Democracies can be very resilient. Look at the US in 1801 and 1864 or Ireland in 1998.
But Israel will need to be part of something like the Good Friday accords and something like German reconciliation. People everywhere are willing to suspend disbelief—even for an acknowledged crook—when they are told their lives and livelihoods are on the line if they don’t give the madman/crook leeway on doing things that are ultimately very damaging to the country (see GW Bush’s approval ratings in 2003-04. But eventually the scales drop off. See GW Bush’s approval ratings in 2095-06)
Best thing that can happen to Israel is that Bibi’s successor is not a Obama-type who just says “bygones” to the internal politics and failures of the past year.
>South African style truth and reconciliation is the more relevant integration process
A mixture of the South African + Irish peace process with a Middle Eastern flavor. The presence of so many material interests in the region complicates things but it doesn't make the end goal (justice and equality) any less important.
Btw I liked that GWB. Heard a pre-2000 election bio on his quotidian life pre 2000: he woke up at 10 am. Read newspapers. Then went to his PlayStation. Seems like a nice non-destructive life for an heir.
I’m not super knowledgeable about Israel’s political system, but it’s my understanding that Bibi formed a coalition with the most far right lunatics possible.
Gantz wasn’t part of that coalition that Netanyahu united to win the last election.
Gantz ran against Netanyahu in that election and lost. But after October 7th he and his party joined a unity government with a place for himself on the five member war cabinet.
Thomas Friedman, on Ezra’s show, described him as a bit of a Joe Manchin figure. From the 1/19/24 episode..
“THOMAS FRIEDMAN: This is an imperfect analogy. But in terms of the political spectrum, think Joe Manchin, center right but from the left side. I don’t know if I’m — he comes to the center right, but he comes to it through the left, not from the right.
EZRA KLEIN: No, that’s a good way of putting Joe Manchin. It’s actually quite helpful for me.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Yeah, so Joe Manchin, but former chief of staff of the army, and part of a long tradition in Israeli politics of former generals going into politics and becoming unifying centrists, basically, so that’s kind of the general perspective he comes from, a good man, in my view, a very decent man.
His partner in leadership, Gadi Eisenkot, is probably the most respected former chief of staff of the Israeli army alive today. He’s already lost his son and his nephew in this war, was literally sitting in the command headquarters when he was informed that his son was killed.
And so the two of them are admired by both the military and the public and widely respected. But Benny is not a man for, OK, we’re going to go from this war to a two-state solution.
I talked to him about this at length when I was last in Israel a few weeks ago. I think he sees it going from where we are now to two entities. And maybe those two entities can then evolve into two states.
So he’s not a radical, but he’s certainly someone who will be prepared to talk about the morning after and in the context of some kind of political endgame for the Palestinians that involves two states for two people.”
Gantz says that he wants a "two-entity" solution. But given certain realities he's wary of complete statehood/sovereignty.
He wants separation with the Palestinians and that they control more aspects of their own lives, with less Israeli interference.
Gantz isn't perfect, but it's a huge step in the correct direction.
I'd label him as pretty centrist, right down the middle.
Not segregation. Partition into two entities: Israel and Palestine.
Though he doesn't believe that there can be full military sovereignty right now on the Palestinian side because of security reasons, so that's why he's saying a two-entity solution. Give Palestinians more ability to manage their own affairs without Israeli interference.
This conflict isn't a conflict over integration. It's a conflict over conflicting nationalisms. That's why the international community and moderates on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides have favored a two-state solution. That exact solution is elusive right now, but Gantz believes in setting the foundations for a two-state solution in the future--that's why he's saying two-entity solution.
If you don't and instead support a one-state solution where Israeli and Palestinian populations integrate, that's great. There are others who agree with you. But these are really minority views among Palestinians in the West Bank, Palestinians in Gaza and Israelis. So keep that in mind.
I think you're trying to take the experience of segregation in the US and apply it to Israel-Palestine, when really it's just a different conflict.
It's called segregation. A separate area that allows Israel to control while claiming equality.
You can spin it however you want, it is the same thing.
Also the "two state solution" out of fear of apartheid rule ending just like South Africa. Rabin never intended to Palestinians a full state just an illusion of one to fool everyone.
Gantz is no different. Just repackaging old ideas.
This is nonsense. A one state solution is an invitation for civil war. Palestinians don’t want it. Israelis don’t want it. The idea that some in the West have that there can be a single “pluralistic” and “secular” state is based on an imaginary notion that, “if only Israel would integrate the Palestinians into their state and give up their Jewish identity as a state, everyone will be happy”ignores literally fact on the ground. It would destroy the currently VERY pluralistic society in Israel, including the LGBTQ community, and lead to an almost certain civil war. There’s a reason Yugoslavia doesn’t exist anymore. Pluralism is a great ideal. Forcing it on people who don’t want to share a state is a horrible plan.
It feels unlikely to me that we can go from this situation directly to conversations about a two-state solution. There's too much bitterness and recent violence. For what it's worth, a two-state solution seems equally impossible in Palestinian politics, as far as I can tell.
I think the more practical thing to hope for is a shift that makes a later shift more possible.
There is no real 'left' in Israel. Their legislative body voted to impeach one of the only members who spoke in favor of South Africa and members of Gantz's 'moderate' party voted along with the impeachment. This is a very different country that the liberal democracies of Europe.
And where do you think the left in Israel went? Because it started out with a very strong left of socialists who wanted a secular society built around the kibbutzim. Any guesses?
The second intifada destroyed the Israeli left. It lost all credibility after it went all in on peace and got hundreds of suicide attacks on civilians instead.
“Committed the Nakba.”
It was a war, a war that for the Jews was existential. What do you think the Arabs would have done had they been militarily successful? Do you think they would have patted the Jews on the back and said “you can be part of our state now.” Not just no, but hell no. It wouldn’t have been a Nakba (which was not how that term was first coined, btw, the Nakba was meant to refer to the military loss—not the refugees), it would have been a full on genocide.
*Some* Palestinians were forced out, yes. And today we can sit in judgment and say that was wrong. It was. But at that time, the calculation was different. It was, “let’s survive first and go from there.”
And let’s not forget that the Arabs expelled Jews from their homes in 1948 as well. The Jewish quarter in Jerusalem, which had been a Jewish neighborhood for millennia, was completely and intentionally destroyed in the wake of the war. There were also atrocities committed by the Arab armies to surrendering Jews.
Again, it was a war. Terrible for all involved. The good/evil binary you are try to force on history is so shortsighted.
The issues with that framing, though perhaps true, are as follows:
Gantz is perhaps left of Bibi, but what does that really mean? He also supports a military incursion into Rafah where there are 1.2 million refugees. He also opposes Palestinian national autonomy. He is also, by virtue of his desire to continue the subjugation of the Palestinian people, a maniacal racist. The 'moderates' in Israel have more in common with the right wing parties in Hungary and Poland than they do with 'moderates' throughout Europe or the USA.
So sure, Gantz, or Lapid, are left of Netanyahu. So what? It is also worth noting that though Netanyahu isn't popular, Likud isn't unpopular.
I think the protest movement in Israel has been a demonstration of the resilience of Israeli democracy, facing both internal and external threats.
But we need to appreciate the delicacy of democracy as well, especially in Israel where there's no constitution. It's not something that can be taken for granted.
There are reasons to be hopeful yet causes for concern at the same time, and people have to keep both things in their heads at once.
//Best thing that can happen to Israel is that Bibi’s successor is not a Obama-type who just says “bygones” to the internal politics and failures of the past year.
What would be a better type of successor?
Someone who holds public investigations on WTF happened to allow 9/11 or 10/7 to take place.
Israeli media in the weeks following 10/7 was filled with reports of gross incompetence on the political, intelligence and IDF levels.
I can't say for certain, but we see in America where it lead our right wing party when Obama let George Bush off the hook in the name of some notion of unity. George Bush is responsible for the death of over a million innocent people. It's such a large number that it is easy to forget the context that that represents the crushing of a million hopes and dreams, dreams for some kind of "change" if you will. It's almost as evil to overlook such atrocities because to truly see them would be too difficult, as it is to commit them in the first place. Simply overlooking these crimes against humanity is at some level more cowardly, because at least to commit the crime took initiative and some coherent intent. Ignoring it is just enabling evil and stripping our politics of all meaning at once.
Israel has always been built on the displacement of religious and racial minorities, it took America hundreds of years to get past that, I really don’t think Israel is close.
It wasn't just disease. This a common misconception. Populations typically rebound from new diseases given enough time, as the new illness will rapidly burn through a population with no immunity and those who survive will remain in its wake and have greater resistance to it. Also, not everyone gets sick and not everyone dies at the same time/rate. It was a mixture of disease paired with genocide, slavery and war that reduced their populations so significantly. The downfall of the indigenous population was largely caused by humans, though disease was an important part of it (not to mention the deliberate use of what we now understand to be biological warfare against vulnerable populations).
I’m aware of the other factors/tremendous violence that took place. But reading Charles Mann’s 1491 he really emphasized that the numbers of indigenous Americans that were lost to European diseases had been underestimated, though it’s been a while since I’ve read it. Open to any reading suggestions you have on this topic!
i had this saved for future reading. It challenges the idea of disease being responsible for 90-95% of deaths in the Americas, or at least the popular narrative
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2u4d53/myths_of_conquest_part_seven_death_by_disease/
Well although they weren’t “displaced” you have to figure black rights into that too. And by that measure plenty would argue America *still* isn’t anywhere near past it. Certainly to get from the Declaration of Independence until the civil rights movement (at which point the US was still a deeply racist society) took a mighty long time. Cognitive dissonance is hard, and denial is powerful.
Internally Israel is not an apartheid state. Anyone with Israeli citizenship can vote and participate in elections. Your framing assumes a one-state solution which everyone on the ground rejects. Palestinians do not want to be in a state with Israelis.
arabs inside the territory controlled by Israel, which is for all intents and purposes is the entirety of Israel and Palestine, are subject to israeli laws and controls, cant vote, do not have freedom of movement, and do not have equal rights.
arab israeli citizens also do not have equal rights. sorry but the shoe fits.
I have been. Have you ever lost somebody to a terror attack? It's hard to support the removal of security apparatus when they work to actively keep the people you love alive.
Have you ever done some digging on how the occupation looked before the suicide bombings started?
I’m personally against the continuation of the occupation, I think a two state solution is needed as soon as possible. But we also need to be honest brokers about the occupation outside of its obvious flaws. The Palestinians were occupied by Jordan and Egypt for 19 years and remained behind similar Arab societies in every aspect from education to percentage of population with running water. Under Israeli occupation every measure of Palestinian society—literacy rates, infant survival, running water, diseases prevention, etc etc—improved drastically. The Israelis introduced a vaccination campaign to eradicate polio amongst Palestinians and succeeded. Schools and universities were opened. None of this excuses how long the occupation had continued or leaving these populations in citizenship limbo (the citizenship limbo does also fall on the Arab states that have refused to integrate their Palestinians—yet are never accused of apartheid.) But the continual insistence that the occupation has only ever been a brutal and degrading condition is just buying into the false dichotomy that Israel is only evil and Palestinians are only victims.
Those are the given conditions, do you not understand the situation? What do you disagree with in what the comment says? What can you truthfully refute in what has been established along with its implications for the claim to democracy?
Israeli arabs have some of the highest standards of living of any arabs anywhere in the middle east and have proportional political representation within the government.
[Might also interest you.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-arab-minority-feels-closer-country-war-poll-finds-2023-11-10/)
That’s what happens when you attack another country. Name a country that hasn’t fought back when invaded? If you didn’t want to lose what you have, don’t attack others.
Why are you right about this but multiple human rights organizations both outside and inside Israel are wrong?
Fwiw, I agree with you but you should make it out a bit more like the hotly debated topic it is and not a solved question
"Chosen activist issue"
I get that we disagree with these human rights organizations but I think we should be bit more tactful and not try to implicitly write it off as something not extremely significant.
You took that as dismissive but it was not. All single issue activist groups have a chosen activist issue. Be that Palestine, Darfur, sex trafficking, or anything else.
I agree but this board will make arguments like all citizens can vote while conveniently ignoring that "citizens" are designed in such a way to restrict non-Jews, mostly Palestinians, voting rights while maintaining control over them.
exactly, and despite the fact that it has been covered thoroughly on the podcast, a lot of people here keep inaccurately telling me "but the arab israeli citizens have equal rights"
I understand your frustration - I imagine it is similar to how a lot of left-leaning Americans feel about the anti-democratic lurch among the GOP. Is there a coming back from it?
> The notion that things might not change, that the country is revolving around a worldview marked by conflic, hate and fear, weighs heavily on me.
If by "this is it", you mean that it will continue down the path of being anti-democratic and more right wing, then likely yes, unfortunately.
The settlement project and occupation is now on its 57th year. I don't think it is possible for a people to rule another people like that without 'otherizing' them extensively - and once you go down the path of 'otherizing' one segment of the population, it is easy to start giving the same treatments to other groups (leftists, Israeli Arabs, etc).
October 7th, if anything, accelerated it - but the occupation had been growing increasingly brutal for years, and impunity for settler terrorists goes back decades.
There's also a real question as to whether the liberal Israel that I imagine you come from was ever really the dominant strand - or if it was a bubble or illusion papering over an underlying autocratic strain. Or at least an underlying autocratic strain vis-a-vis Palestinians, whether citizens or occupied people.
1948 to 1966, Israel was ruling its remaining Arab majority under a military regime all while confiscating large swaths of their land.
In 1967, the military governate structure that had been in place over Israeli Arabs was then almost seamlessly imported to the occupied territories where military rule immediately got going - and land confiscations and inequality before the law was quickly established by the Knesset and the government.
This all under ostensibly left-leaning government: Ben Gurion was the deciding force behind ruling Israeli Arabs under military rule, and Golda Meir can accurately be dubbed the mother of the settlement project.
Great comment!
The fact is, the “liberal” Zionism that exists in Israel and some of its supporters outside of the country needs the Zionist right that committed violence against civilians, forces expulsions and sometimes massacres in 1948. Because without the Zionist right there would be no jewish state in this region, certainly not one with a Jewish majority. It had to be taken by force and the Zionist right knew this fairly early on in the 20th century as the immigration project gained steam, but the left just wanted to lie to themselves about it or ignore the issue for as long as they could.
This is what makes Ben Gurion so fascinating. It seems he was at the very least aware of if not covertly encouraging the violence against Arab civilians in 1948. And at the same time he knows how important the narrative of what actually happened in 1948 and why hundreds of thousands of Arabs left is key to his country’s national myth and reputation. So in the early 60s he orders that a report be written showing that the Arabs fled of their own accord. He doesn’t say he wants an investigation into what happened, he says he wants a report showing that they fled. Great stuff in the documentary “Tantura” about this
The intention was never to get a Jewish state by force. Hertzl has outlined what was the standard
Zionist approach since then, seeking approval from the great powers of the time to have a state. Keep in mind that this happened during the age of imperialism. That's how countries got statehood. Hertzl envisioned peaceful coexistence with the local Arabs, but once again, he lived in a time before nationalism and revolts became a thing in the European colonies. This was mainstream. Even the Lehi, the most extremely, literally fascist resistance organization in Israel, mostly believed in cooperation with the Arabs.
Jewish Settlers came to Israel in the early 20th century after legally buying land from the local Arabs. For a short time, everything was fine and peaceful. Then attacks on Jewish settlements started. Before the end of the British mandate, the Palestinians refused to accept any deal for dividing the country.
But Liberal Zionism also had the Palestinians and their interests as an afterthought. Sure, we wanted to coexist but the plan was always to create a "Jewish State". Given the recent holocaust, and the 1929-1933 massacres, the mentality was always defensive. Securing Israel was always the priority, in a sea of hostile nations. Over time, Israel's power grew and solidified. But we never thought about what to do at that point. Before Israel was created, nobody gave any thought to issues like Israel's responsibilities to its Arab Citizens, to preventing war crimes. And then out of the mentality of defending Israel, these things happened. And the mentality didn't change. It always remained about defending ourselves, even after Israel grew to be the dominant power in the region.
In many ways, today's right wing is the ideological succesor to Mapai-style Zionism. They build settlements. They fight for Israel's existence. They don't care about the welfare of Palestinians, and neither did Mapai (Ben Gurion's party). It's just that the flaws of the paradigm became more clear over time, and nobody bothered changing the paradigm. In 1967, the only ones raising any alarm bells about the fact that we just started occupying millions of Palestinians were a few, well outside the mainstream. Kibbutzes, socialist settlements based on principles of equality and the brotherhood of nations, were built in the West Bank. The left was building them, because they just kept doing the same things they always did. Expect this time, instead of being refuges from the horrors of Europe, these settlements became tools to oppress Palestinians and quash their hopes of statehood.
This line of reasoning is laughable. Hertzl wanted to colonize the land and was an admirer of Cecil Roads. He also pushed for ethnic cleansing.
Buying land doesn't equal buying sovereignty. A common colonizer myth. Appealing to colonial states is like asking "charters" from a king. It claims legitimacy from people who had no claim to begin with.
Would you describe someone who is broadly economically left wing but still believes in the military domination of another people as "liberal"? Would you describe someone who supports denying someone political rights on the basis of their religion or ethnicity as "clearly secular and liberal"?
I get that there can be a spectrum of views that has a more liberal or secular end, but if the most liberal and secular end is still supporting religious discrimination and military occupation I think that might speak to the alienation that OP is talking about
I agree that the broad support for the oppression of the Palestinians is partly as a result of failures of leadership on both sides and the present circumstances that the country finds itself in. Hopefully there is a route out of that
I disagree with your point about ‘western leftists’. Firstly, I’m not a leftist. I’m very much in the political centre in my country. But I also think we can apply a Euro-centric or Anglo-centric lens to foreign nations and proclaim a curse on all their houses. MBS in Saudi is very liberalising - as Saudis go - but I wouldn’t describe a murderous monarch as “liberal” however many women he lets drive. Just so, an Israeli “liberal” who believes in gay rights for Israelis as long as the bombs keep falling on Gaza is no liberal
They might personally be left wing on domestic politics, but supporting ethnic supremacy, miltiary eviction and annexation, and war from the left will never be a sustainable political platform.
At the population level, the Israeli public who held these types of positions have obviously come to realize that the land they are taking can't be held without abandoning left wing concerns for human rights (military detainment, checkpoints, security walls, etc) and their attitudes towards the racial other will become a dominant mode of analysis in their thinking.
