On this first anniversary of October 7, I have a bit of an unusual observation. I don't even know if it's correct, but here goes.
On the Israeli side of things, there's no shortage of people who will publicly say exactly what they think Israel should be doing. Their point of view is pretty simple: Hamas and Hezbollah are murderous terrorist groups that will never cease their attacks on Israel. They need to be destroyed, full stop, and Iran's sponsorship of terrorism needs to be hit hard enough to make them give it up. If a brutal war is the only way to accomplish this, then so be it. Enough is enough.
This may or may not have any chance of working, and you may or may not agree. But it's all pretty clear.
Now consider the pro-Palestinian side—here in the US anyway. During the campus turmoil earlier this year it was striking that the protesters were reluctant to talk to the press. It was specifically discouraged, in fact. More generally, the pro-Palestinian side never really says what they think Israel should do.
Don't get me wrong. In the short term they think Israel should stand down. They support a permanent ceasefire. That much is self-evident. But over the longer term, what is it they think Israel should do? The obvious answer is that Israel should stop fighting; should stop oppressing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; and should allow Palestinians a free and clear homeland with no restrictions.
But the TV talking heads and newspaper pundits rarely actually say this—or so it seems to me. Am I just watching the wrong TV? Or are they, in fact, reluctant to say this publicly?
If reluctance there is, the reason is probably not hard to figure out: it's because they know nobody would buy it. If Israel literally retreated to its borders, took down its walls, and foreswore any further military action, they would instantly be the target of endless, sustained terrorism. Eventually they would be destroyed. It would not be a "genocide" in the sense of killing 2% of Gaza, it would be a genocide in the sense of killing every Jew in Israel.
Help me out. Where am I wrong? Who should I be listening to on the Palestinian side that has sensible things to propose that don't presume the extinction of Israel?
> If reluctance there is, the reason is probably not hard to figure out: it's because they know nobody would buy it. If Israel literally retreated to its borders and disbanded its army, they would instantly be the target of endless, sustained terrorism. Eventually they would be destroyed. It would not be a "genocide" in the sense of killing 2% of Gaza, it would be a genocide in the sense of killing every Jew in Israel.
> Help me out. Where am I wrong?
Why do you think this? Israel and the PA made peace in the 90s, and there was indeed peace, wasn't there? Israel blew that up, not the PA. Israel blew it up by not completing the peace process and returning the rest of the Occupied Territories, and then Sharon and his little militia of goons invaded the Haram al-Sharif, right?
Sure, you can say "Hamas and Hezb are different". But the PLO weren't exactly altar boys, eh? And they made peace.
ETA: And there's another thing about this position: it presupposes that the Palestinians, like no other people in modern history, simply cannot understand negotiation, cannot compromise. It's a trope that the Israelis work hard to spread: the myth that the Palestinians are a uniquely bloodthirsty people, you can't reason with them, they're animals, etc.
Well said. Especially your last paragraph. Was going to say the same but I would not have said it so well and so reasonably.
Kevin's comment about the Palestinians is pretty gross.
+1
Kevin didn't generalize about Palestinians. The point is just that there are thousands of terrorists living among the Palestinians who want nothing more than to kill as many Israelis as possible.
And it can be said that the mindset of a large minority of Palestinians is not in a great place. In a July poll, 40% of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza said they would prefer Hamas to govern them, followed by Fatah (20%). So there is plenty of support, or at least sympathy, for Hamas among the Palestinian population. The same poll also says that 90% of Palestinians do not believe that Hamas committed atrocities such as killing women and children or raping during the attack on Israel last Oct. 7. This reminds of MAGA people in the US, who are determined to reject basic facts.
From the actual survey results:
"Only one in ten Palestinians have seen videos showing atrocities committed by Hamas. The results show that those who watched the videos are about fifteen times more likely than those who did not to believe that Hamas fighters committed atrocities on October 7. "
https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/980
As for support of Hamas over Fatah, it's worth noting that Palestinians have no good options. Fatah is seen as a corrupt, do-nothing organization.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/20/only-hamas-can-defend-us-israeli-raids-and-fatah-failures-boost-support-in-west-bank
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/27/corrupt-discredited-could-a-reformed-palestinian-authority-run-gaza
That's right. Then the Israelis started the intifada and blowing themselves up in bus stations.
Weird you forget that Palestinians were, then continued to be, killed at a 10:1 rate by the IDF versus terrorism.
After 10/7, the IDF upped this rate to 50:1
Would you have been happier if more Israelis had died?
A bizarre question.
Truly.
Unlike ethnic cleansing supporters like you, civilized humans would prefer Israel stop killing innocents by the tens of thousands. Then again, POS like you wouldn't get the hard on they get every time a Palestinian child is killed.
Dude, you are unhinged, spouting BS like Trump at a MAGA rally. Next time don't post stuff while you've been drinking.
Actually the Israelis did start the intifada. The second intifada was the intended result of Sharon's march on the Temple Mount because he believed, correctly, that having an angry Palestinian population was good for his electoral chances. Of course the start of the Intifada, as with similar protests in the US, mostly just resulted in damage to Palestinian shops. Sharon, when he took power, decided he could put the protests down with force. And as happens in the US when this happens the protests grow and get more violent in response.
The second intifada did not become the deadly, for Israel, episode we now remember it as until Israel decided to implement a policy of assassinations of Palestinian leaders. Most Israelis who died in the second intifada died in attacks that were direct responses to those assassinations. And it was only when that policy was dropped that the second intifada ended. The general pattern was assassination, revenge bombing, revenge slaughter of civilians by Israel return to relative calm until the next assassination. Netanyahu seems to have decided to bring back that assassination policy. But then it is more important to him to kill Arabs than to protect Israelis.
