that they brought this on themselves.
Aside from the fact that your outrage at barbarity is extremely selective, you absolve the Israelis for responsibility for their own actions.
Without this admission they can never move forward into the bright lights of modern civilization.
Both racist and condescending. You're quite the charmer.
I was under the impression that the Israelis destroyed Gazan infrastructure and set blockades because they were used by Hamas to launch attacks. It's hard to "really withdraw" when rockets fly from a neighborhood you just left.
Unfortunately who started the "He hit me back first" becomes impossible to sort out.
Actually, it's easy to sort out who hit who first. The question is whether or not it makes sense to go back that far to justify actions today.
This started when the Zionists began a project of large scale immigration to a land that already had inhabitants, openly planning to create a state that excluded 95% of that population from full citizenship.
citing this proves nothing
https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Israels%20Disengagement%20Plan-%202005.aspx#:~:text=With%20the%20implementation%20of%20the,settlements%20in%20Samaria%2C%20was%20completed.
I expect Israel to do whatever the Israeli government thinks is in the best interests of Israel same as any other country. I expect that the US will not supply Israel with aid unless their actions are also in the best interests of the US. It's the second part that the protesters have a problem with as Israel's current policies are most definitely not aligned with the best interests of the US.
Actually I think the protesters would oppose genocide even if it was in the interest of the US.
" but by the seemingly relentless, intransigent opposition to Israel having responded to October 7 at all"
this seems like a big strawman.
who, outside of a few fringy types, argues this?
Exactly.
I can only hope that this stupid post of KD is just the first of a pair; this one to offend anyone who thinks Israel is the villain in its conflicts and the next to offend anyone who thinks Israel is the white-hatted hero. Probably would have been better to do it the other way around, given that the latter is official US government position and thus should be subjected to more scrutiny.
Otherwise, KD is a bigoted moron.
But, "What should Israel do?" (Not, "What do I expect Israel to do?" because I fully expect Israel to take advantage of compliant Uncle Sugar and to continue their genocide.)
Immediately, Israel should defend its borders with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank better. Seriously, if Hamas -- which is probably less well-armed than a lot of American police forces -- poses a serious threat to Israel, Israel is a failed state. And I think by any reasonable account, Hamas' October 7 attack succeeded in causing a lot of casualties because Israel had essentially dropped its guard completely. Israel could pretty routinely make sure that another attack like October 7 doesn't happen. It wouldn't be without cost, but who said oppressing people would be cheap?
And the rocket attacks could be addressed with very limited responses rather than with genocide.
Anyway, that would be legitimate defense. What Israel has been doing instead is just revenge and retribution.
Less immediately, Israel could agree to have -- for the first time, KD's ignorant comments notwithstanding -- the Palestinians' complaints adjudicated in a neutral court of law. And to accept the rulings. And that would almost certainly be the best way to get the hostages back.
As the kids say, "No justice, no peace."
And the State of Israel had deprived the Palestinians of justice for as long as it has existed, and before that the British did it on their behalf.
Violence should be expected. If anyone presumed to do to America what Israel has done to the Palestinians (and just to be clear, I mean before October 7), we would probably do to them what Israel is doing to Gaza. Why should we expect the Palestinians to be better than us, other than because we're more powerful than they are?
"If you're one of the lunatics who thinks Israel is an illegal colonial settler on Palestinian land and it's therefore righteous to seek its destruction, go block a freeway or set up a bunch of tents or do something else stupid and pointless."
This was basically the left's position on South Africa. Were all those people not just wrong but "lunatics"? How is Israel so different?
"And yet, all that stuff didn't pop up out of nowhere. It happened because no matter how many wars they won or how many peace settlements they agreed to, their enemies single-mindedly kept trying to annihilate them. So what do you expect them to do? Is there a less brutal course that would ever get Israel's enemies to stop?"
This is nonsense. When Israel offered the Egyptians a reasonable deal they accepted it. Israel has never offered the Palestinians in the occupied territories a reasonable deal.
"What do you expect Israel to do?"
Not remind us of those two noxious words from the last century - "apartheid" and "lebensraum."
There was a more reasonable approach but it got assassinated by a Jewish extremist.
I don't care to promote the destruction of Israel. But since Israel has completely ignored our advice, treated us like a client state, interfered in our elections without even a fig leaf, and loudly proclaimed their willingness to go it alone if they have to, I'd prefer to go ahead and let them do that.