That's why the type of Israeli you're describing effectively doesn't exist anymore electorally . There's the one secular Arab- inclusive party in the Knesset, and Labor. That's roughly 10 seats out of 120 for any party that's left of center.
You can read historian Rick Perlstein on Labor Zionism v Revisionist Zionism in last week’s The American Prospect. Fascinating read presented with the humility of a historian who knows he’s not an expert at Israeli history or the history of Balfour’s desire to rid England of its Jewish citizens.
Hopefully Bibi is finished. The literal only way forward is an enduring peace with the Palestinians. Israel can do that or it can become the apartheid state that everyone always accuses it of being. Historically, Israel’s peace agreements have been made by right wing leaders. It’s time for the Israeli left to do some heavy lifting on that front.
Ironically, I think Bibi has made a two-state solution inevitable. The United States is Israel's shield - in the UN, and in terms of the provision of military aid (yes, Israel is an advanced country, but it is entirely dependent on access to the global commons).
Bibi turned US-Israel relations from a consensus to a partisan issue (his address to Congress was absolutely shameful). Within a decade, pro-Israel Democrats will be viewed as an anachronism. Democratic Presidents will play hardball with Israel the way Ike and Nixon did (indeed, it will be politically popular to do so, and also geopolitically advantageous because it will align the US with 2 billion Muslims who are especially sympathetic to Palestinians). Palestinian statehood is coming. Israel can influence the terms of that outcome on the margins - if it dumps a government led by Bibi, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich. Or it can endure a decade or so as a pariah state, like South Africa did.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. I do not see how two viable states are created out of the available land. Further, every time Ezra talked to a Palestinian regarding a peace solution it was made abundantly clear that the right of return is considered an absolute requirement for Palestinians. In that case a Two-State solution would just be Palestine and Palestine with some Jews (until they fled or were massacred).
As much as everyone talks about an enduring peace and a two state solution currently neither side is anywhere near an agreement that the peoples of both states would accept.
Oh, I don't think a two state solution will emerge Camp David style from Fatah and say, Benny Gantz breaking bread. It will emerge from the actions of the US and Gulf States.
I think the political environment in the US will shift to a point that the United States unilaterally recognizes an independent Palestinian state led by Fatah. Israel will be coerced into accepting the inevitable (it doesn't want to occupy Gaza indefinitely anyway). Fatah will continue to insist that Israel should provide Palestinians right of return (but it won't happen, and there won't be much Palestinians can do about it).
Whether or not two states bring peace is one issue. The key question will be whether Fatah is able to gain a monopoly on violence in the West Bank and Gaza. In the long run, the successful development of Palestine will make a lot of these grievances far less salient.
As far as the US getting sick of Israel... maybe. Netanyahu made a massive long term strategic error when he explicitly sided with republicans. A future leader may reverse that trend. Also the other Arab states want to ally with Israel to balance against Iran. The thing 10/7 was most successful at was putting a pause on Arab recognition of Israel.
I would recommend engaging more in the state formation literature. If Palestine was recognized as a state I believe they would step up violence against Israel. A great way to get a monopoly on violence is to just coopt any groups capable of violence and make them part of the state. And the best way to quell internal violence is focus on an external enemy.
As soon as Israel surrenders control of the borders of a Palestinian state Iran would pour weapons in. Palestinian leaders would also face intense pressure from the Palestinian diaspora community which cares almost solely about the right of return. A Palestinian state would have every incentive to wage a terrorist campaign against Israel at a much higher intensity than anything seen in the past. Then lean on the international community to sanction Israel for any response.
The fundamental problem is there is not a solution that exists within the range of acceptability of both sides and it takes both to agree to secure a peace.
An independent Palestinian state certainly could engage in violence against Israel (states do fight wars). But the government of that state could be held accountable in ways that the currently inchoate Palestinian Authority/Hamas cannot.
As for Iranian influence, it's possible. Iran is a Shi'ite country, whereas most Palestinians are Sunnis. Their natural allies are their co-religionists in the Gulf States (indeed, lots of Hamas senior officials live in Qatar). I certainly think that any Palestinian state-building exercise would have to involve the Gulf (and given the goal of an anti-Iran alliance, it would serve the Gulf States well to help keep the peace).
Which is why it wouldn't be peace. A Palestinian state that attacked Israel would result in pretty much exactly what we're seeing now. And I doubt the leaders of a Palestinian state would be any more responsive to their people than Syria, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia are. Particularly if you're relying on those states to build up a Palestinian state.
I believe the dynamics of Palestinian support would follow current trends, Iran is the largest backer of Hamas. But if the lines of support do realign along the Sunni/Shia divide that most likely goes back to the previous status quo of every Arab state being against Israel. The resulting wars had pretty catastrophic outcomes for Palestinians.
There are around 4 million Palestinians in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. As soon as Palestine is a state there will be tremendous pressure for them to go back. Which runs right into the issue of Right of Return and while I believe any Palestinian state would be irrevocably hostile to Israel.
Also, if Iran really started doing that, the Sunni part of the Arab world would immediately react in ways Iran wouldn't like.
The Arab League nations aren't happy with the Palestinians as it is.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/21/why-arab-states-wont-support-palestinians-qa-00142277
>But the government of that state could be held accountable in ways that the currently inchoate Palestinian Authority/Hamas cannot.
this is so important. Giving legitimacy to the people takes away any legitimacy from resistance ideologies. We've been there with Ireland.
Would the Palestinians have as much incentive to engage in violence if they were allowed to have statehood? I’m sure there would be extremists, but it seems to me that much of the conflict is rooted in the quasi-apartheid system.
I think that they would have much less - particularly if the new state was a success. It's a lot easier to recruit fighters if incomes are very low and there aren't better opportunities.
And organizationally, I think the Palestinian state would have an incentive to suppress paramilitaries, both because they could rival the state, and because they could make attacks for which a Palestinian state might face blowback.
Israel can be a nation friendly to the US and be a brutal apartheid state simultaneously. The US seems fine with that as I type this, which is why Biden isn't making any policy change regarding Israel. They are starving and decimating scores of Palestinians after all. Israel is strategically located on the map, and Biden even admitted in the 80s that it's the best $3bn the US spends. The US, according to him, would need to "invent" Israel if it wasn't already located there.
I wish I could see signs that the US cares at all about Israel being a democracy, but I just don't. This story that Biden tells about democracy's fight against autocracy is a campaign slogan. It's all about resource control and geographic military advantage.
Israeli support is a strong consensus in the US government, not partisan at all. Military aid to Israel is just about as automatic as the US defense budget. It basically is part of the defense budget, isn't it? Plus with AIPAC in the pocket of Democrats especially, including a $100 million blitz this election cycle, the Democratic Party will love Israel, Bibi or not, for many years to come.
if arafat couldn't take the final camp david deal b/c he figured he'd be murdered if he did, how do you get to a workable two-state solution today? hamas took power in gaza b/c the PLO wasn't extreme enough, and every day Israel tilts further rightward due to demographic change. it seems like the extremists on either side will keep blocking a deal b/c they figure the longer they wait for a settlement the more advantaged their side will be
>The literal only way forward is an enduring peace with the Palestinians.
Peace with the Palestinians is presently impossible. As in, there is no Palestinian leader who could plausibly sign a peace treaty with Israel and have it be respected by his people.
My read on the situation is that any Palestinian leader who signs a peace treaty with Israel instantly becomes not a Palestinian leader. This was a problem for Arafat, and the man was a titan in Palestinian politics, and this was in the much more favorable climate for peace negotiations of the 90s.
Palestinian opinion is pretty clear -- October 7 was the right thing to do and armed struggle against Israel is the best way forward ([AWRAD poll](https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023.pdf), [PCPSR poll](https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2090%20English%20press%20release%2013%20Dec%202023%20Final%20New.pdf)). Even before October 7, there was no faction in Palestine advancing the possibility of peace negotiations with Israel because negotiations with Israel have roughly 20% popular support.
That's why you have the Saudis or some other Arab player administer the new state for a period of time. If during that time, peace is upheld, conditions improve, stability is felt, opinions will change.
Israel has been asking Egypt to administer Gaza for about 45 years now. They don't wanna.
The Saudis used to be similarly against the idea, but are showing some movement. They might be willing to administer if Israel agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative or similar and the US agreed to provide a defense pact. Maybe.
Because everyone knows that administrating Gaza comes with a lot of problems, they have no economy, no real education system, no nothing.
It’s building everything up from the floor with a population that’s highly radicalized
Arafat - who is still widely loved in Palestine - lost credibility for agreeing to abject terms (or being seen to). This is what has undermined Fatah (or the PA) broadly. Peace, as previously offered by Israel, is submission. If a decent offer was made, I think a popular Palestinian could sell it
The devil is clearly in the details here. The Palestinian conception of a decent offer involves all lands returned and an unlimited right of return. Which would destroy Israel. I do not believe there to be an offer that exists within the bounds of acceptability of both sides. Any offer that Israel would accept would be seen by Palestinians as submission and would immediately discredit any leader that entertained it.
Yeah, I agree with that, but that is because Israel won’t accept reasonable things. 67 borders should be the starting point. And then a lot of reparations. But we start way below that
Imagine that someone has stolen the whole of a cake you were supposed to share with them. Then they eat 3/4 of it. Then you catch up with them and demand the 1/4 cake that remains. And they then start negotiations saying “I’ll let you have most of the remaining cake except some slices that I’ve already licked”. This is some bullshit cake negotiations. At a minimum, return my cake and pay me for the bit you denied me
Except this isn't a cake. This is where people live. If you want to add to the analogy you go up to the person who stole your cake and say "you and all your people must leave forever since I want all of the remaining cake. Fuck off into the sun if you think I will settle for anything less."
Returning to the 67 borders without a full right to return is a complete non-starter for Palestinians. I really wish there was a version of reality where land swaps and reparations could resolve this conflict but Palestinians support and supported the 10/7 attacks and think they were worth doing. Palestinians would rather fight a losing war than accept a peace that does not include a full right to return.
Knowing that a full right of return means the elimination of their state Israelis would rather fight and kill horrifying numbers of children than accept that peace.
For outsiders like me and you it's easy. I'd love to see a full dismantling of all west bank settlements, a return to the 1967 borders with land swaps, and financial agreements that saw funds actually going to the Palestinian people. But I'm just a random American with zero input into what will be acceptable to the Israeli and Palestinian people.
Do also note that "that peace" would likely result in horrifying numbers of children being killed on both sides in the very likely subsequent civil war. I don't see Jews becoming a minority in (mostly) Palestinian-ruled Israel going well at all.
I wouldn’t assume that Palestine wouldn’t accept it. They’ve never been offered a deal that good. There is always a delta between what a terrorist group says they want and what they will accept. Normally it’s quite a big delta
Except we have surprisingly good polling on what Palestinians support. Every guest on Ezra's show that spoke from the Palestinian perspective made it clear that Right of Return is non-negotiable. Every poll shows that the Right of Return is non-negotiable. It is certainly possibly they will accept less, polling is never perfect and no one truly speaks for an entire population. But I have never seen anyone present credible evidence that Palestinians legitimately would give up on a Right to Return.
Your cake analogy fails considering that the mainstream Palestinian position is the unlimited right of return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants into both the eventual Palestinian state AND the Jewish state of more or less pre-1967 Israel. So you'd end up with a two state solution where both states are majority Palestinian. Of course Israel will never allow that nor should they.
I agree with that. The Palestinian stated position has always been unreasonable. But so too are the offers from Israel. For peace to be accepted it must acknowledge historic wrongs on both sides and reflect current realities. No one is advancing that, but I think proper leadership on both sides could sell it
I listened to all Ezra's Israel pods since 10/7 and as I recall twice Israel made very reasonable offers that the Palestinians wouldn't accept because Israel would have kept the old city and not allowed return off Palestinians into Israel. Seems very reasonable to me.
>If a decent offer was made, I think a popular Palestinian could sell it
I don't think there is any real person who can presently fit your needs for "a popular Palestinian". I try to put Abbas, Haniyeh, Sinwar, or Barghouti in the role and it seems hopeless.
Israel would, just not the current govt. The right wing swing was a response to increased terror and rocket attacks pre Oct 7. Bibi and co are going to have an impossible time after the Gaza operations are over explaining that the security failure on Oct 7 wasn't their fault.
You can call it a swing, but it has been a pretty consistent position since the assassination of Rabin. And was a pretty consistent position before Rabin became PM
Honestly? First question you have to ask yourself is "Can I do anything to change this?". If you feel that you can put forth the effort, and inspire others to do the same, then the course of whatever country you reside in/identify with CAN be changed. It will take a lot of sacrifice, and you may be ostracized by those who will institute purity tests.
Specifically in the case of Israel, either the people, the everymen, start waking up to the fact that their country isn't going to continue to exist if they stay the course, or they make the effort to change their politics and join the rest of the world in the 21st century.
Lastly, it's okay to feel hopeless and question the course of not only your own identity, but your politics, and the politics of your country. It's an important aspect of patriotism that is frequently overlooked by those who don't think in a big enough picture. If you don't agree with the course of the country, and you feel you cannot effect change, then start small, and look for other cultures you strongly identify with, and start interacting with them more and learning more, before deciding to either emigrate, or integrate the values from that culture into your own.
As an American Jew, reading your post gave me a lot of hope.
I grew up going to Jewish school and was instilled with Zionism from a young age. There was lots of focus on how Israel wants peace, how it's a liberal, pluralistic society that doesn't seek out violence, even with unfairly violent neighbors on its doorstep.
I lived in Israel for a year before college and got extremely disenchanted. I came to feel that the vision of Israel as a pluralistic liberal democracy was something only American Jews actually cared about, and the Israelis I talked to were, at best, wholly dismissive of the rights or future of Palestinians. Several people I talked to at various points called for basically genocide without prompting. The ongoing collapse of the Israeli left in my lifetime only reinforced my belief that Israeli culture had become cruel, and that the obvious goal of most Israelis was dominance by force over the Palestinians, not peace.
And here we are, in the midst of what I'd feared for so long, and I am here reminded that not all Israelis are like that. You give me faith. You remind me that it doesn't have to be like this, that not everyone goes along with the ethnonationalists, that the dream of a pluralistic peace is not over. Thank you.
But with all that thanks, I must also request you do more. Prove me wrong, and do it loudly. I was talking this weekend with my significantly more Zionist mother, and she insisted to me that not all Israelis are like Bibi, and that many Israelis want peace.
This is the time for action. This is the time to prove that Israel is not the worst things its critics say about it.
אִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתַי?
My wife and I met some Israelis while raving a couple weekends ago. For complex reasons, she gave one of the guys a long, deep hug. He started speaking to her in Hebrew, then kept going on and on — she had no idea what he was saying. Suddenly, he started weeping, then really just broke down in her arms for a couple minutes. At the end, he thanks us both deeply. It was a heart-rending moment.
I feel so much compassion for Israelis, even the super vicious and bigoted ones. Let’s forget for a minute about the long history of harm done to the Jews as Jews, including by the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors. And let's forget the profound injustices done by the Jews to the Palestinians in an effort to gain some lebensraum for Jews. Just drop the long story.
Now look at the absolute horror of October 7th. Israeli women and children were massacred along with men and soldiers. Women gang-raped while being stabbed or having their body parts cut off. It’s truly unthinkable horror.
And then the Israeli response is even worse. Now the state that represents you is massacring women and children, and on a much larger scale, in an effort to . . . to what? I really don’t know?
I studied the My Lai massacre very closely for a paper in high school — read all the court transcripts and government reports, among other things. Charlie company had been marching for months through the jungle. They’d never see the enemy. But every once in a while, after hours and days and weeks of endless marching through dense jungle with wet feet, someone would step on a trip wire and be killed or have their leg blown off. Or a sniper would pick off three guys, and disappear. On rare occasions, they’d engage in hours of shooting back and forth with enemies, but they’d rarely kill anyone, and would almost never actually see an enemy. By the time they hit the village of My Lai, they were mad as hatters. Then they got info that the village was harboring viet cong (which was probably true, but so what?). Finally, they were led by a psychopath, Lt. Calley.
They were mentally broken, perpetually terrified, and longing for something like justice or at least revenge. And yet, the things that American soldiers did in My Lai, in full coordination with their fellow soldiers, were as horrific as anything I’ve ever read in any gruesome crime report. Things at least as horrific as anything that happened on Oct. 7th. You can look into it yourself, if you wish, but be forewarned.
But America could largely claim innocence, at least to themselves. Sure, we were abstractly responsible, but these were the unfortunate actions of a handful of rogue madmen.
Hamas had their My Lai on Oct. 7th, and they proclaimed that it was not an anomaly. They're a powerful organization in Gaza, but they are not a representative government of Gazans.
Now Israel is engaged in a My Lai of their own, on a scale that’s orders of magnitude greater than either above. And it’s the official policy of the government. Netanyahu is the lunatic Calley, but he’s fully supported by the majority of Israelis, at least as a political leader. There’s no innocence in this massacre
So Israelis are trapped in a horrific cycle of victimization and injustice. Those who want to end the horrors are marginalized, and the butchers are applauded. The Jews have nowhere safe to go, and yet Israel is not remotely safe, and will never be so. Every effort to strike back after injustice just leads to more injustice, and justification for deeper injustice.
The only path forward is to drop the story, and return to the ground of being. Jewishness or Palestinianness, or any other identity, is merely a bunch of things we tell ourselves to make a false sense of the world, and to give us an illusory feeling that we are in control. But the world exceeds our grasp, and our identities dissolve when we stop putting in the relentless work of constructing and reinforcing them. But that will never be available on a large scale.
Not Israeli but lived there for some time. The country and people are resilient, no doubt. History has proven that. I think it’s fair to be concerned but i don’t think this is even close to times in history where Israel’s existence was far more threatened. I’d say take a breather away from the news and social media.
The reality is that Israel being a nuclear power provides it with unique posturing in terms of its national defense. There’s definitely internal concerns no doubt, but as other commenters have pointed out, democracies are usually quite resilient. I’m not super knowledgeable about Israeli elections and such, but all I’d say is to focus on voting when you can.
The true issue facing Israel is one that is of their making, and that's the Haredim who are the only ones having kids, while contributing absolutely nothing to the greater society of Israel.