My understanding was the 2nd Intifada was started to pressure Israel on the right of return to Israel proper after Arafat essentially walked away from the Taba negotiations.
It blew up in the sense that it destroyed the Labor party politically leaving the Palestinians with no partner for negotiations.
Your understanding is the common Israeli position, but it has no basis in reality. Arafat didn't walk away from Taba, he simply did not have Clinton's faith that Israel secretly was going to remove its settlements if he offered to give up on the right of return. The reason that he did not share Clinton's faith was that Israel had spent the last 7 years building up its settlements so that it could argue that it would be unreasonable to insist they remove those settlements.
As I noted above, Sharon used a march on the Temple Mount, a Muslim holy site that Jewish radicals talk about destroying and which is by agreement protected for the Palestinians, to garner unrest. He did this because Arafat had gotten violence under control in the lead up to the negotiations with Barak that Israel did not have a strong case for using Palestinian unrest to avoid peace. Sharon knew that his march would cause a backlash. It was a dickish move like the Orange march through Catholic areas of Belfast or the similar triumphant march of Jewish nationalist through Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. A statement that we control you and you can't stop us from defiling what you consider sacred.
That is what started the second intifada. Of course it is a different question of why the second intifada got so deadly. The second intifada started like BLM protests, but unless you are deep in MAGA territory you know that BLM protests did not turn similarly deadly.
No they are not uniquely bloodthirsty, but Venezuela wants the Essequibo region and no politician can run on leave it to Guyana. Bolivia still has a sizable portion of its population that believes they should get the Atacama Department returned. China is insisting on some ridiculous 9-dash line.
You don't hear about those things in the US as much as Israel for the obvious and odious reason.
Is the obvious reason that the US is not supplying weapons to Bolivia with which to keep a sizable portion of its population without citizenship in any country? Or is it just that there is a huge difference between a group of people who want a homeland being utterly abused by the government that keeps them stateless, and people wanting a homeland but not getting it?
Maybe you have something else in mind, but it is hard to guess what since it is hard to think of anything less mysterious than why more attention is paid to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict than the situations you describe.
'Israel cannot remain above the law': Full speech of Jordan's foreign Minister Ayman Safadi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKeAG1Fgl8k
Safadi echoed those comments.
"I can tell you here very unequivocally, all of us are willing to right now, guarantee the security of Israel in the context of Israel ending the occupation and allowing for the emergence of a Palestinian state, independent state," he said.
"(But) he (Netanyahu) is creating danger because he simply does not want the two state solution," Safadi said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-is-dragging-region-into-war-must-be-stopped-jordan-says-2024-09-27/
You don't think the guaranteeing the security of Israel is just empty words from anyone except the US? I mean what exactly is Jordan willing to do if Israel's security were compromised -- what did they do after Oct. 7?
Knowing that the US has guaranteed Israel's security but Israel continues headstrong into war, what good is Jordan's or anyone else's security guarantees?
???
Egypt came to an agreement with Israel decades ago. And they meant it. Same with Jordan. The PA has cooperated with Israel on security for decades, desopite no peace process and ongoing settlement of Palestinian land.
Strange how Arab states honor agreements and are quite peaceful when Israel negotiates with something resembling good faith.
???
What are you talking about? The PA cooperating w/ Israel isn't a security guarantee. Most Palestinians see it as a coercive agreement if not a corrupt organization.
Tell me, what in your opinion is a "security guarantee"?
NATO is a security guarantee. Is that what you claim is in effect in the Middle East between Jordan, Egypt, and Israel?
think about what you just said. a security guarantee comes from a much larger country or a treaty organization. these are extremely rare. far more common are agreements and treaties, and both Egypt and Jordan have honored theirs.
in what world is a security guarantee generally on offer?
If we assume that only the US will ever guarantee Israel's safety and mean it, then we assume Israel will be at war FOREVER.
Strangely, no other state that exists presently can truly claim what it sounds like you're claiming for Israel. North Korea? Many states do not want it destroyed or want to go to war with it. Ukraine? Plenty of states supporting that one. Even the Taliban can be reasonably certain that the US isn't going to launch another invasion to destroy them utterly so long as they don't harbor terrorist groups that attack the US directly.
And in fact, Jordan shot down Iranian missiles in both of the attacks Iran launched on Israel. Hamas launched the Oct 7 attacks in part because it sounded like Saudi Arabia was about to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
But yes, if you begin by assuming that peace is impossible, then you will always advocate for war.
Jordan has just said it will be neutral and not allow either Israel nor Iran to fly over its territory. Is that how a security guarantee works?
But I'm not assuming that peace is impossible. However, neither Israelis nor Palestinians nor Iranians want peace ATM.
And I've never advocated for war.
At the same time, I'm not Jesus; I'm not turning the other cheek if you stabbed my sister and raped her. I suppose you're a better person than me, but the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians prefer war right now. Revenge begets revenge, which leads to the point that...
The only security guarantees that mean anything is if Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Israel sat down and made a pact to stop fucking around and killing people. And they're not even close to being tired of people dying.
That's what my observation is on this.
And yet, someone was in Jordanian airspace knocking down Iranian missiles last week.
Yup. And then it was closed. So is your point that this is proof of a security guarantee from Jordan?
As I said, NATO is a security guarantee. What did Jordan do after Oct.7? Did they sign a declaration to go to war with Hamas?
Jordan directly shooting down Iranian missles to protect Israel is more than NATO has done for Ukraine, just saying. if that isn't good enough for you to know that Jordan would support Israel if they sat down to negotiate for peace then you must not want peace.