Enforce our laws on the use of our weapons. Quit giving Israel cover at the UN and other diplomatic institutions. Don't assault them or help others to do so, but let them go it on their own. That might concentrate their minds sufficiently to throw Netanyahu into jail where he belongs and take reaching a solution seriously.
Or not. But whatever, we need to stop dragging them around like an anchor in diapers.
There was a more reasonable approach but it got assassinated by a Jewish extremist.
It's worth noting that Yitzhak Rabin never slowed down settlement expansion in the West Bank, despite committing to end it in Oslo.
I do have to laugh at these LGBTQI signs in support of Palestine. Putting aside the question of what they mean by Palestine....They happily and blithely ignore the fact that in effect they are supporting a Hamas Government where they would murdered in a week...this queer blindness to human rights abuses in Gaza are monumental.
I refer to today's story of a gay man detained in relatively civilized Qatar for answering a Grinder ad...He is very lucky to have made it out.
" British-Mexican man who was arrested in Qatar in what his family called a “honeytrap operation” on gay dating app Grindr has been given a six-month suspended sentence and will be deported.
Manuel Guerrero Aviña, 44, was found guilty of being in possession of an illegal substance at a hearing in Doha and fined £2,100.
"His family say police planted drugs in his apartment and Mr Guerrero Aviña believes he was targeted by the sting because he is gay.
Human rights group FairSquare called his trial a “travesty of justice” but Qatari officials insist the airline worker's arrest in February was solely due to drug offences."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vxddzr2z5o
"Manuel has always insisted police officers planted drugs in his flat and says the real reason for his arrest was his sexuality.
“I absolutely deny the drugs charges," he told BBC News.
"Throughout the entire interrogation, everything they asked me about was about my sexual partners, my sexual orientation, whether I’ve been having sex, who I have had sex with and things like that.
“If it was just a drugs case, they would have been asking me about drugs.”
There should be a discussion on the lack of human rights in Gaza...not just sexuality, but freedom of speech...which also doesn't exist.
Just sayin` there are issues to be addressed before trying to put Gaza back together. *Special note, I always refuse to conflate Gaza and the West Bank...they are simply different with different issues.
Of course, most of the current Israeli government thinks Hamas's position on gay rights is about the only good thing about them.
I'm sorry, what part of "I believe in universal human rights and that includes non-heterosexual rights" makes supporting the Palestinian people and supporting queer rights mutually exclusive?
You're doing a lot of assuming there - that supporting the rights of Palestinian people means they're supporting Hamas. Very few protestors support Hamas and wish destruction on Israel. As with anything, there's always a fringe. Stop paying attention to the fringe. Only morons get distracted by the margins.
You've decided to go full bigoted POS. What the fuck does what the Qatari government do have to do with whatever rights people in Gaza may or may not have in some future? Is it just because both are Muslim and in your bigoted point of view they are all evil? How strict or lenient different groups of people are, even those of the same religion can vary by quite a bit. Just like there are Muslims nations that are terribly strict there are others who are much more open, which is the same that happens for instance with primarily Christian nations. Just in the US you have plenty of Christians that would gladly enforce the rights and rules available during the Dark Ages.
And regardless of what potential human rights are or not granted in Gaza or anywhere for that matter, any sensible human(which you seem not to be), would agree that before trying to argue how open or not a society can be, stopping the indiscriminate mass slaughtering and starving of civilians, primarily children, should be the No 1 thing to do, which is what the protestors you laugh at are arguing for.
Let them accelerate the process so we can get to the Occupation part of the story and watch that bake the brains of politicians, students, and pundits.
If only death didn't have to such an integral part of the process...