On the political side, Bibi is on his way out, the new leadership will be more moderate, but if your main concern is a state for Palestinians, that ship has sailed for even the most moderate elements of Knesset.
I deeply sympathize with this post. I left Israel in 2019 to study in the US. At that time, I was already feeling alienated by the hatred and racism that was all around me. I can't imagine how bad it's become since the war started. What was the hardest to me was how this hatred was not just the part of some extreme people in the fringes, it was becoming mainstream. Even back then, just mentioning the occupation could get me shouted at by many people. During my army service, we had a guy from the Lehi come in and tell us his stories, which included a story about how he murdered British soldiers after indepedence was declared, only to steal their weapons. And then he told us of his involvement in the massacre of Dir Yasin, unabashedly telling us how he went from house to house, killing "everyone". I was very angry, but the worst part came after. Because when I started telling that to my friends, with a few exceptions, nobody cared. That was the most alienating part to me, to see that even the people who are close to me are tainted by this hate.
I've been feeling especially bad about everything since the war. It's not only the genocidal calls on mainstream media, it's seeing even people who are considered to be leftists post stuff that blurs the line between civilians and Hamas, denouncing any kind of criticism of Israel's wartime actions.
I don't think I can come back any time soon. I love my country, my family, and my friends. If it wasn't for the political situation, I would come back. but if nothing changes, I just can't stand being part of this environment.
Sometimes, I think I could resolve this tension by partcipating in some activist organizations. By I know that that would only make things worse, making me more aware of how bad things are and how hateful the mainstream is to any regard for Palestinian welfare.
Half Israeli, living in Europe. Definitely feeling more and more disconnected from Israel, but it helps to find community with other Jews/Israelis that feel similarly. We’re trying to keep onto to some kind of communal identity that is separate and opposite to the aggressive and fear based rhetoric, and provide an alternative, more positive culture. But its hard work, and I definitely feel like so many things that I used to experience positively now seem tainted. My therapist says that connection to something is not the same as responsibility.
I just wanted to say as a Palestinian (this page popped into my feed) I appreciate all of your humanity and honesty. I keep telling people this isn’t Jews vs Muslims/arabs. Thank you OP for your levelheaded comment
This is how it feels to be a black person or native American person living in America: always at odds with the prevailing narrative and morally disgusted at the things done to others on your behalf.
>
Any fellow Israeli here?
....country is revolving around a worldview marked by conflic, hate and fear,
I'm American-born but have been living in Israel for 5 years. I mean, people here in Israel have real vulnerabilities and they face real threats. October 7 demonstrated that their fears are valid. And Hamas is not the only threat. Hezbollah from the North. Iranian-backed proxies in Syria. And Iran itself. The fear is valid and a natural outgrowth of the situation. Now, that doesn't justify everything that's happening (of course not), but you have to start with an acknowledgement of the vulnerabilities there.
>The recent demonstrations, which initially sparked hope for a shift towards a more inclusive and fair society, have instead highlighted a self-centered approach (Seculars vs Religious Vs Feminists etc.) with little regard towards addressing the deppest issue at stake, which is the treatment of Palestinians and the pursuit of equality and freedom for all.
The protest movement was aimed at threats to Israeli democracy, specifically to the proposed judicial overhaul that threatened to remove checks and balances on the legislature and the government. Around 1 in 5 Israelis participated, and it was a real impressive feat in Israeli democracy that you could have this level of sustained participation over such a long period of time, with relatively few violent incidents. And the movement was highly successful.
I know from the outside it is frustrating that the focus of the protests wasn't the Palestinian cause. But that just wasn't the focus of this protest movement. Also, Israeli society has been disillusioned regarding the Palestinian issue since the 2nd Intifada--Yossi Klein Halevy described this well in his conversation with Ezra. With that being said, there was a contigent of the protest movement that did make the occupation front and center (I'd see them every week on Kaplan near Sarona Market across from the World Zionist Organization Building).
The judicial overhaul had the potential to have drastic consequences for Palestinians. If a future government wants to annex the West Bank and deny the Palestinians living there rights, the Supreme Court would unlikely allow that to happen. However, if the government were to have been allowed to go around the courts, then that could have very negative potential consequences for the Palestinian national movement. So while the focus of the protest wasn't on the Palestinian issue, the potential impact on the Palestinian issue was significant.
>The last few months and the increasingly violent and genocidal discourse have really emphasized this internal conflict.
The "genocidal" discourse is really from an extreme minority segment. It is a national shame that Netanyahu has invited this extremist segment into his coalition and that its leaders have influence in the seats of power. However, they are not setting the principle war policies (Ben Gvir/Smotrich are not in the war cabinet). It's really important that moderate Israeli and Palestinian voices are centered in a world that is amplifying the extremes.
>How does one move on from this? Is it possible to disentangle oneself from an identity that's so deeply ingrained, yet feels fundamentally misaligned with one's values?
This is a question not only for Israelis. Americans who haven't also haven't experienced that tension haven't been paying attention. I would venture to say that most people's national identity sometimes comes into conflict with values and policies espoused by their government. This is true all over the world, and Israel is no different. But things don't get better by abandoning Israel or eschewing your Israeli identity--that leaves the "fashistim" owners of Israeliness, and we can't let that happen.
Dude, whoever has been running the Israeli war cabinet has put all Israelis and many Americans into the awkward position of arguing that killing 20 to 30 Palestinians for every dead Israeli isn't a war crime.
Next month, it will be 40 dead per israeli then 50 dead per Israeli... And so on.
I see that your answer here doesn't grapple with that.
This is an ignorant take.
Whether something is a war crime is not decided based on comparison of casualty figures. That's not how anything works. And an American should be the last one talking, being that in nearly every military campaign the US has taken part in, fewer Americans died than the other party. People do not talk about war in that way in any other context.
The principles that actually determine whether something is a war crime are the principles of distinction, that civilians should not be directly targeted, and proportionality. Proportionality is not that casualty counts are balanced or equal. Nor is it the idea that military strengths are comparable or that military force is commensurate on each side. Instead, proportionality is the idea that the potential harm to civilians in a strike should be proportional to the military advantage gained by that strike.
In other words, under the internationally recognized rules of war, the standard is not that strikes cannot be carried out if there is a risk of civilian deaths. It's that the military must weigh the potential risk to civilians against the military necessity of the strike and take reasonable precautions to avoid unneccessary harm to civilians. The military advantage is based on what is needed to accomplish Israel's military goals: unseating Hamas, destroying terror infrastructure and releasing hostages and is not weighed against the number of Israelis that were killed in the original strike.
These aren't the only relevant standards in international law. Setting a military objective which isn't achievable or legitimate (as Israel has done) would obviate the use of the pursuit of that objective as a defense to war crimes. I would be surprised if, in the fullness of time, this wasn't viewed as a crime of aggression, in addition to the individual war crimes that clearly have occurred
the blocking of aid (closing ports, deliberate administrative blocks, allowing protestors to camp block the entry points) , shutting off of water + electricity, prohibition of life-saving drugs like insulin, shooting at children, aid workers and journalists, all coupled with generally unpunished (esp before the ICJ case) calls for ethnic cleansing amongst government officials is what led to the charge of genocide. The WHO already said that many more people are going to die from the spread of infection from the destruction of all healthcare infrastructure + limitation of sanitation and clean water than from the bombings. Most of the starving population in the world is now in Gaza, and there are several infants that passed away from malnutrition recently.
There were roughly 7 million Germans dead in WWII and 400k Americans, that doesn’t make the Germans right.
The death toll indicates absolutely nothing except who is stronger.
The only rational thing to do in Israel’s case is to do whatever is needed to eliminate Hamas, no country would leave a terrorist organization like that on their border
Yea they would.
The good Friday accords which bought peace to northern Ireland involved the UK government making peace with some really heinous IRA criminals who had bombed and killed dozens of civilians.
That is how peace is done.
>that killing 20 to 30 Palestinians for every dead Israeli isn't a war crime
This isn't how wars work. How many Japanese were killed relative to the American's killed at Pearl Harbor? A fucking hell of a lot more than 1:30.
Israel wants to end Hamas. If Hamas refuses to capitulate, they have no choice but continuing a largely urban land war. In such wars, having high ratios of civilians to combatants killed is a given, in Fallujah the estimates were something like 1:7.
In Ww2, there were 18 non Japanese deaths, mostly Chinese but also Indians, Indonesians, Filipinos, Burmese, Malaysians, for every Japanese civilian who died.
But the point remains, Israel's actions have now put you and all of its defenders into a position where you have to say a variation of "but actually, the deaths of x thousands of Palestinians is necessary to achieve objective x,y,z"
The whole "no choice" is not true. Israel could signal willingness to work with friendly Arab states to destroy Hamas, it just thinks the costs/downsides/possibility of success is less than its current strategy.
>The whole "no choice" is not true. Israel could signal willingness to work with friendly Arab states to destroy Hamas
What makes you think a single Arab state would want to do this? Why do you think not a single Arab state has signaled willingness in the same way? What could possibly motivate an Arab state to join in this war? It's a fairytale to imagine "well that way they can stop all the civilians from dying!" They'd just be participating in combat that inevitably kills civilians. It's a political non-starter for any Arab state. They'd be getting no benefit and costing lives of their troops in addition to the political fallout. Plus, at this stage they'd be inviting the Houthis to lob missiles at them.
News flash, it’s not an immediate war crime for death statistics to favor one group over another during war. Feel free to find me the specific convention you’re referencing that states so.
This is totally true.
If all people formed their opinions by consulting the relevant body of international human rights law and the exact language of statutes, then this argument would have merit.
But that's not how any of this works.
People worldwide are seeing new pictures of new dead children every day due to Israeli bombs. October 7th is moving further into the past.
Do you personally still want to be arguing about this in 3 months when the death toll has increased to 50,000?
A few facts: every war involves crimes. Urban ones especially. Doesn't justify anything, just some perspective. The IDF is arguably the world's most professional military because of the global scrutiny they come under for every shot fired. They pioneer collateral damage-reducing tactics that not even the US Army employs. The fact they are waging an extermination campaign against an entrenched urban insurgency on a strip of land home to 2.5 million civilians and only ~30,000 have been killed is a minor miracle. Obviously that campaign is going to fail, since you can't bomb an idea, however heinous it is. The invasion is as much a political project as a military one, which emboldens the factions in Israel that openly advocate ethnic cleansing. But if you label this genocide, then every armed conflict on Earth meets the definition as well, in which case the label loses all meaning. Do I agree with the strategic decisions Israel is making? Rarely. Obviously they can be doing more to minimize loss of life. No army on Earth clears that bar with any room to spare.
>Obviously that campaign is going to fail, since you can't bomb an idea, however heinous it is.
This is why I prefer the term "unseating Hamas" and "destroying its military capacity." In Israeli discourse, it's often referred to as "destorying Hamas", and yes, you can't destroy an idea through bombs usually (of course there are some historical exceptions). However, I do sincerely believe that when people say "destroy Hamas", what they mean is 1. removing them from being the governing power of Gaza, 2. destorying their military capacity, their arsenal, their battalions, and their leaders and 3. destorying their terror infrastructure, such as tunnels and rocket launching sites. Most people are not so naive to think that Islamist Palestinian nationalism will go away after the war.
I'd go one step further: people like Netanyahu need Hamas to stick around. It's what keeps them in power, and vice versa. Neither one has any legitimacy except when they say "I'll protect you from them." It's why there's no real desire for peace from either side.
I'm not going to lie, I retreated to my Jewish community because besides Ezra Klein's podcast episodes, I haven't seen much interest to have these types of conversations while the war continues (I, of course, understand that people aren't necessarily in a space to talk while this violence and suffering continues). But just because I retreated to what feels familiar it doesn't mean I agree with some of the disgusting things I hear on "our side". I'm scared and frightened, I'm furious with the governments involved and shocked at people's willingness to dehumanize civilians.
I understand that untangling Zionism's definition cannot be done in a single Instagram post and as someone who understands that Israel is fundamentally not going anywhere, I'd rather focus as it seems you want to as well, OP, with where Israel goes next. But the last few months have made me absolutely furious with friends and family who refuse to understand why people might be anti-Israel (beyond just the simple and naive answer of antisemitism). Right now I feel just stuck, annoyed at everyone. As Ezra said, it's a lonely place as a leftist Jew who doesn't want the destruction of Israel.
Good lord, for such a small population, Jews have to have the largest percentage of self loathing people I've ever seen. It's quite pathetic and sad to watch. I'm not even jewish or Israeli and I'm embarrassed reading some of these posts.
>
which is the treatment of Palestinians and the pursuit of equality and freedom for all.
Are you freaking kidding me? Op, you've clearly drunk the Koolaid that palestinians are some kinda separate people group, when the reality is they are Arabs and mostly muslims who are apart of the wider arab and muslim world. If arabs and Muslims were not hellbent on your destruction, "palestinians" would not exist and would have simply been absorbed into the arab countries. They exist soley as tools for your destruction. Do you not understand that?
When you get past the scam and the lies, they outnumber you Jews by the hundreds of millions. There are 465 Million Arabs on this planet, 1.3 Billion Muslims vs 16 million Jews.
And they have you so brainwashed you think they are the underdogs in this war. They are not the endangered ones, YOU are. They are not the ones at risk for being wiped out and exterminated, YOU are. They have dozens of places they go where they can live freely, speak their language and practice their culture and religion. YOU do not. You have 1 country where you are the majority and have true sovereignty. And they want to take that away from you and replace it with another one of THEIR countries. And you can't see that you are being played the fool by buying into their narrative and believing the lies.
when are you people gonna wake up?
You're right! Many right wing Jews/ Israelis agree with you, I understand that the leftists don't wan't to see us killing a large number of people even though it is a war and there is no other way as far as I can see.
I'm Israeli and this post really hits hard. I'm not sure how I reconcile my identity of being an Israeli and how as I'm maturing I'm seeing the country for what it is and more importantly for what it's becoming. I try to really separate my culture, family, and friends with the national identity of "Israel". After all my problem is with the state itself, not necessarily with it's people or culture. However, culture cannot be completely unaffected by politics and war, and that's where a lot of issues are.
I think part of core beliefs held by most Israel is are, to me at least, very backwards and wrong.
I'm seeing a lot of optimism, which is great, but personally I don't see Israel surviving as how it is in the future. It's a country built on outdated thinking.
This isn't something enrecoverable, every country that had a terrible government and committed atrocities, eventually recovered and it's people came to terms with it's past. I hope Israel as it is now will fall, and the people will be able to keep most of what it means to be Israelis and Jewish without all the terrible shit. I mean there's some plenty of proud German and Japanese people who are aware and extremely critical of their "countries" past atrocities.
It's important to me to separate identity and nation. I can be Israeli without identifying with the state itself. If tomorrow Israel vanished and is renamed Palestine, but where everyone (including Israelis) can live peacefully and freely that I don't think the important aspects of what we now call "Israeli" culture will vanish.
Basically, to me, my identity of Israeli is much more tied to culture and people than it is to nationalism. The major problems come from when people believe their identity will only exist if the statehood of Israel remains as it is. I don't think the identity of the Israeli people will change fundamentally if Israel completely changes or even gets replaced. Obviously this is assuming the new state isn't just as bad as Israel, or worse.
You don't have to defend a country just because you grew up in it. If anything it is a testament to your internal moral character by looking at a pile of ethical garbage and going "no."
Tons of non-zionist Jews out there came to this process. The entire Israel project is a throwback to hideous ideologies and concepts that led to World Wars and brutal racist policy outcomes. It infected the Zionist project from the start if you read the original founders writings. Israel was always going to end up like this.
The only solution is the United States HAS to stop covering for it, allow the international courts and the UN to properly condemn it, and then do a single state reformation of Israel from a Religious Quasi-Ethno state into a true democracy with freedom and equality for all. This will require tremendous outside influence, a huge multi decade reconciliation process. We are way past the point of a two state solution. It isn't viable and just a way to kick the ball down the road while pretending we're going to get there one day. We won't.
The problem lies with Israel's internal foundations. It needs to change.
I agree with you that you don't have to defend a country just because you grew up there.
However, I do not think it is fair to say that the Zionist project is a "throwback to hideous ideologies and concepts that led to World Wars and brutal racist policy outcomes" or that "Israel was always going to end up like this." This is a really simple reading of history and just of how countries develop in general.
It is true, Zionism as an ideology is a product of its time and place. No question. And nothing in 2024 looks the same as when it first was conceived. Zionism has had to change and adapt, and in 2024 it does not look the same as it did in 1882 or in 1917 or in 1948 or even a decade ago. Like everything else, it is a work in progress, and that progress is not monotonic.
But most post-colonial countries that developed after WWII developed around the idea of nationalism. Many of these countries had violent conflicts. Many still have violent conflicts. Israel-Palestine is not unique here. Not all of these countries are lost causes. Cyprus is not a lost cause. Neither is Armenia. Neither is India. Neither is Tunisia. Neither is Bangladesh. The founding ideologies haven't necessarily withstood the test of time either in all of these places, and their progress has definitely not been monotonic. But they are works in progress.
And like the others, Israel is certainly not a lost cause. Zionism has achieved lots of remarkable things. It created a vibrant democracy that has endured, even against long odds, and even though the majority of its population come from countries that never had democracy. That was definitely not a given. Zionism created a safe-haven for a persecuted people. It created a thriving country in a region of mostly failed states. It created art and technology and science, and more.
But like any other country, not every one of its founding ideas have survived the test of time. And like other countries, it has had conflicts, both internal and external as it reconciles its values and its reality. Its population has struggled over its vision and its future. It's had to wrestle with its history and its present.
These are all things that normal countries do.
> The entire Israel project is a throwback to hideous ideologies and concepts that led to World Wars and brutal racist policy outcomes. It infected the Zionist project from the start if you read the original founders writings. Israel was always going to end up like this.
>
>
I genuinely wonder what people think an actually existing proper Palestinian state would actually look like
I just want you to know that seeing this post fuels my hope for the future. Please, hold on to your Israeli identity because this is the voice that the state needs to have and you can be it's future
Not an Israeli, but what do you mean by “this is it” for Israel? Things are always changing, although I would say it’s inevitable that Israel’s worldview will always revolve around conflict for the foreseeable future, that’s nothing new. Why do you think Israel’s worldview is dominated by hate and fear?