Citation needed.
I am sorry, but who is arguing for Israel to take down walls and disband its military again? Nobody serious is arguing for that.
Yes, those are tells.
Yes, it took many many haybales to build that strawman.
+1
Indeed. What Israel is doing now is worse than a crime -- it is a mistake!
The reason why Hamas struck when it did was because Israel was rapidly normalizing relations with its neighbors. And once that happened, the Palestinians would have been hosed. But the grotesque Israeli overreaction has set back relations with surrounding countries by decades. And for what? Unless Israel is willing to reoccupy the Gaza strip, permanently, Hamas will simply re-infiltrate. Probably within a decade.
No one is asking is asking Israel to disband it's Army or to disarm, the Palestinians are asking Israel to get the fuck out of the West Bank, to let Gaza be a normal city with commerce with the rest of the world like any other city state would and to stop slaughtering civilians by the truck load...
Do you think that killing 40, 000 Palestinians and wounding another 90.000 is going to do anything for peace in the Middle East?
"If Israel literally retreated to its borders, took down its walls, and foreswore any further military action" is not meant to be literal, but a hyperbolic device -- an expression of Israeli-Palestinian kumbaya -- as a counterfactual to contrast that to the Hamas creed,"from the ocean to the sea", is a literal goal.
"From the river to the sea" is also the literal goal of the parties in the government of Israel, though they usually phrase it as "settling Judea and Samaria."
It's Murc's Law, Palestinians Corollary.
Only the Palestinians have agency: they must lay down and be robbed, shot, their lands taken from them, and shuffled off into the Mediterranean to drown, so that Israelis can have those lands. And the Palestinians must do it without fighting back, for even a peep of complaint means that they fucking deserve what they get, good and hard.
Thank you.
It used to be in Likud's platform, until they realized that was impolitic.
How do I know taking it out of the platform was insincere? By their actions so shall they be known.
Just like the only Palestinians are Hamas. Despite more Palestinians governed by the PA.
Inconvenient facts overlooked to maintian anti-Palestinian priors.
You actually think we -- people who comment on this board -- are that simplistic in knowledge and thinking? Really, TomTom502?
I notice pro-Israel commenters conflate Hamas and Palestinians in general.
I notice pro-Israel commenters ignore the inconvenient fact that Israel propped up Hamas in Gaza in a divide and conquer strategy.
Let that settle in. Israel preferred the exterminations things because the PA puts pressure on them to negotiate peace.
Can't have that, can we?
How come from the river to the sea is only objectionable coming from Palestinians?
Well said.
Weird you mention 'from the river to the sea' (although you quote it wrong) that's actually a Zionist slogan appropriated by (not Hamas) Palestinians under occupation.
And it doesn't matter if the IDF 'retreated' behind their walls - those walls are outside the 1947 borders, slice up Palestine into tiny walled islands; and Israel controls all air traffic, sea traffic (including fishing!) , and economic traffic in and out.
That's occupation.
How did I quote it wrong, and why do you think, if Israel retreated back to pre-war borders, it would have peace?
I must recall it incorrectly, but didn't Israel go to war because Arab states wanted to wipe Israel off the map?
You explain to me, please.
How did I quote it wrong
"From the ocean to the sea" doesn't make any sense.
I must recall it incorrectly, but didn't Israel go to war because Arab states wanted to wipe Israel off the map?
No, Israel went to war because they refused to live in the multiethnic state envisioned by the Palestinian Mandate, and chose instead to violently rebel against the legal government of Palestine.
So, the attempt to close the Suez and the Strait were...what exactly? Negotiations?
Yom Kippur was more negotiations?
Both sides want war. That's all there is to it.
Until both sides want peace, as much as I'd like for the US to impose the 2-state solution, there will be no peace and no Palestinian state alongside Israel.
interesting you bring up the straits of Hormuz. If blocking shipping justifies war how about Gaza? Israel has had a stranglehold on Gaza trade for years. Far more comprehensive than the blockade of the straight.
It's also worth noting that the straits that Egypt closed in 1967 were entirely within Egyptian territorial waters. Israel's blockade of Gaza is not; they actively patrol Gaza's territorial waters (which exposes the lie that the Israelis completely left Gaza in 2005). It also makes a mockery of the argument that Israel isn't really "blockading" Gaza, as they are just controlling what can go through their own territory. They do not allow this argument to be made regarding Egypt's actions in 1967.
The problem is that it was an equally stupid comment if one takes it figuratively. If Israel decided to abide by international law and pulled its settlements out of the West Bank it would not become slightly pacifistic. It would continue to be by far the most powerful military in the region backed by the most powerful military in the history of the world. Referring to this as foreswearing military action is not hyperbolic it is simply dishonest.
+1
Most places build tunnels for underground train service, not weapons storage.
And yet when Israel pointed out that Gaza's main hospital had tunnels under it as proof that it was a command and control center for Hamas, former Israeli PM pointed out that Israel built those tunnels before it pulled out of Gaza. In really crowded areas which are well suited to building tunnels, tunnels get built for a lot of reasons. Israel did not build that tunnel for underground train service. Most likely it was for storage.
There has still been zero evidence offered of any Hamas command center under Al Shifa hospital. Yet that excuse has now been used more than 2 dozen times to destroy 30 out of 36 hospitals in Gaza.
Well I think there was a gun and maybe a phone found, so not zero evidence, but close enough to zero to make the Israeli claims look pathetic.
Oh dear, and are you blaming that there are no Israeli factions who want the elimination of all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza?
Just as there are Arab factions that want nothing less than the elimination of all Israelis in Israel and the steelments.
It does appear that the situation at some level is symmetric.