Kevin Drum is one of the most rational and intelligent writers about politics and ecomonics we have. To read so many - not all, but it seems most - comments that are so ignorant about the multitude of offers Israel has made for peace, on this of all sites, astounds me. Any comment that includes the words "the Zionists" or states vaguely that Israel occupies "Palestine territories" is a throwaway right off the bat. Yes, Israel occupies the West Bank and right wing Israelis, the equivalent of far right militant MAGAs, are settling there, sanctioned by Bibi and his posse of right wingers. Yes, Bibi is a war criminal. And yes, Hamas and Hezbollah are war criminals. Yes, Bibi should to to jail. Yes, so should all the Hamas and Hezbollah members. None of these people are operating in good faith nor do they desire peace. However many Palestinian Arabs of various religions do want peace, and certainly the vast majority if Israelis - Jewish, Christian, Arab, black, Asian Latinx, or European - just want peace, to be left alone and live safely. How is that achieved when leaders are criminals? How is this situation helped by protesters who decide to blame "Zionists" (a meaningless word) or Arabs or Muslims or whatever the hell term they decide is to blame. The goal is peace. The protesters were aiding war by striking fear into the heart of Israeli citizens of all races and religions who fear massacre, which has for 2000 years been preceded by an uprising of anti-Jewish sentiment. The various comments on this site, so full of certainty and blame, and devoid of genuine ideas for solutions, if an agreement between sociopathic criminal leaders is even possible, are heartbreaking. Decades ago I visited Israel. It was an amazing country then. So warm-hearted, friendly, welcoming, casual, intelligent, happy, hopeful. Probably the best atmosphere of any country I've visited - friendlier and warmer than Italy, Spain, Thailand, Samoa, the Cook Islands, the villages of Mexico. I wonder if that's destroyed now, by decades of bombings, terrorism and invasions.
I think it might actually be that the people responding are aware that Israel's supposed offers of peace have actually been offers of accepting occupation and calling it peace. So for example they might know that what Barak offered was a West Bank full of scattered settlements connected by Israel only roads to Israel and patrolled by the Israeli army, the only army that would be allowed in the West Bank, with Israel in control of all people and goods moving into the West Bank. Palestinians moving around the West Bank would have to go through checkpoints. Barak's offer was clearly continued occupation. It would not even reach the level of a moral occupation.
In 2008 Abbas offered to recognize Israel on 78% of their shared homeland with 22% (divided into two enclaves) left to the Palestinians, despite the fact that Palestine represents the majority population and would have to take in the millions of refugees ethnically cleansed from Israel. And Israel turned it down because it feels it needs some of that 22% as well, and in particular a part of that 22% that cuts off the Palestinian capital from the bulk of its population. And that was despite the fact that at least in the short term Israel still would have maintained control of all borders and so the movement of goods and people in and out of Palestine.
Israel has worked for decades to make peace impossible. In the 90s there was some hope of peace despite the fact that the Labor government (yes the liberal government) was moving Israelis into the West Bank to make the possible of peace harder. Now it is practically impossible to imaging peace since Israel has fully settled the West Bank leaving the Palestinian majority in ghettos. Netanyahu has been the worst in this regard, but it is nonsense to blame him, every single Israeli administration right left and center has contributed to killing the possibility of peace. That doesn't stop them from whining that the Palestinians won't peacefully accept that they are stateless residents in Israel now and forever.
I have been to Israel a couple of times and liked the people I met (including my relatives who I knew before going). But in the antebellum South there were nice people to. That does not make slavery any less of a monstrosity. And the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has been monstrous.
The critics of Israel seem to understand the situation better than you do.
Exactly - Israel offers desolation and calls it peace.
It always helps to remember that, by "peace," Israel and its supporters don't actually mean peace. What they mean is, "Palestinians accept their subjugation with sufficiently little fuss that the daily lives of Israelis are not inconvenienced." Since they don't care about the Palestinians, it doesn't bother them that the Israelis would continue to engage in acts of war targeting Palestinians.
Is this ever the attitude I got from Israelis when I visited.
I remember a nice liberal couple we were dining with finding it unimaginable that we would visit Hebron. The were "so done" with Palestininians and their pesky moral claims.
They have lovely lives, with full political right, good jobs, and live in a safe neighborhood.
Any comment that includes the words "the Zionists"
The Zionists were real, historical people. And almost all Jewish Israelis loudly consider themselves to be Zionists.
Yes, Israel occupies the West Bank and right wing Israelis, the equivalent of far right militant MAGAs, are settling there, sanctioned by Bibi and his posse of right wingers.
Illegal settlement long predates Netanyahu's governments. Though, the Israelis have elected his coalition six times. They own responsibility for his actions.
certainly the vast majority if Israelis - Jewish, Christian, Arab, black, Asian Latinx, or European - just want peace
The vast majority of Israelis want peace on the terms that they set, and have no interest in a negotiated peace. Again, they keep electing governments that openly favor annexation.
The protesters were aiding war by striking fear into the heart of Israeli citizens of all races and religions who fear massacre, which has for 2000 years been preceded by an uprising of anti-Jewish sentiment.
Much like bananaevangelion, you assert that the Israeli fears excuse their actions, while ignoring that Palestinian fears that are at least as justified do not excuse anything. The Palestinians become responsible for their own actions, and the actions of the Israelis.