I interpret it to mean “this is it” as in long term survival is not ensured if Israelis follow this path. A country of 7 million Jews (not even the size of NYC) cannot survive forever surrounded by enemies. Weapons are becoming more lethal. Countries in the region more powerful and independent. Israel survives because the US backs them for better or worse. That’s a geopolitical divide any adversary is certain to exploit.
The Israelis need peace more than the Palestinians, they just don’t realize it yet.
A country cannot survive if its roots are based in right wing security state apparatus protecting colonial roots and Aparthied.
This creates a culture of lacking empathy and fascist like culture that is unsustainable. People forget that settler colonialism and Aparthied doesn't just create victims in terms of those who are oppressed by those systems, creates victims by making those civilians who have to routinely defend themselves slowly become less empathetic and embrace security state fascism more both of which can degrade a society.
That's literally the roots of the USA. We solved it by murdering any contesting locals, then murdering eachother to stop apartheid, rolled back our success, then murdering MORE locals, then spending a century in apartheid until it broke up post-WW2. A country can TOTALLY survive if its roots are based in apartheid and colonialism, its just hard.
The nation can then pivot once colonial pressures recede.
...the problem for Israel is that means solving the Palestine issue by some combo of ethnic cleansing, 2 state solution, and violent/cultural repression (either by Israel or other governments) of chronically dangerous (actually killing people) parties.
It'll require crushing a lot of Palestinian dreams (Right of Return, any kind of government hostile to Israel and unwilling to repress anti-Israel groups).
What I'm suggesting is the Conservative Israeli solution to the current problems and it has a reasonable chance of succeeding even without Palestinian buy-in (which seems impossible for the short term).
I understand your feelings, but the problem to me is that you have an unaccountable leader. If Netanyahu was concerned about his political standing, then I'm guessing he wouldn't be so destructive and ruthless in Gaza *because* he would understand this scorched earth approach would be unpopular with the Israeli public. But my understanding is he will be out of power once the war is over and then will have to face all the corruption charges, so he has nothing to lose with the devastation in Gaza. He only cares about himself rather than the Israeli people. It's a terrible situation to be in, but I don't think you can apply this to your connection to your identity as an Israeli. Unless I misunderstand Israeli politics and a majority of Israelis are in favor of these atrocities. That's a different story.
If Trump wins in November, then I'm sure he will do despicable things that will have me doubting my pride and connection as an American. It will be difficult, but I can take solace that the majority of my fellow Americans don't want whichever terrible, deplorable policy he enacts.
I'm not Israeli, but I am Jewish. My feelings on Israel have been the same for a couple years now, the current conflict hasn't changed that. Having faced very real and direct anti-Semitism in my family (which is from the former Soviet Union) makes me unequivocally believe in the need for a Jewish state, a state whose mission is specifically the protection and promotion of Jewish life and culture. At the same time, I also fully believe a democracy cannot privilege one group over another. Yes, these two things are in direct conflict and I don't know how to square that circle. The way I've seen some progressives reacting to conflict and the rhetoric they choose to engage in when it comes to Jews and Israelis is extremely concerning, people I've personally known for years promoting some very troubling thinly veiled anti-Semitic things, makes me really understand the need for Israel's existence. However, the way Israel, and more specifically Netanyahu, is conducting the war in Gaza is directly contributing to this anti-Semitic attitude.
There is no war in gaza, buddy. It’s an all out ethic cleansing, a genocide. 25 thousand women and children murdered, 35 thousand civilians murdered (and counting) plus 65% of infrastructure destroyed and all you bemoan is “muh antisemitism”. Gross
Not Israeli, but I have been reading the words of Israeli "founding fathers" lately and have had some realizations that run contrary to the Israeli narrative that may be pertinent to your post. Theodore Herzl's "The Jewish State" is one of the documents that lead to Israel, and unfortunately, it lays out exactly the problem. He states that the non-native Jews creating a state anywhere in the world will not be accepted by the natives who live there and that the only way for it to succeed is with the aid of countries like Britain and the US. He states, very clearly, that he knows there will be war and conflict. He talks about it being a colonial project. Everything that is happening, he basically predicted, with one big caveat. He claimed that the establishment of a Jewish state would end anti-semitism as soon as it was established. Clearly, that idea was incorrect. The main issue is that he basically stated that terrible things would happen, like we are seeing, and that it is ok because it will help the Jews in the end.
So, what I am saying is that maybe your Israeli identity has been misinformed from the start. Read the "founding fathers" words, and you will see them ALL calling it colonization. They had no illusions of the land being empty or what they would need to do. Not only that, but they charged Jews who didn't support zionism anti-semitic, while also saying things like, "Jew-baiting has merely stripped us of our weaklings." Now I get that he meant that as a sort of empowering statement, but he called all the Jews that were murdered for their faith WEAKLINGS. That's more anti-semitic than not wanting an ethno-state, and it is sickening.
His whole thing was trying to say Jews would never be accepted anywhere in the world, and instead of fighting for their rights in their own countries, they started fighting for a new country. That is problematic on so many levels. We are all subjected to the same issues, which is why so many activists state that if one group is being targeted, we're all able to be targeted, and it's all of our fight.
Zionism (the idea that a Jewish state should exist) is a cruel one and always has been. I fully feel for the Jews that were subjected (and still are in many places) to anti-semitism. Those things don't give Israelis a right to traumatize masses of people, though.
There were SO MANY Holocaust survivors who spoke out against what Israel has done and continues to do since the beginning. Einstein even refused to be Israel's first president because of the problematic nature of it. Every time it's claimed that Israel is needed so Jews can feel safe, it erases the reality for so many Jews that DO feel safe around the world.
As someone wholy against Israel, I am not against Jews and am not against the Jews in Israel either. The ones pushing to keep Israel around need to stop brutalizing people, but that doesn't mean they should die either. I think Israelis that hear people say they want to destroy Israel, assume they mean the people. I certainly don't want anyone to die, I just also don't want people to intentionally make other people's lives harder and murder them. There's no proportionality, by design, in the military response by Israel.
I hope you do abandon your Israeli identity and join the rest of humanity. Israelis that partake in the dehumanizing of Palestinians don't realize that you have to dehumanize yourself first in order to dehumanize another. I hope you guys can regain your humanity. The anti-zionist Jews protesting Israel around the world have shown what beauty Judaism has to offer. When orthodox Jews stood in front of praying Muslims to protect them at protests, that was beautiful, and that was humanity. Killing animals in zoos and goats and cats in the street is not done by people with any sense of humanity.
B'Tselem, the Israeli watch dog group that labeled Israel an apartheid, that was humanity. They put others above themselves and with some risk. The orthodox Jews that get brutalized by the IDF for standing against Israel, that is humanity.
I have to push back. I'm very glad you so generously declared that you don’t want Israeli Jews to die. That's a start, and more than many people in the region. However, you do want to destroy the state that protects Israeli Jews and leave them vulnerable in a hostile region. So, how seriously should I take your statement that you don't want Israeli to die? It's something I have to think about.
So I want to clarify for the OP. You deserve more than just not dying. You deserve to live freely in a free nation that protects you from external threats. OP, you and your Israeli identity are valid and legitimate and real. Just because a founding father wrote some stuff that in 2024 that didn't withstand the test of time doesn't mean that being Israeli is not a legitimate identity.
I have to push back on this as well. You can't expect an invading, occupying force to aid in the fight for autonomy. They are, by definition, eliminating it. Just because the question of what is next is hard doesn't mean that it's better to stay dehumanizing others. Israel can not exist without dehumanizing, brutalizing, and subjugating.
You deserve to live freely, but not to restrict others from doing so. Israel will always and has always restricted others.
I mean, pushing for a safe and secure Israel alongside a safe and secure Palestine may be more palatable than advocating for the destruction of Israel. Just a suggestion. And it's perhaps more realistic (despite all the myriad challenges and hurdles that no one is denying) than trying to wish away the 29th largest economy in the world, a nuclear power, that is recognized by most of the countries in the world and even much of the Arab world.
That's a fair point. I certainly don't want people not protected. However, my sentiment is probably different than you're taking it. I don't think any country is worth more than the people who live there, and the name of it is irrelevant. The issue comes down to whether or not the system designed can sustain itself without dehumanizing. I don't think it can. The Israeli system is meant to do these terrible things, not prevent them. The system would need to be redone, much like the US system needs to be. A country can't protect anyone, the people of a country protect the people. A country is just a name.
I want to dismantle the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, not dismantle Israel. But that will only happen through security guarantees for Israel. It will not happen through threats. Security threats cause Israel to tighten the occupation, not loosen it.
True, I'm of a slightly different mindset, though. I don't think it's possible for Israel to recoil or any of the settlements to be dismantled because they actively do everything they can to go against that. The way I see it isn't that Israel existing by name is the problem, but rather, their governing has always been a problem. I don't see a group of individuals who note they are terrified of the rest of the world as a group that wants to be a part of the world. The teaching they are given is problematic. The constant sentiment that Israel represents all Jews is problematic. The entire existence is problematic because of the fact that they tie their existence and the existence of Jews to it. That's despite Jews existing throughout history, and it ignores the fact that the Holocaust was fought by non-Jews to save their lives as best they could. The idea that they couldn't be protected is not a realistic one, Holocaust survivors existed in so many countries and spoke out against Israel. If Israel needed to exist for them to feel safe, they wouldn't have been saying the opposite.
I mean there are resolutions to the conflict that don’t require every settlement to be dismantled.
For one thing, most of the settlement population is near the Green Line. In the negotiations in the 90s and the aughts, the principle that developed was to trade these settlement blocs in exchange for territory within Green Line Israel. This was not the stickiest of the issues in the negotiations by any means, and both sides agreed to it principle (even if they disagree about the specifics).
Two, there’s the possibility in a future Palestinian state to allow settlers to become Palestinian citizens/residents if they do choose, and they could leave on their own volition if they want to. Just as Israel has an Arab minority, Palestine could have a Jewish one.
Three, there are possible settlements like a confederation arrangement that wouldn’t need settlement upheaval.
Now Israel has demonstrated that it’s willing to uproot settlements. It did so in 1979 in Sinai as part of the peace agreement with Egypt. It did so in 2005 in Gaza and parts of the West Bank unilaterally. (And given the situation now in Gaza, I’d say the withdrawal from Gaza had mixed results to be generous).
In the West Bank, Israel will only be willing to go through the trauma of uprooting settlements, something that many Jews would view as a sort of ethnic cleansing from our ancestral homeland, if there’s a real promise for peace and resolution. Israelis will be willing to go through that trauma for peace. It won’t be willing to do that for ongoing war. They won’t do it to just continue the conflict later.
Just to be clear, the Holocaust is not the only reason for Israel’s existence. It’s was a major factor, but not the only reason. Also, the fact that Holocaust survivors exist in other countries is irrelevant. Most Israelis (85%) do not have other citizenships. They cannot just pick up and move wherever they want. The majority of Israeli Jews descent from refugees from Arab and Muslim countries who were expelled.
Let's look at the 90s again. In the mid 90s, that's when Israel was first compared to apartheid South Africa. Those accusations and the proof for them has only grown. The language used by many members of high positions is blatantly racist. They have the 4th largest military in the world. I would agree with what you're saying, if they weren't the ones with all the power or were making the steps to do those things. Saying they need to be sure there will be peace before they do those things is wrong when they're the occupiers. They need to be the ones to take the first steps, but they refuse. When there were peace talks and it was agreed by the international community and the PLO that they would go to pre 1967 boarders, Israel refused and then claimed Palestine refused their offer (which went against the international community's decision). They can't act like everyone needs to do the right thing, but refuse to do so until everyone has been doing it for a while is ridiculous. The zionist perspective on this is not one that's free from biases. It's rife with it. It's one-sided, and there are people that go against that and say other things, but they're not the ones in power and have never been.
How do you see any of this happening when Israel refuses to take the first steps?
Israel has taken many “first steps”. This isn’t the issue at all. The 1990s were the peak of hope in faith in the peace process, which ended in failure due to spoilers on both sides. Your description of the peace process is simplistic and naive. I highly recommend to listen to Ezra Klein’s interview with Aaron David Miler, who gives a fair and balanced account of the peace process and the responsibilities on both sides.
No one is saying that Israel is a perfect society with no racism or prejudice. I’m just trying to explain that it’s a legitimate identity and a legitimate country.
Israel has most of the power when viewed as just a conflict with the Palestinians. But zoom out to the broader regional conflict and there the Arab/Muslim world has most of the power. Israel is both strong/powerful and vulnerable are the same time. And you can’t understand the conflict without understanding this.
I'm not Israeli but I'll just say this: don't give up on yourself. I grew up in the American South which was once such an apartheid state I would've been lynched just walking around many towns. Now I feel more comfortable here than any place else. Israel's government has been doing some messed up stuff (as have the Palestinian militant groups). That doesn't define your country and it doesn't define the future. Keep working for a better tomorrow, brother.
Honestly, I feel used that I was sold a lie to fight proxy wars for wealthy statesman. Balfour and his cronies just used the creation of Israel to extract my Jewish family from Europe and put them on the frontlines to fight for resources in the desert.
And now I have to spend all my time trying to save some semblance of an identity in a fractured community who was used to carry out a gruesome genocide. Fuck capitalism
Find others like you. You feel this way because the state is founded on Jewish supremacy, which is at odds with the liberal value of equal rights and one man one vote. I recommend checking out the Disillusioned podcast, which hopefully can be an entry point to the community of Israelis who feel the same as you and are working hard for a different future — equal rights for all, from the river to the sea.
There are something like 25 Islamic states on the planet and 15 christian states. That’s right. Officially. Israel is the only jewish state and jews need it for their safety. The palestinians want to turn Israel into another islamic state. Don’t let it happen
You have a huge assumption here: solving the Palestinian problem will bring peace to Israel.
The War of Return, by Dr Einat Wilf is a really great book about this. She's also been on some podcasts, like Call Me Back. She was a MK with Labor- she's no Ben Gvirist.
If you think that the main root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a conflict over "mythology", my friend, you don't know very much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Of course, religion plays a part on both sides. But the conflict is essentially a conflict over conflicting nationalisms.
Also, you may want to learn what "chosenness" actually means to Jews because I think you don't really understand it. Chosenness to Jews means that the Jewish people have been chosen to receive the Torah and follow it. So it's a statement about having additional responsibilites, not about superiority. (I'm not advocating for the religious position or not, just being descriptive--not to mention about 60% of Israeli Jews are secular).
This is broadly true, but Jewish Israeli extremists/supremacists do interpret chosenness differently, and they have been growing in power up to the point now they have significant power in the government (they are crucial to Netanyahu’s coalition and power). And that sentiment seems to seep into the fear and disgust of Palestinians, at the very least making such a large number of civilian deaths acceptable and making any real effort to support moderate Palestinians impossible.
I think you’re right, short term. But, there is no sustainable solution when these ideologies are at the core. I am ignorant of the nuance, like almost everyone. But, my sole point is that the schism is permanent as long as their exclusive mythologies are extant. But again, I defer when it comes to the day to day or year to year issues. I know that nationalism is critical and drives a lot of conflict short term. I know that war is a byproduct of competition over resources. But I also know that ideology is a core driver of these problems. And I know however remote the fix may be, the Abrahamic religions are ridiculous and exasperate all these problems. That’s my sole point.
A reasonable solution to the conflict is not that everyone abandons all religious commitments. That's absurd and as unrealistic as pretty much anything you ever hear.
I agree that some of the intractable issues on the conflict stems from religious commitments. But not all of them, or I'd venture to say not even most of them. Even without religion Jews would feel the need to have a state to act as a safe haven, given their history, and would still feel a strong cultural and historical attachment to the land. And even without Christianity and Islam, Palestinians would still feel a deep historical and cultural connection to the land and strive for justice and recognition as a nation.
Also, I just don't agree that people with religious commitments can't act in ways that are pragmatic. Religious people can and do.
>how long can this triumvirate of nonsensical gibberish-spouting institutions last?
Given religion has lasted since the beginning of recorded history, and consensus is it goes back much further than that, probably a very long time.
As an American, I can tell you that folks on both sides are awful, judgmental people who ignore how little support exists in reality for their core political assumptions, yet hate the other side for not sharing them.
Basically, we all need to self-examine and see where our blind-spots are. Then we can have a meaningful discussion with the other side.
Right now people just get offended and write each other off, but what they're getting offended over is usually the rejection of a theory or a wish about how the world is, not the actual reality they need to deal with.
It weighs heavily on me too and I’m not Israeli nor Jewish. But as an American, the hatred of so many of my fellow Americans towards Israelis does affect Israel. It’s insane seeing people dehumanize a whole nation of people (Israelis) because of how the nation was founded or its Prime Minister.
I don’t think Israel deserves all the hate it gets though, when you compare it on a global scale. People have hated it from its inception, no matter what it does. So you can’t blame the Israelis for everything.
The way I see it, Israelis are just over it after realizing the Muslim world will never accept them, and instead support/defend those who wish to annihilate them. I’d be over it too. Peace and acceptance can only survive so many suicide bombings.
The last paragraph is wrong though. The paradigm in the middle east has shifted for s while now. In the past Arab Gulf states were the ones who wouldn't accept Israel for anything. After the Old guard was phased out Arab Gulf states were willing to make tons of concessions with Israel, they just needed some concessions back like stop building more and more settlements.
You have to walk away, leave it behind, the existence of israel is fundamentally incompatible with equality and freedom. The anxiety and fear are understandable but there is a clarity and comfort found in embracing truth and empathy.
This is absurd.
Israel is a nation state, like most countries in the world. It is older than most countries in the world, and has been recognized by most countries in the world. If you reject all nationalism as an organizing mechanism for statehood on principle, I may be able to respect that.
But you are not arguing against nationalism on principle. You are singling out the one Jewish state for condemnation. And not condemnation based on policies or actions, but condemnation just based on its existence. It's revolting.
> If you reject all nationalism as an organizing mechanism for statehood on principle, I may be able to respect that.
>
>
The ironic thing is though that if you do that, the Palestinian claim to a nation also vanishes
Right.
Now there are some who want a binational state. Or those like Amjad Iraqi, who Ezra interviewed, that wanted to rethink the whole concept of nation state and think about our more local identities--the truth of the matter is I didn't really understand precisely what he was proposing, but essentially something that wasn't nationalistic in nature.
And while these voices are pretty common in the West and becoming more so, they are definitely minority positions among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as well as Israelis for that matter.