But neither military outcome is likely. Israel for a variety of reasons is unlikely to kill all the Arabs. And the Arbas are unlikely for a variety of reasons to kill all the Israelis.
Which does seem to lead to the argument for either:
- a truly noon-sectarian pan Israel/Palestianian state (good luck with that)
or
- a two state solution
But neither the Israeli leadership nor the Arab leadership seems to be willing to accept this reality.
Now as a thought experiment: there are Arab citizens of Israel. Their representatives comprise perhaps 8% of the Knesset and would in many cases be sufficient to establish a viable coalition in concert with other Israeli parties.
Have any Israeli government coalitions included the Arab Knesset members?
Oh dear, and are you blaming that there are no Israeli factions who want the elimination of all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza?
You need to do more reading about the policies of Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism.
But neither the Israeli leadership nor the Arab leadership seems to be willing to accept this reality.
You need to do more reading about the policies of Fatah.
Have any Israeli government coalitions included the Arab Knesset members?
In the 75-year history of Israel, an Arab party has been a part of a governing coalition for a total of 17 months, from June 2021 to November 2022. Even then, they were the only party in the coalition that wasn't give control of a ministry; Mansour Abbas was given the powerless role of Minister without Portfolio. One of the reasons why the government collapsed so quickly was that it included parties, Yisrael Beiteinu and New Right, that objected to the presence of an Arab party in the coalition; they just disliked the idea of having a prime minister who had been indicted for corruption even more.
Jewish Israelis pretty openly believe that the presence of an Arab party in government is inherently illegitimate. Until they are prepared to allow the representatives of 20% of the population (the Arab parties have lower representation in the Knesset than their share of the population since, faced with the futility of voting, Arab turnout is much lower than Jewish turnout), a role in governance. Israel isn't really a democracy.
+1
Which Arab leadership is unwilling to accept the two-state solution?
Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria and Levanon to the extent they control theri territiry.
The PA, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, go down the list. They all want a two-state solution.
Retreat to the 67 borders and allow some right of return for Palestinians that would prefer to be Israeli citizens rather than citizens of Palestinian states in Gaza and the West Bank. Having to deal with terrorist attacks is part of the bargain when you create a new state in what was once somebody elses land. If Israel can't accept that, the only alternative is killing all the Palestinians. That might be farther than any US administration would be willing to go, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
"Having to deal with terrorist attacks is part of the bargain when you create a new state in what was once somebody elses land."
Kind of obvious when you state it clearly, no?
As far as right to return, I believe that is workable, limited to family re-unificationm, with limits to maintain the Jewish demographic majority.
The right to return is something Palestinians have as a matter of international law. They can bargain it away, but it cannot be legitimately taken away. The solution to right of return is to offer a deal good enough so Palestinians are willing to forsake their claim.
Anything more than a symbolic Right to Return makes any sort of peace agreement impossible for the Israelis to accept. Because it is a direct threat to the concept of Israel, as a national home for the Jewish people. Short of something bizarre, it is NEVER going to happen.
A couple things though... how many Palestinians alive now ever lived in what became Israel? And how long will it last, or is it indefinite? Does it apply to Sudeten Germans? What about Jews driven out of Arab countries?
Anything more than a symbolic Right to Return makes any sort of peace agreement impossible for the Israelis to accept.
That's fine, but under international law, Palestinian refugees have a concrete legal right to return to the homes that they, or their parents or grandparents fled from. Israel is insisting that they give up this right. To which the proper answer is, "Okay. What will you give us in exchange?"
Because it is a direct threat to the concept of Israel, as a national home for the Jewish people.
Maybe, just maybe, creating a state that required excluding the majority of the existing population from citizenship was a bad idea.
A couple things though... how many Palestinians alive now ever lived in what became Israel?
This is irrelevant. So long as they are refugees, they have a legal right to return to their ancestors property.
And how long will it last, or is it indefinite?
It lasts so long as there are Palestinian refugees.
Does it apply to Sudeten Germans?
No.
What about Jews driven out of Arab countries?
Again, no. If you accept citizenship in another state, you are no longer a refugee and no longer have a legal right to return. Most Palestinian refugees have never been offered citizenship in another state, so they remain refugees, with the legal rights thereof.
"Having to deal with terrorist attacks is part of the bargain when you create a new state in what was once somebody elses land."
Let's not forget that the new state was at least partially formed on the back of terrorism.
Beyond that, I'll quote Mehdi Hasan in his recent destruction of Eylon Levy during their deabte: "If you wann to convince the people of Gaza that terrorism is a dead end, then stop inflicting terrorism upon them."
1. If by "retreated to its borders" KD means 1947 borders it is not at all obvious Israel would be tht target of endless sustained terrorism.
2. What is this about taking down walls? Most of the walls are inside the West Bank, if Israel retreats these are walls inside Palestine. If you are talking about walls on the 1947 borders, why do they need to be taken down?
3. The PA and the local Arab states would love, love, love it if Israel negotiated a sovereign Parlestine on the 1947 borders. They would not harbor terrorists because it would not be in therir interest to do so. In fact the Arab countries offer just this over and over.
4. A negotiated Palestine following 1947 lines would be responsible for quelling terrorism within its borders. If it failed Israel would attack. This works pretty well. The attack did not come from the PA, which cooperates with Israel on security. It came from Gaza which has no agreement with Israel.
Everything you say here seems like it should be obvious. And I am sure that Drum would have no trouble seeing the sense of it if it was any country but Israel that we were talking about. It shows how warped discussion on the subject is that you have to point these things at all. How have supporters of Israel gotten people to take seriously the idea that putting civilians in occupied territories is a safety measure?