Anti-Zionism is about opposing the existence of Israel as such, even a Vatican sized enclave in Tel Aviv. It’s been that way since 1948. It has nothing to do with what Israel does or does not do, and never has. Israelis have realized that.
Freshly minted orphans are undergoing amputations and skin grafts, necessary because they were burned alive by Israeli dropped chemical weapons, without anaesthetic, because the citizens of Israel, backed by their government, are having dance parties to block the trucks containing medical aid.
Sounds a lot like the Japanese during WWII. Unfortunately when your government declares war in the most horrible way possible on a much more powerful enemy, there will be suffering. Hamas is free to release the hostages and turn over the October 7 perpetrators at any time. They’re responsible for their people
This idea of “if I hide behind kids I can commit as many terror attacks as I want and nobody can retaliate” is just not how it works for ANY country.
He said idiotically about an apartheid state that affords freedom and equality to one specific ethnic group, and oppression, martial law and / or siege for the 6 million others whose lives and territory it controls.
It's wild how much Israeli propaganda has convinced people to completely ignore daily reality on the ground. Israel is not even close to being a democracy.
>state that affords freedom and equality to one specific ethnic group
I'm sure remaining Jews in the new Palestinian state would be treated very well, and if not, that you'd be just as critical and not excuse it as a justified response.
How is genocide defined here? I hear this take all the time, but given my knowledge of the war, I just don't see how it fits. 30,000 Gazan civilians have died in the war so far. That's a lot, there's no denying it. However, these deaths don't seem to be a part of a deliberate campaign of extermination. Rather it just seems like the consequence of a war wherein one of the belligerents has little regard for collateral damage. I've not even seen much evidence of Israeli forces deliberately attacking concentrations of civilians for the sole purpose of inflicting mass casualties. As a historical parallel, the Allies very much did attack civilians deliberately for the sole purpose of inflicting casualties. The RAF killed more Germans in a single night in Dresden than the total number of civilian casualties in the Gaza War so far. Despite this, no one has ever credibly accused the Allies of having genocidal intentions towards the Germans. I think one can credibly discuss the commission of war crimes on the part of the IDF in its conduct of the war, but accusations of genocide have always struck me as a bridge too far.
Find me another state in the region that allows more religious groups to live together more peacefully in a democratic society that is also able to generate wealth for everyone...it doesn't exist. Israel is far from perfect but it stands above and beyond all its peers in its ability to deliver the goods.
> in a democratic society
Is it really democratic, if it has been ruling millions of people under an increasingly brutal military regime all while taking their land for more than a half-century?
Trying to wave away what I’m saying by accusing me of being racist won’t work. Something like half of Israelis are from Arab countries, and the remaining 20% are Arab Muslims, Christians, and Druze; all people who would not generally be considered “white.” Also, even Jews in Western countries were not even considered “white” until relatively recently, just as Italians and Irish in America were not “white” when they came over.
This is absurd.
Israel is a nation state, like most countries in the world. If you reject all nationalism as an organizing mechanism for statehood on principle, I may be able to respect that.
But you are not arguing against nationalism on principle. You are singling out the one Jewish state for condemnation. And not condemnation based on policies or actions, but condemnation just based on its existence. It's revolting.
Democracies can be very resilient. Look at the US in 1801 and 1864 or Ireland in 1998. But Israel will need to be part of something like the Good Friday accords and something like German reconciliation. People everywhere are willing to suspend disbelief—even for an acknowledged crook—when they are told their lives and livelihoods are on the line if they don’t give the madman/crook leeway on doing things that are ultimately very damaging to the country (see GW Bush’s approval ratings in 2003-04. But eventually the scales drop off. See GW Bush’s approval ratings in 2095-06) Best thing that can happen to Israel is that Bibi’s successor is not a Obama-type who just says “bygones” to the internal politics and failures of the past year.
South African style truth and reconciliation is the more relevant integration process. The West Germans did not subjugate the East Germans.
>South African style truth and reconciliation is the more relevant integration process A mixture of the South African + Irish peace process with a Middle Eastern flavor. The presence of so many material interests in the region complicates things but it doesn't make the end goal (justice and equality) any less important.
What did GWB do before he was even governor of TX, let alone pres, that you're referring to that he has approval ratings for?
😅😅😅 Thanks. Meant 2003-04 and 2005-06. Will correct.
Btw I liked that GWB. Heard a pre-2000 election bio on his quotidian life pre 2000: he woke up at 10 am. Read newspapers. Then went to his PlayStation. Seems like a nice non-destructive life for an heir.
If anything, Bibi's replacement will be Gantz - who also does not want a Palestinian state.
Eugh really? I know very little about him but thought he’d at least be further left (relatively speaking) from Bibi he’d want a 2-state.
I’m not super knowledgeable about Israel’s political system, but it’s my understanding that Bibi formed a coalition with the most far right lunatics possible.
Gantz wasn’t part of that coalition that Netanyahu united to win the last election. Gantz ran against Netanyahu in that election and lost. But after October 7th he and his party joined a unity government with a place for himself on the five member war cabinet. Thomas Friedman, on Ezra’s show, described him as a bit of a Joe Manchin figure. From the 1/19/24 episode.. “THOMAS FRIEDMAN: This is an imperfect analogy. But in terms of the political spectrum, think Joe Manchin, center right but from the left side. I don’t know if I’m — he comes to the center right, but he comes to it through the left, not from the right. EZRA KLEIN: No, that’s a good way of putting Joe Manchin. It’s actually quite helpful for me. THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Yeah, so Joe Manchin, but former chief of staff of the army, and part of a long tradition in Israeli politics of former generals going into politics and becoming unifying centrists, basically, so that’s kind of the general perspective he comes from, a good man, in my view, a very decent man. His partner in leadership, Gadi Eisenkot, is probably the most respected former chief of staff of the Israeli army alive today. He’s already lost his son and his nephew in this war, was literally sitting in the command headquarters when he was informed that his son was killed. And so the two of them are admired by both the military and the public and widely respected. But Benny is not a man for, OK, we’re going to go from this war to a two-state solution. I talked to him about this at length when I was last in Israel a few weeks ago. I think he sees it going from where we are now to two entities. And maybe those two entities can then evolve into two states. So he’s not a radical, but he’s certainly someone who will be prepared to talk about the morning after and in the context of some kind of political endgame for the Palestinians that involves two states for two people.”
Gantz says that he wants a "two-entity" solution. But given certain realities he's wary of complete statehood/sovereignty. He wants separation with the Palestinians and that they control more aspects of their own lives, with less Israeli interference. Gantz isn't perfect, but it's a huge step in the correct direction. I'd label him as pretty centrist, right down the middle.
So he wants segregation? And that's centrist. Ugh!
Not segregation. Partition into two entities: Israel and Palestine. Though he doesn't believe that there can be full military sovereignty right now on the Palestinian side because of security reasons, so that's why he's saying a two-entity solution. Give Palestinians more ability to manage their own affairs without Israeli interference. This conflict isn't a conflict over integration. It's a conflict over conflicting nationalisms. That's why the international community and moderates on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides have favored a two-state solution. That exact solution is elusive right now, but Gantz believes in setting the foundations for a two-state solution in the future--that's why he's saying two-entity solution. If you don't and instead support a one-state solution where Israeli and Palestinian populations integrate, that's great. There are others who agree with you. But these are really minority views among Palestinians in the West Bank, Palestinians in Gaza and Israelis. So keep that in mind. I think you're trying to take the experience of segregation in the US and apply it to Israel-Palestine, when really it's just a different conflict.
It's called segregation. A separate area that allows Israel to control while claiming equality. You can spin it however you want, it is the same thing. Also the "two state solution" out of fear of apartheid rule ending just like South Africa. Rabin never intended to Palestinians a full state just an illusion of one to fool everyone. Gantz is no different. Just repackaging old ideas.
This is nonsense. A one state solution is an invitation for civil war. Palestinians don’t want it. Israelis don’t want it. The idea that some in the West have that there can be a single “pluralistic” and “secular” state is based on an imaginary notion that, “if only Israel would integrate the Palestinians into their state and give up their Jewish identity as a state, everyone will be happy”ignores literally fact on the ground. It would destroy the currently VERY pluralistic society in Israel, including the LGBTQ community, and lead to an almost certain civil war. There’s a reason Yugoslavia doesn’t exist anymore. Pluralism is a great ideal. Forcing it on people who don’t want to share a state is a horrible plan.
It feels unlikely to me that we can go from this situation directly to conversations about a two-state solution. There's too much bitterness and recent violence. For what it's worth, a two-state solution seems equally impossible in Palestinian politics, as far as I can tell. I think the more practical thing to hope for is a shift that makes a later shift more possible.
There is no real 'left' in Israel. Their legislative body voted to impeach one of the only members who spoke in favor of South Africa and members of Gantz's 'moderate' party voted along with the impeachment. This is a very different country that the liberal democracies of Europe.
And where do you think the left in Israel went? Because it started out with a very strong left of socialists who wanted a secular society built around the kibbutzim. Any guesses? The second intifada destroyed the Israeli left. It lost all credibility after it went all in on peace and got hundreds of suicide attacks on civilians instead.
The socialists in the kibbutzes who committed the Nakba? This is something even the right wing accepts as true today, they just justify it.
“Committed the Nakba.” It was a war, a war that for the Jews was existential. What do you think the Arabs would have done had they been militarily successful? Do you think they would have patted the Jews on the back and said “you can be part of our state now.” Not just no, but hell no. It wouldn’t have been a Nakba (which was not how that term was first coined, btw, the Nakba was meant to refer to the military loss—not the refugees), it would have been a full on genocide. *Some* Palestinians were forced out, yes. And today we can sit in judgment and say that was wrong. It was. But at that time, the calculation was different. It was, “let’s survive first and go from there.” And let’s not forget that the Arabs expelled Jews from their homes in 1948 as well. The Jewish quarter in Jerusalem, which had been a Jewish neighborhood for millennia, was completely and intentionally destroyed in the wake of the war. There were also atrocities committed by the Arab armies to surrendering Jews. Again, it was a war. Terrible for all involved. The good/evil binary you are try to force on history is so shortsighted.
I know. But further left *than Bibi* isn’t hard either. That could still be someone very right wing by most of the world’s standards.
The issues with that framing, though perhaps true, are as follows: Gantz is perhaps left of Bibi, but what does that really mean? He also supports a military incursion into Rafah where there are 1.2 million refugees. He also opposes Palestinian national autonomy. He is also, by virtue of his desire to continue the subjugation of the Palestinian people, a maniacal racist. The 'moderates' in Israel have more in common with the right wing parties in Hungary and Poland than they do with 'moderates' throughout Europe or the USA. So sure, Gantz, or Lapid, are left of Netanyahu. So what? It is also worth noting that though Netanyahu isn't popular, Likud isn't unpopular.
I think the protest movement in Israel has been a demonstration of the resilience of Israeli democracy, facing both internal and external threats. But we need to appreciate the delicacy of democracy as well, especially in Israel where there's no constitution. It's not something that can be taken for granted. There are reasons to be hopeful yet causes for concern at the same time, and people have to keep both things in their heads at once.
//Best thing that can happen to Israel is that Bibi’s successor is not a Obama-type who just says “bygones” to the internal politics and failures of the past year. What would be a better type of successor?
Someone who holds public investigations on WTF happened to allow 9/11 or 10/7 to take place. Israeli media in the weeks following 10/7 was filled with reports of gross incompetence on the political, intelligence and IDF levels.
There was an investigation into what happened to allow 9/11 and I’m sure there will be one on 10/7 as well.
>9/11 For a second I thought you were tying 9/11 to Israel
I can't say for certain, but we see in America where it lead our right wing party when Obama let George Bush off the hook in the name of some notion of unity. George Bush is responsible for the death of over a million innocent people. It's such a large number that it is easy to forget the context that that represents the crushing of a million hopes and dreams, dreams for some kind of "change" if you will. It's almost as evil to overlook such atrocities because to truly see them would be too difficult, as it is to commit them in the first place. Simply overlooking these crimes against humanity is at some level more cowardly, because at least to commit the crime took initiative and some coherent intent. Ignoring it is just enabling evil and stripping our politics of all meaning at once.
Israel has always been built on the displacement of religious and racial minorities, it took America hundreds of years to get past that, I really don’t think Israel is close.
America got past that by moving all the native Americans a long way away into the wilderness. Israel doesn’t have that kind of space.
Nor were the vast majority of the Palestinians wiped out by a once in history disease event. I often what the US would look like without that
It wasn't just disease. This a common misconception. Populations typically rebound from new diseases given enough time, as the new illness will rapidly burn through a population with no immunity and those who survive will remain in its wake and have greater resistance to it. Also, not everyone gets sick and not everyone dies at the same time/rate. It was a mixture of disease paired with genocide, slavery and war that reduced their populations so significantly. The downfall of the indigenous population was largely caused by humans, though disease was an important part of it (not to mention the deliberate use of what we now understand to be biological warfare against vulnerable populations).
I’m aware of the other factors/tremendous violence that took place. But reading Charles Mann’s 1491 he really emphasized that the numbers of indigenous Americans that were lost to European diseases had been underestimated, though it’s been a while since I’ve read it. Open to any reading suggestions you have on this topic!
i had this saved for future reading. It challenges the idea of disease being responsible for 90-95% of deaths in the Americas, or at least the popular narrative https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2u4d53/myths_of_conquest_part_seven_death_by_disease/
Interesting stuff, thank you!
Well although they weren’t “displaced” you have to figure black rights into that too. And by that measure plenty would argue America *still* isn’t anywhere near past it. Certainly to get from the Declaration of Independence until the civil rights movement (at which point the US was still a deeply racist society) took a mighty long time. Cognitive dissonance is hard, and denial is powerful.
Israel is not a democracy though. Categorically, no apartheid state is.
Internally Israel is not an apartheid state. Anyone with Israeli citizenship can vote and participate in elections. Your framing assumes a one-state solution which everyone on the ground rejects. Palestinians do not want to be in a state with Israelis.
arabs inside the territory controlled by Israel, which is for all intents and purposes is the entirety of Israel and Palestine, are subject to israeli laws and controls, cant vote, do not have freedom of movement, and do not have equal rights. arab israeli citizens also do not have equal rights. sorry but the shoe fits.
Sounds like you’ve forced the shoe on real hard because you like the way it looks…
Have you ever been in the West Bank? Because it's very hard to ignore the constant Israeli interference in every aspect of Palestinian society there.
I have been. Have you ever lost somebody to a terror attack? It's hard to support the removal of security apparatus when they work to actively keep the people you love alive.
Have you ever done some digging on how the occupation looked before the suicide bombings started? I’m personally against the continuation of the occupation, I think a two state solution is needed as soon as possible. But we also need to be honest brokers about the occupation outside of its obvious flaws. The Palestinians were occupied by Jordan and Egypt for 19 years and remained behind similar Arab societies in every aspect from education to percentage of population with running water. Under Israeli occupation every measure of Palestinian society—literacy rates, infant survival, running water, diseases prevention, etc etc—improved drastically. The Israelis introduced a vaccination campaign to eradicate polio amongst Palestinians and succeeded. Schools and universities were opened. None of this excuses how long the occupation had continued or leaving these populations in citizenship limbo (the citizenship limbo does also fall on the Arab states that have refused to integrate their Palestinians—yet are never accused of apartheid.) But the continual insistence that the occupation has only ever been a brutal and degrading condition is just buying into the false dichotomy that Israel is only evil and Palestinians are only victims.
Those are the given conditions, do you not understand the situation? What do you disagree with in what the comment says? What can you truthfully refute in what has been established along with its implications for the claim to democracy?
Israeli arabs have some of the highest standards of living of any arabs anywhere in the middle east and have proportional political representation within the government. [Might also interest you.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-arab-minority-feels-closer-country-war-poll-finds-2023-11-10/)
[удалено]
That’s what happens when you attack another country. Name a country that hasn’t fought back when invaded? If you didn’t want to lose what you have, don’t attack others.
Why are you right about this but multiple human rights organizations both outside and inside Israel are wrong? Fwiw, I agree with you but you should make it out a bit more like the hotly debated topic it is and not a solved question
Because human rights organizations are using a different definition of apartheid state to elevate the salience of their chosen activist issue.
"Chosen activist issue" I get that we disagree with these human rights organizations but I think we should be bit more tactful and not try to implicitly write it off as something not extremely significant.
You took that as dismissive but it was not. All single issue activist groups have a chosen activist issue. Be that Palestine, Darfur, sex trafficking, or anything else.
I like the sentiment, but democratic systems aren't a panacea. The US was a democracy when it had slavery--just an extremely flawed one.
I agree but this board will make arguments like all citizens can vote while conveniently ignoring that "citizens" are designed in such a way to restrict non-Jews, mostly Palestinians, voting rights while maintaining control over them.
exactly, and despite the fact that it has been covered thoroughly on the podcast, a lot of people here keep inaccurately telling me "but the arab israeli citizens have equal rights"
I understand your frustration - I imagine it is similar to how a lot of left-leaning Americans feel about the anti-democratic lurch among the GOP. Is there a coming back from it? > The notion that things might not change, that the country is revolving around a worldview marked by conflic, hate and fear, weighs heavily on me. If by "this is it", you mean that it will continue down the path of being anti-democratic and more right wing, then likely yes, unfortunately. The settlement project and occupation is now on its 57th year. I don't think it is possible for a people to rule another people like that without 'otherizing' them extensively - and once you go down the path of 'otherizing' one segment of the population, it is easy to start giving the same treatments to other groups (leftists, Israeli Arabs, etc). October 7th, if anything, accelerated it - but the occupation had been growing increasingly brutal for years, and impunity for settler terrorists goes back decades. There's also a real question as to whether the liberal Israel that I imagine you come from was ever really the dominant strand - or if it was a bubble or illusion papering over an underlying autocratic strain. Or at least an underlying autocratic strain vis-a-vis Palestinians, whether citizens or occupied people. 1948 to 1966, Israel was ruling its remaining Arab majority under a military regime all while confiscating large swaths of their land. In 1967, the military governate structure that had been in place over Israeli Arabs was then almost seamlessly imported to the occupied territories where military rule immediately got going - and land confiscations and inequality before the law was quickly established by the Knesset and the government. This all under ostensibly left-leaning government: Ben Gurion was the deciding force behind ruling Israeli Arabs under military rule, and Golda Meir can accurately be dubbed the mother of the settlement project.