Oh…oh…dude, stop. What? What on earth are you talking about?
The first comment by anti science and further reiterated downpost is spot on. For peace to happen, Israel needs to have a partner, but Israel does everything to scare away any potential partner. PLO remains a viable future partner but they will not engage until Israel takes some positives steps towards peace like stop building in the West Bank, destroying olive groves and stealing water from the WB aquafiers (among many others things). So when someone asks what Israel can do? I say for starters stop the expansion in the WB.
Yup.
Expansion has gone on for decades now under every Israeli administration. It is not limited to Netanyahu.
Exactly, Labor or Likud, the settlements keep growing, and have since the mid 1980s.
"How do you get to Donegal*"
"Well, I wouldn't start from here."
The idea behind the Oslo peace process was that it was a *process*. That is, Israel would turn over increasing amounts of territory to the Palestinian Authority, which would prevent terrorists from using the occupied territories as a place from which to launch attacks on Israel.
Instead, Israel has added settlements to the occupied West Bank continually since 1985 or so (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#/media/File:IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png).
Now, Israel has made offers, especially around 1999-2000 (Taba negotiations) that the Palestinians not only turned down, but responded to with the 2nd Intifada, which destroyed the Labor Party politically. And apparently one significant sticking point was the right of return to Israel proper of enough Palestinians to turn Israel into a minority Jewish state, which there is exactly 0% chance of Israel ever agreeing to.
But nevertheless, it is certainly possible that Israel could have "bought off" the Palestinians by stopping building settlements, eventually withdrawing from the West Bank, with a military presence diminishing with time as the PA demonstrated that it could be trusted not to use the West Bank as a launch pad for attacks, while increasing trade with Palestine. With reasonable investment and a wealthy neighbor, Palestine could (still) be a great place to live.
But of course, both the Israelis and the Palestinians have spent the last 25 years destroying any basis for trust, the Israelis by never giving the PA anything for its providing security to Israel, and the Palestinians by launching the 2nd Intifada from 2000-2007, and of course 10/7. We're probably farther from a peaceful solution now than any time since '67.
But make no mistake about it, Israel is destroying its future by keeping 25% of its population under military occupation for generations, with no prospect for any change visible on the horizon.
* I've heard this placed in Ireland, West Virginia and Vermont. YMMV.
> I've heard this placed in Ireland, West Virginia and Vermont.
I heard it first about Maine. "You can't get theyuh from heyuh." Something like that. I'm not sure about the approved spelling.
It is not required that we choose whether to support Israel or the Palestinians. We could instead observe that both sides are violent fanatics and just stay the heck away. The fact that we are totally supporting one side of this conflict is insane.
Yes, looming over all this back-and-forth about who is more villainous is the plain fact that both Israel and the segmented Palestinian lands are in the grip of apocalyptic religious fanatics. Salafist Muslims for the most part are devoted to extermination of "the Jew" for reasons going back 600 years. Mizrahi Jews without whose support Netanyahu would end up in prison are devoted to establishment of a biblical "greater Israel" that includes all of the current Palestinian territory and more. So it's kind of pointless to quibble over history that took place in the 19th and 20th centuries when you can extend back 3000+ years if you want to.
I know this is a dim view that doesn't point to any solution, but from what little I know about it, this is how it looks to me.
Younger Americans do not have their parent's romantic attachment to Israel.
Maybe in a few decades we will follow your advice and stop taking sides.
Oh Christ. Nothing good will ever come from Kevin inveighing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, not even if/after Israel wipes out all of its neighbors. This is just Californian navel gazing of the highest order: nobody reading this blog can change anything in the Middle East and nobody in the Middle East cares what Americans think.
Seems pretty simple:
Don't act worse than terrorists.
The IDF has killed what now, 50x the civilians?
And how isn't that terrorism?
It's disappointing to see such a display of bad faith "questioning" from Kevin Drum. There are no genuine questions in this entire post. The answer--Kevin's answer--is baked into every question. The fanatical, bloodthirsty nature of the Palestinians is an assumed fact., as is the assurance that the Israelis have patiently tried to for years to negotiate in good faith. This entire post is the product of a smugly closed mind
+1, sadly
Kevin's post is nuts in about ten different ways but one that hasn't been addressed by anyone so far is the bit about pro-Palestinian protestors avoiding speaking to the media. The obvious reason that random rank-and-file protestors did not talk to TV reporters, as was widely discussed at the time, was that they actually understood the importance of message discipline.
In general, protestors at these events did not take the bait that mostly-hostile journalists were dangling in front of them by trying to get regular protestors to supply sloppy quotes on camera that they could quickly take out of context. Instead, they told these reporters that they needed to speak to protest organizers, who would speak on behalf of the protest. Those reporters then proceeded to give the whole game away by hysterically making the story about the first group refusing to talk to them, instead of just going to the organizers to get the official views of the protest, as they'd claimed was their purpose all along.
When a journalist wants to get the official views of a corporation or government agency they don't go ambushing random employees to feed them quotes on camera - why should they be entitled to do this with protests?
good question!
There are many, many sane and reasonable voices out there that put forward the Palestinian case for a solution that provides for Israeli security and Palestinian sovereignty and frankly it is a bit telling that your research (have you done any?) has not got past Hamas statements and US student protesters. You should be listening to Palestinian intellectuals and activists. You will NEVER hear them on US mainstream media. DemocracyNow.org has had many interviews with actual Gazans (not easy given the situation Israel has imposed), American doctors who have been to Gaza, American political scientists and historians, Palestinian Americans living in the US for many many years. They have intelligent, compassionate and well reasoned ideas. Not one of them calls for the elimination of Israel. You will find plenty of outrage against Israel because of the particular moment in history we are witnessing, and thus often strong language, but you are quick to excuse outraged and emotional Israeli voices so try to be fair minded.