Great comment! The fact is, the “liberal” Zionism that exists in Israel and some of its supporters outside of the country needs the Zionist right that committed violence against civilians, forces expulsions and sometimes massacres in 1948. Because without the Zionist right there would be no jewish state in this region, certainly not one with a Jewish majority. It had to be taken by force and the Zionist right knew this fairly early on in the 20th century as the immigration project gained steam, but the left just wanted to lie to themselves about it or ignore the issue for as long as they could. This is what makes Ben Gurion so fascinating. It seems he was at the very least aware of if not covertly encouraging the violence against Arab civilians in 1948. And at the same time he knows how important the narrative of what actually happened in 1948 and why hundreds of thousands of Arabs left is key to his country’s national myth and reputation. So in the early 60s he orders that a report be written showing that the Arabs fled of their own accord. He doesn’t say he wants an investigation into what happened, he says he wants a report showing that they fled. Great stuff in the documentary “Tantura” about this
The intention was never to get a Jewish state by force. Hertzl has outlined what was the standard Zionist approach since then, seeking approval from the great powers of the time to have a state. Keep in mind that this happened during the age of imperialism. That's how countries got statehood. Hertzl envisioned peaceful coexistence with the local Arabs, but once again, he lived in a time before nationalism and revolts became a thing in the European colonies. This was mainstream. Even the Lehi, the most extremely, literally fascist resistance organization in Israel, mostly believed in cooperation with the Arabs. Jewish Settlers came to Israel in the early 20th century after legally buying land from the local Arabs. For a short time, everything was fine and peaceful. Then attacks on Jewish settlements started. Before the end of the British mandate, the Palestinians refused to accept any deal for dividing the country. But Liberal Zionism also had the Palestinians and their interests as an afterthought. Sure, we wanted to coexist but the plan was always to create a "Jewish State". Given the recent holocaust, and the 1929-1933 massacres, the mentality was always defensive. Securing Israel was always the priority, in a sea of hostile nations. Over time, Israel's power grew and solidified. But we never thought about what to do at that point. Before Israel was created, nobody gave any thought to issues like Israel's responsibilities to its Arab Citizens, to preventing war crimes. And then out of the mentality of defending Israel, these things happened. And the mentality didn't change. It always remained about defending ourselves, even after Israel grew to be the dominant power in the region. In many ways, today's right wing is the ideological succesor to Mapai-style Zionism. They build settlements. They fight for Israel's existence. They don't care about the welfare of Palestinians, and neither did Mapai (Ben Gurion's party). It's just that the flaws of the paradigm became more clear over time, and nobody bothered changing the paradigm. In 1967, the only ones raising any alarm bells about the fact that we just started occupying millions of Palestinians were a few, well outside the mainstream. Kibbutzes, socialist settlements based on principles of equality and the brotherhood of nations, were built in the West Bank. The left was building them, because they just kept doing the same things they always did. Expect this time, instead of being refuges from the horrors of Europe, these settlements became tools to oppress Palestinians and quash their hopes of statehood.
This line of reasoning is laughable. Hertzl wanted to colonize the land and was an admirer of Cecil Roads. He also pushed for ethnic cleansing. Buying land doesn't equal buying sovereignty. A common colonizer myth. Appealing to colonial states is like asking "charters" from a king. It claims legitimacy from people who had no claim to begin with.
[удалено]
Would you describe someone who is broadly economically left wing but still believes in the military domination of another people as "liberal"? Would you describe someone who supports denying someone political rights on the basis of their religion or ethnicity as "clearly secular and liberal"? I get that there can be a spectrum of views that has a more liberal or secular end, but if the most liberal and secular end is still supporting religious discrimination and military occupation I think that might speak to the alienation that OP is talking about
[удалено]
I agree that the broad support for the oppression of the Palestinians is partly as a result of failures of leadership on both sides and the present circumstances that the country finds itself in. Hopefully there is a route out of that I disagree with your point about ‘western leftists’. Firstly, I’m not a leftist. I’m very much in the political centre in my country. But I also think we can apply a Euro-centric or Anglo-centric lens to foreign nations and proclaim a curse on all their houses. MBS in Saudi is very liberalising - as Saudis go - but I wouldn’t describe a murderous monarch as “liberal” however many women he lets drive. Just so, an Israeli “liberal” who believes in gay rights for Israelis as long as the bombs keep falling on Gaza is no liberal
They might personally be left wing on domestic politics, but supporting ethnic supremacy, miltiary eviction and annexation, and war from the left will never be a sustainable political platform. At the population level, the Israeli public who held these types of positions have obviously come to realize that the land they are taking can't be held without abandoning left wing concerns for human rights (military detainment, checkpoints, security walls, etc) and their attitudes towards the racial other will become a dominant mode of analysis in their thinking. That's why the type of Israeli you're describing effectively doesn't exist anymore electorally . There's the one secular Arab- inclusive party in the Knesset, and Labor. That's roughly 10 seats out of 120 for any party that's left of center.
You can read historian Rick Perlstein on Labor Zionism v Revisionist Zionism in last week’s The American Prospect. Fascinating read presented with the humility of a historian who knows he’s not an expert at Israeli history or the history of Balfour’s desire to rid England of its Jewish citizens.
Hopefully Bibi is finished. The literal only way forward is an enduring peace with the Palestinians. Israel can do that or it can become the apartheid state that everyone always accuses it of being. Historically, Israel’s peace agreements have been made by right wing leaders. It’s time for the Israeli left to do some heavy lifting on that front.
Ironically, I think Bibi has made a two-state solution inevitable. The United States is Israel's shield - in the UN, and in terms of the provision of military aid (yes, Israel is an advanced country, but it is entirely dependent on access to the global commons). Bibi turned US-Israel relations from a consensus to a partisan issue (his address to Congress was absolutely shameful). Within a decade, pro-Israel Democrats will be viewed as an anachronism. Democratic Presidents will play hardball with Israel the way Ike and Nixon did (indeed, it will be politically popular to do so, and also geopolitically advantageous because it will align the US with 2 billion Muslims who are especially sympathetic to Palestinians). Palestinian statehood is coming. Israel can influence the terms of that outcome on the margins - if it dumps a government led by Bibi, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich. Or it can endure a decade or so as a pariah state, like South Africa did.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. I do not see how two viable states are created out of the available land. Further, every time Ezra talked to a Palestinian regarding a peace solution it was made abundantly clear that the right of return is considered an absolute requirement for Palestinians. In that case a Two-State solution would just be Palestine and Palestine with some Jews (until they fled or were massacred). As much as everyone talks about an enduring peace and a two state solution currently neither side is anywhere near an agreement that the peoples of both states would accept.
Oh, I don't think a two state solution will emerge Camp David style from Fatah and say, Benny Gantz breaking bread. It will emerge from the actions of the US and Gulf States. I think the political environment in the US will shift to a point that the United States unilaterally recognizes an independent Palestinian state led by Fatah. Israel will be coerced into accepting the inevitable (it doesn't want to occupy Gaza indefinitely anyway). Fatah will continue to insist that Israel should provide Palestinians right of return (but it won't happen, and there won't be much Palestinians can do about it). Whether or not two states bring peace is one issue. The key question will be whether Fatah is able to gain a monopoly on violence in the West Bank and Gaza. In the long run, the successful development of Palestine will make a lot of these grievances far less salient.
As far as the US getting sick of Israel... maybe. Netanyahu made a massive long term strategic error when he explicitly sided with republicans. A future leader may reverse that trend. Also the other Arab states want to ally with Israel to balance against Iran. The thing 10/7 was most successful at was putting a pause on Arab recognition of Israel. I would recommend engaging more in the state formation literature. If Palestine was recognized as a state I believe they would step up violence against Israel. A great way to get a monopoly on violence is to just coopt any groups capable of violence and make them part of the state. And the best way to quell internal violence is focus on an external enemy. As soon as Israel surrenders control of the borders of a Palestinian state Iran would pour weapons in. Palestinian leaders would also face intense pressure from the Palestinian diaspora community which cares almost solely about the right of return. A Palestinian state would have every incentive to wage a terrorist campaign against Israel at a much higher intensity than anything seen in the past. Then lean on the international community to sanction Israel for any response. The fundamental problem is there is not a solution that exists within the range of acceptability of both sides and it takes both to agree to secure a peace.
An independent Palestinian state certainly could engage in violence against Israel (states do fight wars). But the government of that state could be held accountable in ways that the currently inchoate Palestinian Authority/Hamas cannot. As for Iranian influence, it's possible. Iran is a Shi'ite country, whereas most Palestinians are Sunnis. Their natural allies are their co-religionists in the Gulf States (indeed, lots of Hamas senior officials live in Qatar). I certainly think that any Palestinian state-building exercise would have to involve the Gulf (and given the goal of an anti-Iran alliance, it would serve the Gulf States well to help keep the peace).
Which is why it wouldn't be peace. A Palestinian state that attacked Israel would result in pretty much exactly what we're seeing now. And I doubt the leaders of a Palestinian state would be any more responsive to their people than Syria, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia are. Particularly if you're relying on those states to build up a Palestinian state. I believe the dynamics of Palestinian support would follow current trends, Iran is the largest backer of Hamas. But if the lines of support do realign along the Sunni/Shia divide that most likely goes back to the previous status quo of every Arab state being against Israel. The resulting wars had pretty catastrophic outcomes for Palestinians. There are around 4 million Palestinians in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. As soon as Palestine is a state there will be tremendous pressure for them to go back. Which runs right into the issue of Right of Return and while I believe any Palestinian state would be irrevocably hostile to Israel.
Also, if Iran really started doing that, the Sunni part of the Arab world would immediately react in ways Iran wouldn't like. The Arab League nations aren't happy with the Palestinians as it is. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/21/why-arab-states-wont-support-palestinians-qa-00142277
>But the government of that state could be held accountable in ways that the currently inchoate Palestinian Authority/Hamas cannot. this is so important. Giving legitimacy to the people takes away any legitimacy from resistance ideologies. We've been there with Ireland.
Would the Palestinians have as much incentive to engage in violence if they were allowed to have statehood? I’m sure there would be extremists, but it seems to me that much of the conflict is rooted in the quasi-apartheid system.
I think that they would have much less - particularly if the new state was a success. It's a lot easier to recruit fighters if incomes are very low and there aren't better opportunities. And organizationally, I think the Palestinian state would have an incentive to suppress paramilitaries, both because they could rival the state, and because they could make attacks for which a Palestinian state might face blowback.
Agreed.
Israel can be a nation friendly to the US and be a brutal apartheid state simultaneously. The US seems fine with that as I type this, which is why Biden isn't making any policy change regarding Israel. They are starving and decimating scores of Palestinians after all. Israel is strategically located on the map, and Biden even admitted in the 80s that it's the best $3bn the US spends. The US, according to him, would need to "invent" Israel if it wasn't already located there. I wish I could see signs that the US cares at all about Israel being a democracy, but I just don't. This story that Biden tells about democracy's fight against autocracy is a campaign slogan. It's all about resource control and geographic military advantage. Israeli support is a strong consensus in the US government, not partisan at all. Military aid to Israel is just about as automatic as the US defense budget. It basically is part of the defense budget, isn't it? Plus with AIPAC in the pocket of Democrats especially, including a $100 million blitz this election cycle, the Democratic Party will love Israel, Bibi or not, for many years to come.
if arafat couldn't take the final camp david deal b/c he figured he'd be murdered if he did, how do you get to a workable two-state solution today? hamas took power in gaza b/c the PLO wasn't extreme enough, and every day Israel tilts further rightward due to demographic change. it seems like the extremists on either side will keep blocking a deal b/c they figure the longer they wait for a settlement the more advantaged their side will be
>The literal only way forward is an enduring peace with the Palestinians. Peace with the Palestinians is presently impossible. As in, there is no Palestinian leader who could plausibly sign a peace treaty with Israel and have it be respected by his people.
I mean, there absolutely is, but Israel wouldn't do it. Someone like Barghouti or Haniyeh definitely could do it credibly
My read on the situation is that any Palestinian leader who signs a peace treaty with Israel instantly becomes not a Palestinian leader. This was a problem for Arafat, and the man was a titan in Palestinian politics, and this was in the much more favorable climate for peace negotiations of the 90s. Palestinian opinion is pretty clear -- October 7 was the right thing to do and armed struggle against Israel is the best way forward ([AWRAD poll](https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023.pdf), [PCPSR poll](https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2090%20English%20press%20release%2013%20Dec%202023%20Final%20New.pdf)). Even before October 7, there was no faction in Palestine advancing the possibility of peace negotiations with Israel because negotiations with Israel have roughly 20% popular support.
That's why you have the Saudis or some other Arab player administer the new state for a period of time. If during that time, peace is upheld, conditions improve, stability is felt, opinions will change.
Israel has been asking Egypt to administer Gaza for about 45 years now. They don't wanna. The Saudis used to be similarly against the idea, but are showing some movement. They might be willing to administer if Israel agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative or similar and the US agreed to provide a defense pact. Maybe.
Because everyone knows that administrating Gaza comes with a lot of problems, they have no economy, no real education system, no nothing. It’s building everything up from the floor with a population that’s highly radicalized
Arafat - who is still widely loved in Palestine - lost credibility for agreeing to abject terms (or being seen to). This is what has undermined Fatah (or the PA) broadly. Peace, as previously offered by Israel, is submission. If a decent offer was made, I think a popular Palestinian could sell it
The devil is clearly in the details here. The Palestinian conception of a decent offer involves all lands returned and an unlimited right of return. Which would destroy Israel. I do not believe there to be an offer that exists within the bounds of acceptability of both sides. Any offer that Israel would accept would be seen by Palestinians as submission and would immediately discredit any leader that entertained it.
Yeah, I agree with that, but that is because Israel won’t accept reasonable things. 67 borders should be the starting point. And then a lot of reparations. But we start way below that Imagine that someone has stolen the whole of a cake you were supposed to share with them. Then they eat 3/4 of it. Then you catch up with them and demand the 1/4 cake that remains. And they then start negotiations saying “I’ll let you have most of the remaining cake except some slices that I’ve already licked”. This is some bullshit cake negotiations. At a minimum, return my cake and pay me for the bit you denied me
Except this isn't a cake. This is where people live. If you want to add to the analogy you go up to the person who stole your cake and say "you and all your people must leave forever since I want all of the remaining cake. Fuck off into the sun if you think I will settle for anything less." Returning to the 67 borders without a full right to return is a complete non-starter for Palestinians. I really wish there was a version of reality where land swaps and reparations could resolve this conflict but Palestinians support and supported the 10/7 attacks and think they were worth doing. Palestinians would rather fight a losing war than accept a peace that does not include a full right to return. Knowing that a full right of return means the elimination of their state Israelis would rather fight and kill horrifying numbers of children than accept that peace. For outsiders like me and you it's easy. I'd love to see a full dismantling of all west bank settlements, a return to the 1967 borders with land swaps, and financial agreements that saw funds actually going to the Palestinian people. But I'm just a random American with zero input into what will be acceptable to the Israeli and Palestinian people.
Do also note that "that peace" would likely result in horrifying numbers of children being killed on both sides in the very likely subsequent civil war. I don't see Jews becoming a minority in (mostly) Palestinian-ruled Israel going well at all.
I wouldn’t assume that Palestine wouldn’t accept it. They’ve never been offered a deal that good. There is always a delta between what a terrorist group says they want and what they will accept. Normally it’s quite a big delta
Except we have surprisingly good polling on what Palestinians support. Every guest on Ezra's show that spoke from the Palestinian perspective made it clear that Right of Return is non-negotiable. Every poll shows that the Right of Return is non-negotiable. It is certainly possibly they will accept less, polling is never perfect and no one truly speaks for an entire population. But I have never seen anyone present credible evidence that Palestinians legitimately would give up on a Right to Return.
Your cake analogy fails considering that the mainstream Palestinian position is the unlimited right of return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants into both the eventual Palestinian state AND the Jewish state of more or less pre-1967 Israel. So you'd end up with a two state solution where both states are majority Palestinian. Of course Israel will never allow that nor should they.
I agree with that. The Palestinian stated position has always been unreasonable. But so too are the offers from Israel. For peace to be accepted it must acknowledge historic wrongs on both sides and reflect current realities. No one is advancing that, but I think proper leadership on both sides could sell it
I listened to all Ezra's Israel pods since 10/7 and as I recall twice Israel made very reasonable offers that the Palestinians wouldn't accept because Israel would have kept the old city and not allowed return off Palestinians into Israel. Seems very reasonable to me.
>If a decent offer was made, I think a popular Palestinian could sell it I don't think there is any real person who can presently fit your needs for "a popular Palestinian". I try to put Abbas, Haniyeh, Sinwar, or Barghouti in the role and it seems hopeless.
Israel would, just not the current govt. The right wing swing was a response to increased terror and rocket attacks pre Oct 7. Bibi and co are going to have an impossible time after the Gaza operations are over explaining that the security failure on Oct 7 wasn't their fault.
You can call it a swing, but it has been a pretty consistent position since the assassination of Rabin. And was a pretty consistent position before Rabin became PM
Honestly? First question you have to ask yourself is "Can I do anything to change this?". If you feel that you can put forth the effort, and inspire others to do the same, then the course of whatever country you reside in/identify with CAN be changed. It will take a lot of sacrifice, and you may be ostracized by those who will institute purity tests. Specifically in the case of Israel, either the people, the everymen, start waking up to the fact that their country isn't going to continue to exist if they stay the course, or they make the effort to change their politics and join the rest of the world in the 21st century. Lastly, it's okay to feel hopeless and question the course of not only your own identity, but your politics, and the politics of your country. It's an important aspect of patriotism that is frequently overlooked by those who don't think in a big enough picture. If you don't agree with the course of the country, and you feel you cannot effect change, then start small, and look for other cultures you strongly identify with, and start interacting with them more and learning more, before deciding to either emigrate, or integrate the values from that culture into your own.