Try listening to Piers Morgan debating Medhi Hasan, Hasan makes his points brilliantly.
Try reading the many intelligent and substantive comments from people disagreeing with your defenses of the indefensible here on your own blog!
You have spoken in this post about what the pro-Israeli side advocates for Israel to do. You wonder what the pro-Palestinian side thinks Israel should do. What does the pro-Israel side think the Palestinians should do?
Pretty clearly they really do not care beyond they should shut up and take whatever Israel does. The status quo is hugely unjust to one side only. Netanyahu and all Israeli PMs for decades have been pretending, in the face of every historical precedent in human history, that they can simply force the Palestinians to live with injustice and hopelessness indefinitely. That has never happened in any analogous situation in history.
Israel must either relent and allow for a just resolution or they must do what we see them doing.
Well, do you watch anything other than US programming? If not, then yes, obviously you are watching the wrong TV, for this issue more than any other. Try the BBC. Watch Al Jazeera even (cue the deluge of unsubstantiated right-wing talking points about Al Jazeera, but they are the only outlet with journalists on the ground, and those talking points are not substantiated)
Hamas had a conference, a couple years ago, where they discussed 'the day after', meaning the day after Israel ends. The Hamas plan for the Jews is rather simple: all the Jews would return to where they came from (Europe, the US etc.). I don't speak Arabic, but was told the phrase used was something like 'they will all use their second passports.'
Note, Hamas does not speak for all everyone. With that said, I am not sure of the negotiation strategy the Israeli's can utilize with Hamas, if that is the end goal.
The conference I mentioned
https://www.memri.org/reports/memri-archives-%E2%80%93-october-4-2021-hamas-sponsored-promise-hereafter-conference-phase-following
When the settlements have expanded to cover all the lands currently occupied by Palestinians, where does Israel plan for them to go?
If Israel makes their lives miserable enough, they will magically vanish.
That requires working out a realistic end game. Can't do that, it may require re-examining priors.
You linked to an anti-Arab site, and its opening paragraphs still contradict what you say here. The article actually says that Hamas would try to avoid a Jewish brain drain and that some Jews would be incorporated into society. I am no fan of Hamas, but when you have to misrepresent a biased source to get your claims then you are not exactly trying to spread understanding.
Lon Becker - do you have an English website that has a different spin on this conference? Is the translation of the text wrong?
As a non Arabic speaker, I posted the website, in English, that I found.
This is from early on in the link you provided
"The conference also recommended that rules be drawn up for dealing with "Jews" in the country, including defining which of them will be killed or subjected to legal prosecution and which will be allowed to leave or to remain and be integrated into the new state. It also called for preventing a brain drain of Jewish professionals, and for the retention of "educated Jews and experts in the areas of medicine, engineering, technology, and civilian and military industry... [who] should not be allowed to leave."
While not a great quote it makes clear that Hamas would hold some Jews to legal consequences for actions would try to get rid of some, but would actively keep others. (I don't know what was in that elided comment and certainly don't like the idea that some would be forced to stay). The point is your own source is directly contradictory of your gloss on it. Did you not read your own site?
My impression from other sources, although read awhile ago so I can't link to them, is that Hamas wants a Palestinian controlled state and would be happy to allow Jews to stay if they did not get in the way of their Palestinian state. That is an evil position. It is also Israel position with the two sides reversed. And it is consistent with the early parts of the link you provided.
How would pulling out of Gaza and Lebanon and then setting its borders in stone result in the total annihilation of Israeli Jews? I don't think there is an actual constituency for "let Hamas wander around Israel without any restrictions, no matter how many people they kill."
This seems like a pretty extreme straw man. You really see no options between killing Palestinian and Lebanese people until they spontaneously decide to never become future terrorists, and letting terrorists kills every Jew in Israel?
Gee, I sure hope someone somewhere has figured out alternative solutions to terrorist groups. Given the way politics is going in this country, and the Jan 6 attacks a few years ago, we might end up with a terrorist movement looking to push out our current government and much of our population. I'd prefer to not carpet bomb West Texas or booby trap every pickup truck in America.
I think they should continue to kill each other until their gods tell them to stop. There’s plenty of room in paradise!
Palestinians have to make their own arguments. Like Native Americans they can allow the colonists to slowly destroy their society by taking every inch of their land or they can counter Israeli genocidal violence with inadequate arms. An existential choice forced upon them by the Europeans. Palestinian demands for a state based on the borders of the UN 1947 Mandate have been made in the past and again recently. Israel and its US backers only use negotiations for this outcome to steal more of Palestine.
Americans who support Palestinians and oppose Israeli colonization want their government to cease subsidizing Israel. Cease providing Israel with the armaments mass murdering Palestinians and end economic subsidies financing the colonization of Palestine.
Breathing Palestinians and anyone who supports them and defends them are deemed terrorists. Never ending terrorism is a colonial tactic. One supported by Americans, who know its success, but feign deliberate indifference to their government's encouragement of state sponsored terrorism.
Sorry, but Palestinians are not analogous to native Americans. They are not "indigenous" people of the region that was deemed Palestine by the Romans two millennia ago. The parts of the Levant where Israel is now located has been "settled" by the Babylonians, Assyrians, then Persians, then Turks, then Greeks, then more Persians, then Romans, then Arabs, then more Turks, and then split up by the European powers after WWI. I am no defender of the hideous Likud government, but please don't give me "indigenous."
This is ridiculous. Palestinians, Arab, Jewish and Christian, had lived in Palestine for centuries. That satisfies any reasonable definition of indigenous.
Palestinians are more close related to the Biblical tribes of the region than anyone on earth, around 80% matrilineal descent. If that is not “indigenous”, nothing is.
Whether Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine is irrelevant to the analogy of their being treated just like Native Americans were by European colonists. Land stolen, governance usurped, isolated in reservations (Bantustaned), mass murdered as a final solution.
I hear the Native Americans migrated from Siberia, too.
As most commentators have pointed out, Kevin's not even attempting to accurately depict where both sides are on this issue.
Israel's right-wing extremists want all Palestinian lands to be part of Israel. Whether the Palestinians are dead or gone doesn't seem to matter much to them; I suspect many would argue that other Arabic states should accept the Palestinians, and that their refusal to do so isn't Israel's fault.
Palestinian extremists want Israel destroyed. They might want to kill all Jews everywhere, but for the most part they just want them all gone and don't much care where.
Ordinary Israeli citizens may live in fear, but for the most part, they have homes, they have electricity 24 hours a day, safe water to drink, food, careers, education, hospitals. They can believe their children will have better lives than they do, even if they may disagree about what needs to be done about terrorism in the process of getting there.
Whereas ordinary Gaza citizens live in fear, have no homes or electricity, little safe water, no food security, no work, no education, little access to medical care. If their children have all survived, they have little reason to believe their children's lives will be much better than they are now. Even as Hezbollah operated as an effective secondary government in Lebanon, providing services normally provided by a state, terrorist groups like Hamas can exert power over Gazans despite how unhappy many Gazans were with that governing party; there's at least some evidence to suggest the Oct 7 attacks may have been Hamas picking an option they preferred to an uprising in Gaza aimed at ousting them. Has a year of Israel's attacks made Hamas more or less popular with the populace of Gaza?
Faced with intolerable life conditions and a clear belief that no diplomatic solution exists, desperate attacks whose aims do not go beyond forcing the people who have destroyed you to feel pain as you die are inevitable.
Eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. Sooner or later, other terrorist organizations will replace them, so long as there are people who have lost everything and who blame Israel for it. It may indeed be effective to destroy terrorist leadership and force such groups to rebuild, but it is a short-term solution.
Those who are losing a war are not in a position to end the war through anything besides surrender. If Hamas offered to surrender to Israel now, what would the terms even look like? Kevin, what is the Israeli plan to end the current conflict? Because they sure look like they're in control, and they've expanded the conflict. The best I can find online about cease-fire deals suggests Israel seems to want a permanent military presence in Gaza, refuses to offer a permanent cease-fire (ie. peace is not possible), and will not agree to peace while Hamas continues to exist. Given that it's unclear who else has the authority to negotiate for Gazan citizens, I don't know how that works.
If Israel literally retreated to its borders, took down its walls, and foreswore any further military action, they would instantly be the target of endless, sustained terrorism.
That's an absolute nonsense statement by Kevin. If Israel withdrew from its illegal conquests ("retreated to its borders"), there would be no need for it to take down border walls nor foreswear "any further military action." I mean, states have a right to self-defense.
The promise of Zionism was that a Jewish state would create a safe space for Jews, right? And it was noted at the time -- in the British White Paper -- that by sidelining the Arabs in Palestine, the Jewish Zionists were creating the conflict. Let the Jews defend themselves. That's fine. Gaza is in ruins. That is not self-defense. Arabs in the West Bank are left open to attacks by right wing Jews. That isn't self defense, either.
The founding of Israel as a Jewish state is what got it going, and it has accomplished exactly the opposite of what the Zionists intended. On the Palestinian side, there was a clear popular mandate from the get-go that a two-state solution was unacceptable. I don't blame them for feeling that way.
If you support a Palestinian state, it's going to come at the expense of what the right wing in Israel sees as rightfully theirs. They will brook no compromise, whatsoever, and they have the government. Hamas is the same on the Palestinian side.
The only question that's relevant, as I see it, is: What should the US do? It now looks like Israel is headed over the falls in a ship piloted by a madman -- their madman. I don't see why the US should continue to support them while they do that, especially since it alienates our allies and implicates us in what is fast becoming ethnic cleansing, if it isn't already.
Terrorism has long been a fact of life in every country. Practicing racism against people who look like the terrorists has never been an appropriate solution.
I think things that Palestinians might ask for include:
* prosecution of Israeli terrorists.
* appropriate response to terrorist actions ; razing Gaza and blocking food and water shipments into Gaza seem disproportionate.
* three states: one state for palestinians, one state for zionists, and one state (the west bank) for reasonable people who can get along. Included with this is a policy of allowing palestinians displaced from the West Bank to return. With reparations where necessary.
* I think it's perfectly reasonable for both sides to demand constitutional language supporting the right to exist of the other party.
* A broader requirement that Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, also affirm Israel's right to exist would also be reasonable.
The pro-Palestine position is the total and complete annihilation of all Jews everywhere in the world, beginning (but certainly not ending) in the Middle East.
That’s what we have already seen in almost every Middle Eastern country (how many Jews are left outside Israel?). And that’s what we see with the attacks on Jews in the US and elsewhere in the West.
That's some pretty racist bullshit.
And it needs saying as well: that's some pretty unskilled trolling. You make it much too transparent. A good troll is one where reasonable people, at least momentarily, think you are posting sincerely, only to find out later it was purely a juvenile attention grab. You've already given the game away.