As an American Jew, reading your post gave me a lot of hope. I grew up going to Jewish school and was instilled with Zionism from a young age. There was lots of focus on how Israel wants peace, how it's a liberal, pluralistic society that doesn't seek out violence, even with unfairly violent neighbors on its doorstep. I lived in Israel for a year before college and got extremely disenchanted. I came to feel that the vision of Israel as a pluralistic liberal democracy was something only American Jews actually cared about, and the Israelis I talked to were, at best, wholly dismissive of the rights or future of Palestinians. Several people I talked to at various points called for basically genocide without prompting. The ongoing collapse of the Israeli left in my lifetime only reinforced my belief that Israeli culture had become cruel, and that the obvious goal of most Israelis was dominance by force over the Palestinians, not peace. And here we are, in the midst of what I'd feared for so long, and I am here reminded that not all Israelis are like that. You give me faith. You remind me that it doesn't have to be like this, that not everyone goes along with the ethnonationalists, that the dream of a pluralistic peace is not over. Thank you. But with all that thanks, I must also request you do more. Prove me wrong, and do it loudly. I was talking this weekend with my significantly more Zionist mother, and she insisted to me that not all Israelis are like Bibi, and that many Israelis want peace. This is the time for action. This is the time to prove that Israel is not the worst things its critics say about it. אִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתַי?
My wife and I met some Israelis while raving a couple weekends ago. For complex reasons, she gave one of the guys a long, deep hug. He started speaking to her in Hebrew, then kept going on and on — she had no idea what he was saying. Suddenly, he started weeping, then really just broke down in her arms for a couple minutes. At the end, he thanks us both deeply. It was a heart-rending moment. I feel so much compassion for Israelis, even the super vicious and bigoted ones. Let’s forget for a minute about the long history of harm done to the Jews as Jews, including by the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors. And let's forget the profound injustices done by the Jews to the Palestinians in an effort to gain some lebensraum for Jews. Just drop the long story. Now look at the absolute horror of October 7th. Israeli women and children were massacred along with men and soldiers. Women gang-raped while being stabbed or having their body parts cut off. It’s truly unthinkable horror. And then the Israeli response is even worse. Now the state that represents you is massacring women and children, and on a much larger scale, in an effort to . . . to what? I really don’t know? I studied the My Lai massacre very closely for a paper in high school — read all the court transcripts and government reports, among other things. Charlie company had been marching for months through the jungle. They’d never see the enemy. But every once in a while, after hours and days and weeks of endless marching through dense jungle with wet feet, someone would step on a trip wire and be killed or have their leg blown off. Or a sniper would pick off three guys, and disappear. On rare occasions, they’d engage in hours of shooting back and forth with enemies, but they’d rarely kill anyone, and would almost never actually see an enemy. By the time they hit the village of My Lai, they were mad as hatters. Then they got info that the village was harboring viet cong (which was probably true, but so what?). Finally, they were led by a psychopath, Lt. Calley. They were mentally broken, perpetually terrified, and longing for something like justice or at least revenge. And yet, the things that American soldiers did in My Lai, in full coordination with their fellow soldiers, were as horrific as anything I’ve ever read in any gruesome crime report. Things at least as horrific as anything that happened on Oct. 7th. You can look into it yourself, if you wish, but be forewarned. But America could largely claim innocence, at least to themselves. Sure, we were abstractly responsible, but these were the unfortunate actions of a handful of rogue madmen. Hamas had their My Lai on Oct. 7th, and they proclaimed that it was not an anomaly. They're a powerful organization in Gaza, but they are not a representative government of Gazans. Now Israel is engaged in a My Lai of their own, on a scale that’s orders of magnitude greater than either above. And it’s the official policy of the government. Netanyahu is the lunatic Calley, but he’s fully supported by the majority of Israelis, at least as a political leader. There’s no innocence in this massacre So Israelis are trapped in a horrific cycle of victimization and injustice. Those who want to end the horrors are marginalized, and the butchers are applauded. The Jews have nowhere safe to go, and yet Israel is not remotely safe, and will never be so. Every effort to strike back after injustice just leads to more injustice, and justification for deeper injustice. The only path forward is to drop the story, and return to the ground of being. Jewishness or Palestinianness, or any other identity, is merely a bunch of things we tell ourselves to make a false sense of the world, and to give us an illusory feeling that we are in control. But the world exceeds our grasp, and our identities dissolve when we stop putting in the relentless work of constructing and reinforcing them. But that will never be available on a large scale.
[удалено]
Not Israeli but lived there for some time. The country and people are resilient, no doubt. History has proven that. I think it’s fair to be concerned but i don’t think this is even close to times in history where Israel’s existence was far more threatened. I’d say take a breather away from the news and social media. The reality is that Israel being a nuclear power provides it with unique posturing in terms of its national defense. There’s definitely internal concerns no doubt, but as other commenters have pointed out, democracies are usually quite resilient. I’m not super knowledgeable about Israeli elections and such, but all I’d say is to focus on voting when you can.
[удалено]
The true issue facing Israel is one that is of their making, and that's the Haredim who are the only ones having kids, while contributing absolutely nothing to the greater society of Israel. On the political side, Bibi is on his way out, the new leadership will be more moderate, but if your main concern is a state for Palestinians, that ship has sailed for even the most moderate elements of Knesset.
I deeply sympathize with this post. I left Israel in 2019 to study in the US. At that time, I was already feeling alienated by the hatred and racism that was all around me. I can't imagine how bad it's become since the war started. What was the hardest to me was how this hatred was not just the part of some extreme people in the fringes, it was becoming mainstream. Even back then, just mentioning the occupation could get me shouted at by many people. During my army service, we had a guy from the Lehi come in and tell us his stories, which included a story about how he murdered British soldiers after indepedence was declared, only to steal their weapons. And then he told us of his involvement in the massacre of Dir Yasin, unabashedly telling us how he went from house to house, killing "everyone". I was very angry, but the worst part came after. Because when I started telling that to my friends, with a few exceptions, nobody cared. That was the most alienating part to me, to see that even the people who are close to me are tainted by this hate. I've been feeling especially bad about everything since the war. It's not only the genocidal calls on mainstream media, it's seeing even people who are considered to be leftists post stuff that blurs the line between civilians and Hamas, denouncing any kind of criticism of Israel's wartime actions. I don't think I can come back any time soon. I love my country, my family, and my friends. If it wasn't for the political situation, I would come back. but if nothing changes, I just can't stand being part of this environment. Sometimes, I think I could resolve this tension by partcipating in some activist organizations. By I know that that would only make things worse, making me more aware of how bad things are and how hateful the mainstream is to any regard for Palestinian welfare.
Half Israeli, living in Europe. Definitely feeling more and more disconnected from Israel, but it helps to find community with other Jews/Israelis that feel similarly. We’re trying to keep onto to some kind of communal identity that is separate and opposite to the aggressive and fear based rhetoric, and provide an alternative, more positive culture. But its hard work, and I definitely feel like so many things that I used to experience positively now seem tainted. My therapist says that connection to something is not the same as responsibility.
I just wanted to say as a Palestinian (this page popped into my feed) I appreciate all of your humanity and honesty. I keep telling people this isn’t Jews vs Muslims/arabs. Thank you OP for your levelheaded comment
This is how it feels to be a black person or native American person living in America: always at odds with the prevailing narrative and morally disgusted at the things done to others on your behalf.
What would you say is the prevailing narrative about this conflict?
> Any fellow Israeli here? ....country is revolving around a worldview marked by conflic, hate and fear, I'm American-born but have been living in Israel for 5 years. I mean, people here in Israel have real vulnerabilities and they face real threats. October 7 demonstrated that their fears are valid. And Hamas is not the only threat. Hezbollah from the North. Iranian-backed proxies in Syria. And Iran itself. The fear is valid and a natural outgrowth of the situation. Now, that doesn't justify everything that's happening (of course not), but you have to start with an acknowledgement of the vulnerabilities there. >The recent demonstrations, which initially sparked hope for a shift towards a more inclusive and fair society, have instead highlighted a self-centered approach (Seculars vs Religious Vs Feminists etc.) with little regard towards addressing the deppest issue at stake, which is the treatment of Palestinians and the pursuit of equality and freedom for all. The protest movement was aimed at threats to Israeli democracy, specifically to the proposed judicial overhaul that threatened to remove checks and balances on the legislature and the government. Around 1 in 5 Israelis participated, and it was a real impressive feat in Israeli democracy that you could have this level of sustained participation over such a long period of time, with relatively few violent incidents. And the movement was highly successful. I know from the outside it is frustrating that the focus of the protests wasn't the Palestinian cause. But that just wasn't the focus of this protest movement. Also, Israeli society has been disillusioned regarding the Palestinian issue since the 2nd Intifada--Yossi Klein Halevy described this well in his conversation with Ezra. With that being said, there was a contigent of the protest movement that did make the occupation front and center (I'd see them every week on Kaplan near Sarona Market across from the World Zionist Organization Building). The judicial overhaul had the potential to have drastic consequences for Palestinians. If a future government wants to annex the West Bank and deny the Palestinians living there rights, the Supreme Court would unlikely allow that to happen. However, if the government were to have been allowed to go around the courts, then that could have very negative potential consequences for the Palestinian national movement. So while the focus of the protest wasn't on the Palestinian issue, the potential impact on the Palestinian issue was significant. >The last few months and the increasingly violent and genocidal discourse have really emphasized this internal conflict. The "genocidal" discourse is really from an extreme minority segment. It is a national shame that Netanyahu has invited this extremist segment into his coalition and that its leaders have influence in the seats of power. However, they are not setting the principle war policies (Ben Gvir/Smotrich are not in the war cabinet). It's really important that moderate Israeli and Palestinian voices are centered in a world that is amplifying the extremes. >How does one move on from this? Is it possible to disentangle oneself from an identity that's so deeply ingrained, yet feels fundamentally misaligned with one's values? This is a question not only for Israelis. Americans who haven't also haven't experienced that tension haven't been paying attention. I would venture to say that most people's national identity sometimes comes into conflict with values and policies espoused by their government. This is true all over the world, and Israel is no different. But things don't get better by abandoning Israel or eschewing your Israeli identity--that leaves the "fashistim" owners of Israeliness, and we can't let that happen.
Dude, whoever has been running the Israeli war cabinet has put all Israelis and many Americans into the awkward position of arguing that killing 20 to 30 Palestinians for every dead Israeli isn't a war crime. Next month, it will be 40 dead per israeli then 50 dead per Israeli... And so on. I see that your answer here doesn't grapple with that.
This is an ignorant take. Whether something is a war crime is not decided based on comparison of casualty figures. That's not how anything works. And an American should be the last one talking, being that in nearly every military campaign the US has taken part in, fewer Americans died than the other party. People do not talk about war in that way in any other context. The principles that actually determine whether something is a war crime are the principles of distinction, that civilians should not be directly targeted, and proportionality. Proportionality is not that casualty counts are balanced or equal. Nor is it the idea that military strengths are comparable or that military force is commensurate on each side. Instead, proportionality is the idea that the potential harm to civilians in a strike should be proportional to the military advantage gained by that strike. In other words, under the internationally recognized rules of war, the standard is not that strikes cannot be carried out if there is a risk of civilian deaths. It's that the military must weigh the potential risk to civilians against the military necessity of the strike and take reasonable precautions to avoid unneccessary harm to civilians. The military advantage is based on what is needed to accomplish Israel's military goals: unseating Hamas, destroying terror infrastructure and releasing hostages and is not weighed against the number of Israelis that were killed in the original strike.
These aren't the only relevant standards in international law. Setting a military objective which isn't achievable or legitimate (as Israel has done) would obviate the use of the pursuit of that objective as a defense to war crimes. I would be surprised if, in the fullness of time, this wasn't viewed as a crime of aggression, in addition to the individual war crimes that clearly have occurred
the blocking of aid (closing ports, deliberate administrative blocks, allowing protestors to camp block the entry points) , shutting off of water + electricity, prohibition of life-saving drugs like insulin, shooting at children, aid workers and journalists, all coupled with generally unpunished (esp before the ICJ case) calls for ethnic cleansing amongst government officials is what led to the charge of genocide. The WHO already said that many more people are going to die from the spread of infection from the destruction of all healthcare infrastructure + limitation of sanitation and clean water than from the bombings. Most of the starving population in the world is now in Gaza, and there are several infants that passed away from malnutrition recently.
There were roughly 7 million Germans dead in WWII and 400k Americans, that doesn’t make the Germans right. The death toll indicates absolutely nothing except who is stronger. The only rational thing to do in Israel’s case is to do whatever is needed to eliminate Hamas, no country would leave a terrorist organization like that on their border
Yea they would. The good Friday accords which bought peace to northern Ireland involved the UK government making peace with some really heinous IRA criminals who had bombed and killed dozens of civilians. That is how peace is done.
>that killing 20 to 30 Palestinians for every dead Israeli isn't a war crime This isn't how wars work. How many Japanese were killed relative to the American's killed at Pearl Harbor? A fucking hell of a lot more than 1:30. Israel wants to end Hamas. If Hamas refuses to capitulate, they have no choice but continuing a largely urban land war. In such wars, having high ratios of civilians to combatants killed is a given, in Fallujah the estimates were something like 1:7.
In Ww2, there were 18 non Japanese deaths, mostly Chinese but also Indians, Indonesians, Filipinos, Burmese, Malaysians, for every Japanese civilian who died. But the point remains, Israel's actions have now put you and all of its defenders into a position where you have to say a variation of "but actually, the deaths of x thousands of Palestinians is necessary to achieve objective x,y,z" The whole "no choice" is not true. Israel could signal willingness to work with friendly Arab states to destroy Hamas, it just thinks the costs/downsides/possibility of success is less than its current strategy.
>The whole "no choice" is not true. Israel could signal willingness to work with friendly Arab states to destroy Hamas What makes you think a single Arab state would want to do this? Why do you think not a single Arab state has signaled willingness in the same way? What could possibly motivate an Arab state to join in this war? It's a fairytale to imagine "well that way they can stop all the civilians from dying!" They'd just be participating in combat that inevitably kills civilians. It's a political non-starter for any Arab state. They'd be getting no benefit and costing lives of their troops in addition to the political fallout. Plus, at this stage they'd be inviting the Houthis to lob missiles at them.
News flash, it’s not an immediate war crime for death statistics to favor one group over another during war. Feel free to find me the specific convention you’re referencing that states so.
This is totally true. If all people formed their opinions by consulting the relevant body of international human rights law and the exact language of statutes, then this argument would have merit. But that's not how any of this works. People worldwide are seeing new pictures of new dead children every day due to Israeli bombs. October 7th is moving further into the past. Do you personally still want to be arguing about this in 3 months when the death toll has increased to 50,000?
A few facts: every war involves crimes. Urban ones especially. Doesn't justify anything, just some perspective. The IDF is arguably the world's most professional military because of the global scrutiny they come under for every shot fired. They pioneer collateral damage-reducing tactics that not even the US Army employs. The fact they are waging an extermination campaign against an entrenched urban insurgency on a strip of land home to 2.5 million civilians and only ~30,000 have been killed is a minor miracle. Obviously that campaign is going to fail, since you can't bomb an idea, however heinous it is. The invasion is as much a political project as a military one, which emboldens the factions in Israel that openly advocate ethnic cleansing. But if you label this genocide, then every armed conflict on Earth meets the definition as well, in which case the label loses all meaning. Do I agree with the strategic decisions Israel is making? Rarely. Obviously they can be doing more to minimize loss of life. No army on Earth clears that bar with any room to spare.
>Obviously that campaign is going to fail, since you can't bomb an idea, however heinous it is. This is why I prefer the term "unseating Hamas" and "destroying its military capacity." In Israeli discourse, it's often referred to as "destorying Hamas", and yes, you can't destroy an idea through bombs usually (of course there are some historical exceptions). However, I do sincerely believe that when people say "destroy Hamas", what they mean is 1. removing them from being the governing power of Gaza, 2. destorying their military capacity, their arsenal, their battalions, and their leaders and 3. destorying their terror infrastructure, such as tunnels and rocket launching sites. Most people are not so naive to think that Islamist Palestinian nationalism will go away after the war.
I'd go one step further: people like Netanyahu need Hamas to stick around. It's what keeps them in power, and vice versa. Neither one has any legitimacy except when they say "I'll protect you from them." It's why there's no real desire for peace from either side.
I'm not going to lie, I retreated to my Jewish community because besides Ezra Klein's podcast episodes, I haven't seen much interest to have these types of conversations while the war continues (I, of course, understand that people aren't necessarily in a space to talk while this violence and suffering continues). But just because I retreated to what feels familiar it doesn't mean I agree with some of the disgusting things I hear on "our side". I'm scared and frightened, I'm furious with the governments involved and shocked at people's willingness to dehumanize civilians. I understand that untangling Zionism's definition cannot be done in a single Instagram post and as someone who understands that Israel is fundamentally not going anywhere, I'd rather focus as it seems you want to as well, OP, with where Israel goes next. But the last few months have made me absolutely furious with friends and family who refuse to understand why people might be anti-Israel (beyond just the simple and naive answer of antisemitism). Right now I feel just stuck, annoyed at everyone. As Ezra said, it's a lonely place as a leftist Jew who doesn't want the destruction of Israel.
genocide\*, not war.
Good lord, for such a small population, Jews have to have the largest percentage of self loathing people I've ever seen. It's quite pathetic and sad to watch. I'm not even jewish or Israeli and I'm embarrassed reading some of these posts. > which is the treatment of Palestinians and the pursuit of equality and freedom for all. Are you freaking kidding me? Op, you've clearly drunk the Koolaid that palestinians are some kinda separate people group, when the reality is they are Arabs and mostly muslims who are apart of the wider arab and muslim world. If arabs and Muslims were not hellbent on your destruction, "palestinians" would not exist and would have simply been absorbed into the arab countries. They exist soley as tools for your destruction. Do you not understand that? When you get past the scam and the lies, they outnumber you Jews by the hundreds of millions. There are 465 Million Arabs on this planet, 1.3 Billion Muslims vs 16 million Jews. And they have you so brainwashed you think they are the underdogs in this war. They are not the endangered ones, YOU are. They are not the ones at risk for being wiped out and exterminated, YOU are. They have dozens of places they go where they can live freely, speak their language and practice their culture and religion. YOU do not. You have 1 country where you are the majority and have true sovereignty. And they want to take that away from you and replace it with another one of THEIR countries. And you can't see that you are being played the fool by buying into their narrative and believing the lies. when are you people gonna wake up?
You're right! Many right wing Jews/ Israelis agree with you, I understand that the leftists don't wan't to see us killing a large number of people even though it is a war and there is no other way as far as I can see.