Both Israel and the Palestinians have wanted river to the sea control since Sadat and Begum’s era. Neither wants the other to exist. As the more powerful of the two Israel has seized land and terrorized Palestinians to set up settlements on the West Bank for 45 or 50 years. Some would call them Pogroms. And what they created in Gaza was essentially a ghetto. Carter called it apartheid a number of years ago and he wasn’t wrong.
The Palestinians have continually resisted arming themselves with uprisings and periodic rocket attacks from Gaza and southern Lebanon keeping the tensions high. And a year ago committed a terrible atrocity killing 1200 people and seizing hostages.
Neither side is on the side of the angels in this dispute. And Israel in its hyper violent response has gone beyond what most of the world views as proportionate to the Hamas violence.
The U.S. has supported Israel but at this point must resist further extension of the violence. Just as Israel has powerful friends so so the Palestinians and Iran. It’s long past time to stop. Get a cease fire. See if any of the poor hostages have survived and move this to the U.N.or other mediators to try and work out some kind of agreement.
I doubt either side particularly wants a two state solution at this point but it would seem that there.is no other possible solution without the complete destruction or removal of one or the other side.
Not sure how any Americans can be exclusively "Pro-Palestinian". That implies they are also "anti-Israeli". Anti-Israeli can mean anything, from wanting Isreal to act better to wanting to eliminate the state of Isreal altogether.
It's possible to be Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Isreal (I am). The Pro-Palestinian part simply means you want to help Palestinians get a better deal in life. The steps would be:
1) End the war against Hamas in Gaza.
2) Find an interim way to govern and re-build Gaza, with Hamas not involved, that Palestinians can live with.
3) Restart peace talks toward a two-state solution which requires Isreal to give back significant territory in the West Bank, and the West Bank and Gaza are required to implement a non-corrupt, transparent, democratic government which also renounces the goal of destroying Isreal.
#2 is hard. And #3 is really hard, and likley requires international oversight to pull it off.
Isreal, haha, I can't spell. And spell checker was fine with Isreal too.
I don't get how Drum, who is a generally smart person on so many topics turns into a complete idiot when it comes to Israel. Well I guess I do get it to a degree. He grew up with a fairytale story about how Israel was the good guys and faced the evil Arabs, and while he may recognize at some level that this is simpleminded he still seems to believe it deep down and so is unable to come to terms with the reality that Israel is abusing a captive population because it cares more about land than peace.
Israel reached a peace agreement with Egypt that involved giving back land to Egypt and a non-aggression pact. Egypt has kept that peace even when ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. It reached a peace with Jordan. Jordan has kept that peace even as Israel has violated its sovereignty. Israel has not offered peace to the Palestinians, and still has received security cooperation in the West Bank, which it has used to further take control of the West Bank.
If Israel pulled back to its more defensible borders without having to defend settlements in occupied territory then it would be less vulnerable to terrorism, not more vulnerable. The Gaza attack might seem to show otherwise, but it appears that the Gaza attack was successful precisely because Israel had shifted its army to the West Bank to protect its settlers from any blowback from the pograms that Jewish settlers are inflicting on Palestinian villages. That and Israel seems to have convinced itself that its occasional slaughter of a few thousand Palestinians had broken the spirit of Hamas and so it did not need to defend against Gaza. One of the most advanced armies in the word really should not have trouble defending against an attack with bulldozers and paragliders.
The point is that if Israel did the right thing it would be in the position of most countries, it would not control territory outside of its country and it would only have to control its borders to be safe. And it would still have by far the most advanced military in the region and the protection of the most powerful country in the world.
Drums weird creed here is a but like defending the US support for the coup in Chile on the grounds that if we didn't do that kind of thing we would be vulnerable to terrorism from South America. Even making it Mexico, and imagining that the Mexicans had an irrational hatred for us, we would still be safer staying in our borders than building settlements inside of Mexico.
People say a lot of ridiculous things to defend Israel's morally repulsive behavior. But the idea that Israel builds settlements to make itself safer is one of the most ridiculous.
It really seems like people just look at Israeli behavior and take for granted it can't be as bad as it appears and so they convince themselves of nonsense that would be needed for it not to be so bad. Of course people still do that with slavery as well. Southerners were good people, so slavery couldn't have been as bad as people say it was.
Egypt has kept that peace even when ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Not only that, but the Egyptians have kept the peace even when the Israelis brazenly violate the terms of the peace treaty. Under that treaty, the Israelis were required to work towards a Palestinian state. Fifteen years later, the Israelis made a half-hearted attempt at allowing a Palestinian state. That effort was overwhelmed when the Israelis decided that "half-hearted" was too much effort.
The presence of Israeli troops at the Rafah crossing and the Philadelphi corridor is a violation of the 2005 addendum to that peace treaty, which stipulates that any Israeli presence there must be agreed upon by both Israel and Egypt.
The 2005 Philadelphi Accord also required Israel to allow the building of a seaport in Gaza, to replace the one Israel destroyed in 2001. They failed to do so.
great comment!
Worth repeating:
"the reality that Israel is abusing a captive population because it cares more about land than peace."
"If Israel pulled back to its more defensible borders without having to defend settlements in occupied territory then it would be less vulnerable to terrorism, not more vulnerable"
"The point is that if Israel did the right thing it would be in the position of most countries, it would not control territory outside of its country and it would only have to control its borders to be safe."
Whether they like it or not, the two sides have a relationship, and both sides should do what is best for the relationship, aka a two state solution. Short of that, the side with more power, like a parent with an insufficiently mature child, should do what is best for the relationship. If the side with more power won't do what is best for the relationship, then a different grownup has to be the higher power. Hopefully, that will be Kamala Harris because if you're looking for a grownup, it sure as hell ain't Trump, and the only other alternative is The Wrath of God.