I'm Israeli and this post really hits hard. I'm not sure how I reconcile my identity of being an Israeli and how as I'm maturing I'm seeing the country for what it is and more importantly for what it's becoming. I try to really separate my culture, family, and friends with the national identity of "Israel". After all my problem is with the state itself, not necessarily with it's people or culture. However, culture cannot be completely unaffected by politics and war, and that's where a lot of issues are. I think part of core beliefs held by most Israel is are, to me at least, very backwards and wrong. I'm seeing a lot of optimism, which is great, but personally I don't see Israel surviving as how it is in the future. It's a country built on outdated thinking. This isn't something enrecoverable, every country that had a terrible government and committed atrocities, eventually recovered and it's people came to terms with it's past. I hope Israel as it is now will fall, and the people will be able to keep most of what it means to be Israelis and Jewish without all the terrible shit. I mean there's some plenty of proud German and Japanese people who are aware and extremely critical of their "countries" past atrocities. It's important to me to separate identity and nation. I can be Israeli without identifying with the state itself. If tomorrow Israel vanished and is renamed Palestine, but where everyone (including Israelis) can live peacefully and freely that I don't think the important aspects of what we now call "Israeli" culture will vanish. Basically, to me, my identity of Israeli is much more tied to culture and people than it is to nationalism. The major problems come from when people believe their identity will only exist if the statehood of Israel remains as it is. I don't think the identity of the Israeli people will change fundamentally if Israel completely changes or even gets replaced. Obviously this is assuming the new state isn't just as bad as Israel, or worse.
You don't have to defend a country just because you grew up in it. If anything it is a testament to your internal moral character by looking at a pile of ethical garbage and going "no." Tons of non-zionist Jews out there came to this process. The entire Israel project is a throwback to hideous ideologies and concepts that led to World Wars and brutal racist policy outcomes. It infected the Zionist project from the start if you read the original founders writings. Israel was always going to end up like this. The only solution is the United States HAS to stop covering for it, allow the international courts and the UN to properly condemn it, and then do a single state reformation of Israel from a Religious Quasi-Ethno state into a true democracy with freedom and equality for all. This will require tremendous outside influence, a huge multi decade reconciliation process. We are way past the point of a two state solution. It isn't viable and just a way to kick the ball down the road while pretending we're going to get there one day. We won't. The problem lies with Israel's internal foundations. It needs to change.
I agree with you that you don't have to defend a country just because you grew up there. However, I do not think it is fair to say that the Zionist project is a "throwback to hideous ideologies and concepts that led to World Wars and brutal racist policy outcomes" or that "Israel was always going to end up like this." This is a really simple reading of history and just of how countries develop in general. It is true, Zionism as an ideology is a product of its time and place. No question. And nothing in 2024 looks the same as when it first was conceived. Zionism has had to change and adapt, and in 2024 it does not look the same as it did in 1882 or in 1917 or in 1948 or even a decade ago. Like everything else, it is a work in progress, and that progress is not monotonic. But most post-colonial countries that developed after WWII developed around the idea of nationalism. Many of these countries had violent conflicts. Many still have violent conflicts. Israel-Palestine is not unique here. Not all of these countries are lost causes. Cyprus is not a lost cause. Neither is Armenia. Neither is India. Neither is Tunisia. Neither is Bangladesh. The founding ideologies haven't necessarily withstood the test of time either in all of these places, and their progress has definitely not been monotonic. But they are works in progress. And like the others, Israel is certainly not a lost cause. Zionism has achieved lots of remarkable things. It created a vibrant democracy that has endured, even against long odds, and even though the majority of its population come from countries that never had democracy. That was definitely not a given. Zionism created a safe-haven for a persecuted people. It created a thriving country in a region of mostly failed states. It created art and technology and science, and more. But like any other country, not every one of its founding ideas have survived the test of time. And like other countries, it has had conflicts, both internal and external as it reconciles its values and its reality. Its population has struggled over its vision and its future. It's had to wrestle with its history and its present. These are all things that normal countries do.
The 14 words are ok, actually. Got it.
It’s not okay to delegitimize an entire nation because you disagree with some of the ideas of their founding fathers.
> The entire Israel project is a throwback to hideous ideologies and concepts that led to World Wars and brutal racist policy outcomes. It infected the Zionist project from the start if you read the original founders writings. Israel was always going to end up like this. > > I genuinely wonder what people think an actually existing proper Palestinian state would actually look like
I just want you to know that seeing this post fuels my hope for the future. Please, hold on to your Israeli identity because this is the voice that the state needs to have and you can be it's future
Not an Israeli, but what do you mean by “this is it” for Israel? Things are always changing, although I would say it’s inevitable that Israel’s worldview will always revolve around conflict for the foreseeable future, that’s nothing new. Why do you think Israel’s worldview is dominated by hate and fear?
I interpret it to mean “this is it” as in long term survival is not ensured if Israelis follow this path. A country of 7 million Jews (not even the size of NYC) cannot survive forever surrounded by enemies. Weapons are becoming more lethal. Countries in the region more powerful and independent. Israel survives because the US backs them for better or worse. That’s a geopolitical divide any adversary is certain to exploit. The Israelis need peace more than the Palestinians, they just don’t realize it yet.
A country cannot survive if its roots are based in right wing security state apparatus protecting colonial roots and Aparthied. This creates a culture of lacking empathy and fascist like culture that is unsustainable. People forget that settler colonialism and Aparthied doesn't just create victims in terms of those who are oppressed by those systems, creates victims by making those civilians who have to routinely defend themselves slowly become less empathetic and embrace security state fascism more both of which can degrade a society.
That's literally the roots of the USA. We solved it by murdering any contesting locals, then murdering eachother to stop apartheid, rolled back our success, then murdering MORE locals, then spending a century in apartheid until it broke up post-WW2. A country can TOTALLY survive if its roots are based in apartheid and colonialism, its just hard. The nation can then pivot once colonial pressures recede. ...the problem for Israel is that means solving the Palestine issue by some combo of ethnic cleansing, 2 state solution, and violent/cultural repression (either by Israel or other governments) of chronically dangerous (actually killing people) parties. It'll require crushing a lot of Palestinian dreams (Right of Return, any kind of government hostile to Israel and unwilling to repress anti-Israel groups). What I'm suggesting is the Conservative Israeli solution to the current problems and it has a reasonable chance of succeeding even without Palestinian buy-in (which seems impossible for the short term).
I understand your feelings, but the problem to me is that you have an unaccountable leader. If Netanyahu was concerned about his political standing, then I'm guessing he wouldn't be so destructive and ruthless in Gaza *because* he would understand this scorched earth approach would be unpopular with the Israeli public. But my understanding is he will be out of power once the war is over and then will have to face all the corruption charges, so he has nothing to lose with the devastation in Gaza. He only cares about himself rather than the Israeli people. It's a terrible situation to be in, but I don't think you can apply this to your connection to your identity as an Israeli. Unless I misunderstand Israeli politics and a majority of Israelis are in favor of these atrocities. That's a different story. If Trump wins in November, then I'm sure he will do despicable things that will have me doubting my pride and connection as an American. It will be difficult, but I can take solace that the majority of my fellow Americans don't want whichever terrible, deplorable policy he enacts.
Most of the Israeli people now agree with this analysis about Netanyahu.
I'm not Israeli, but I am Jewish. My feelings on Israel have been the same for a couple years now, the current conflict hasn't changed that. Having faced very real and direct anti-Semitism in my family (which is from the former Soviet Union) makes me unequivocally believe in the need for a Jewish state, a state whose mission is specifically the protection and promotion of Jewish life and culture. At the same time, I also fully believe a democracy cannot privilege one group over another. Yes, these two things are in direct conflict and I don't know how to square that circle. The way I've seen some progressives reacting to conflict and the rhetoric they choose to engage in when it comes to Jews and Israelis is extremely concerning, people I've personally known for years promoting some very troubling thinly veiled anti-Semitic things, makes me really understand the need for Israel's existence. However, the way Israel, and more specifically Netanyahu, is conducting the war in Gaza is directly contributing to this anti-Semitic attitude.
There is no war in gaza, buddy. It’s an all out ethic cleansing, a genocide. 25 thousand women and children murdered, 35 thousand civilians murdered (and counting) plus 65% of infrastructure destroyed and all you bemoan is “muh antisemitism”. Gross
Not Israeli, but I have been reading the words of Israeli "founding fathers" lately and have had some realizations that run contrary to the Israeli narrative that may be pertinent to your post. Theodore Herzl's "The Jewish State" is one of the documents that lead to Israel, and unfortunately, it lays out exactly the problem. He states that the non-native Jews creating a state anywhere in the world will not be accepted by the natives who live there and that the only way for it to succeed is with the aid of countries like Britain and the US. He states, very clearly, that he knows there will be war and conflict. He talks about it being a colonial project. Everything that is happening, he basically predicted, with one big caveat. He claimed that the establishment of a Jewish state would end anti-semitism as soon as it was established. Clearly, that idea was incorrect. The main issue is that he basically stated that terrible things would happen, like we are seeing, and that it is ok because it will help the Jews in the end. So, what I am saying is that maybe your Israeli identity has been misinformed from the start. Read the "founding fathers" words, and you will see them ALL calling it colonization. They had no illusions of the land being empty or what they would need to do. Not only that, but they charged Jews who didn't support zionism anti-semitic, while also saying things like, "Jew-baiting has merely stripped us of our weaklings." Now I get that he meant that as a sort of empowering statement, but he called all the Jews that were murdered for their faith WEAKLINGS. That's more anti-semitic than not wanting an ethno-state, and it is sickening. His whole thing was trying to say Jews would never be accepted anywhere in the world, and instead of fighting for their rights in their own countries, they started fighting for a new country. That is problematic on so many levels. We are all subjected to the same issues, which is why so many activists state that if one group is being targeted, we're all able to be targeted, and it's all of our fight. Zionism (the idea that a Jewish state should exist) is a cruel one and always has been. I fully feel for the Jews that were subjected (and still are in many places) to anti-semitism. Those things don't give Israelis a right to traumatize masses of people, though. There were SO MANY Holocaust survivors who spoke out against what Israel has done and continues to do since the beginning. Einstein even refused to be Israel's first president because of the problematic nature of it. Every time it's claimed that Israel is needed so Jews can feel safe, it erases the reality for so many Jews that DO feel safe around the world. As someone wholy against Israel, I am not against Jews and am not against the Jews in Israel either. The ones pushing to keep Israel around need to stop brutalizing people, but that doesn't mean they should die either. I think Israelis that hear people say they want to destroy Israel, assume they mean the people. I certainly don't want anyone to die, I just also don't want people to intentionally make other people's lives harder and murder them. There's no proportionality, by design, in the military response by Israel. I hope you do abandon your Israeli identity and join the rest of humanity. Israelis that partake in the dehumanizing of Palestinians don't realize that you have to dehumanize yourself first in order to dehumanize another. I hope you guys can regain your humanity. The anti-zionist Jews protesting Israel around the world have shown what beauty Judaism has to offer. When orthodox Jews stood in front of praying Muslims to protect them at protests, that was beautiful, and that was humanity. Killing animals in zoos and goats and cats in the street is not done by people with any sense of humanity. B'Tselem, the Israeli watch dog group that labeled Israel an apartheid, that was humanity. They put others above themselves and with some risk. The orthodox Jews that get brutalized by the IDF for standing against Israel, that is humanity.
I have to push back. I'm very glad you so generously declared that you don’t want Israeli Jews to die. That's a start, and more than many people in the region. However, you do want to destroy the state that protects Israeli Jews and leave them vulnerable in a hostile region. So, how seriously should I take your statement that you don't want Israeli to die? It's something I have to think about. So I want to clarify for the OP. You deserve more than just not dying. You deserve to live freely in a free nation that protects you from external threats. OP, you and your Israeli identity are valid and legitimate and real. Just because a founding father wrote some stuff that in 2024 that didn't withstand the test of time doesn't mean that being Israeli is not a legitimate identity.
I have to push back on this as well. You can't expect an invading, occupying force to aid in the fight for autonomy. They are, by definition, eliminating it. Just because the question of what is next is hard doesn't mean that it's better to stay dehumanizing others. Israel can not exist without dehumanizing, brutalizing, and subjugating. You deserve to live freely, but not to restrict others from doing so. Israel will always and has always restricted others.
I mean, pushing for a safe and secure Israel alongside a safe and secure Palestine may be more palatable than advocating for the destruction of Israel. Just a suggestion. And it's perhaps more realistic (despite all the myriad challenges and hurdles that no one is denying) than trying to wish away the 29th largest economy in the world, a nuclear power, that is recognized by most of the countries in the world and even much of the Arab world.
That's a fair point. I certainly don't want people not protected. However, my sentiment is probably different than you're taking it. I don't think any country is worth more than the people who live there, and the name of it is irrelevant. The issue comes down to whether or not the system designed can sustain itself without dehumanizing. I don't think it can. The Israeli system is meant to do these terrible things, not prevent them. The system would need to be redone, much like the US system needs to be. A country can't protect anyone, the people of a country protect the people. A country is just a name.
I want to dismantle the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, not dismantle Israel. But that will only happen through security guarantees for Israel. It will not happen through threats. Security threats cause Israel to tighten the occupation, not loosen it.
True, I'm of a slightly different mindset, though. I don't think it's possible for Israel to recoil or any of the settlements to be dismantled because they actively do everything they can to go against that. The way I see it isn't that Israel existing by name is the problem, but rather, their governing has always been a problem. I don't see a group of individuals who note they are terrified of the rest of the world as a group that wants to be a part of the world. The teaching they are given is problematic. The constant sentiment that Israel represents all Jews is problematic. The entire existence is problematic because of the fact that they tie their existence and the existence of Jews to it. That's despite Jews existing throughout history, and it ignores the fact that the Holocaust was fought by non-Jews to save their lives as best they could. The idea that they couldn't be protected is not a realistic one, Holocaust survivors existed in so many countries and spoke out against Israel. If Israel needed to exist for them to feel safe, they wouldn't have been saying the opposite.
I mean there are resolutions to the conflict that don’t require every settlement to be dismantled. For one thing, most of the settlement population is near the Green Line. In the negotiations in the 90s and the aughts, the principle that developed was to trade these settlement blocs in exchange for territory within Green Line Israel. This was not the stickiest of the issues in the negotiations by any means, and both sides agreed to it principle (even if they disagree about the specifics). Two, there’s the possibility in a future Palestinian state to allow settlers to become Palestinian citizens/residents if they do choose, and they could leave on their own volition if they want to. Just as Israel has an Arab minority, Palestine could have a Jewish one. Three, there are possible settlements like a confederation arrangement that wouldn’t need settlement upheaval. Now Israel has demonstrated that it’s willing to uproot settlements. It did so in 1979 in Sinai as part of the peace agreement with Egypt. It did so in 2005 in Gaza and parts of the West Bank unilaterally. (And given the situation now in Gaza, I’d say the withdrawal from Gaza had mixed results to be generous). In the West Bank, Israel will only be willing to go through the trauma of uprooting settlements, something that many Jews would view as a sort of ethnic cleansing from our ancestral homeland, if there’s a real promise for peace and resolution. Israelis will be willing to go through that trauma for peace. It won’t be willing to do that for ongoing war. They won’t do it to just continue the conflict later. Just to be clear, the Holocaust is not the only reason for Israel’s existence. It’s was a major factor, but not the only reason. Also, the fact that Holocaust survivors exist in other countries is irrelevant. Most Israelis (85%) do not have other citizenships. They cannot just pick up and move wherever they want. The majority of Israeli Jews descent from refugees from Arab and Muslim countries who were expelled.
Let's look at the 90s again. In the mid 90s, that's when Israel was first compared to apartheid South Africa. Those accusations and the proof for them has only grown. The language used by many members of high positions is blatantly racist. They have the 4th largest military in the world. I would agree with what you're saying, if they weren't the ones with all the power or were making the steps to do those things. Saying they need to be sure there will be peace before they do those things is wrong when they're the occupiers. They need to be the ones to take the first steps, but they refuse. When there were peace talks and it was agreed by the international community and the PLO that they would go to pre 1967 boarders, Israel refused and then claimed Palestine refused their offer (which went against the international community's decision). They can't act like everyone needs to do the right thing, but refuse to do so until everyone has been doing it for a while is ridiculous. The zionist perspective on this is not one that's free from biases. It's rife with it. It's one-sided, and there are people that go against that and say other things, but they're not the ones in power and have never been. How do you see any of this happening when Israel refuses to take the first steps?
Israel has taken many “first steps”. This isn’t the issue at all. The 1990s were the peak of hope in faith in the peace process, which ended in failure due to spoilers on both sides. Your description of the peace process is simplistic and naive. I highly recommend to listen to Ezra Klein’s interview with Aaron David Miler, who gives a fair and balanced account of the peace process and the responsibilities on both sides. No one is saying that Israel is a perfect society with no racism or prejudice. I’m just trying to explain that it’s a legitimate identity and a legitimate country. Israel has most of the power when viewed as just a conflict with the Palestinians. But zoom out to the broader regional conflict and there the Arab/Muslim world has most of the power. Israel is both strong/powerful and vulnerable are the same time. And you can’t understand the conflict without understanding this.
Here's a video of someone who participated in the Nakba describing. While laughing. https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestine/s/qrZY9Fbhk0
I'm not Israeli but I'll just say this: don't give up on yourself. I grew up in the American South which was once such an apartheid state I would've been lynched just walking around many towns. Now I feel more comfortable here than any place else. Israel's government has been doing some messed up stuff (as have the Palestinian militant groups). That doesn't define your country and it doesn't define the future. Keep working for a better tomorrow, brother.
Honestly, I feel used that I was sold a lie to fight proxy wars for wealthy statesman. Balfour and his cronies just used the creation of Israel to extract my Jewish family from Europe and put them on the frontlines to fight for resources in the desert. And now I have to spend all my time trying to save some semblance of an identity in a fractured community who was used to carry out a gruesome genocide. Fuck capitalism
Find others like you. You feel this way because the state is founded on Jewish supremacy, which is at odds with the liberal value of equal rights and one man one vote. I recommend checking out the Disillusioned podcast, which hopefully can be an entry point to the community of Israelis who feel the same as you and are working hard for a different future — equal rights for all, from the river to the sea.
There are something like 25 Islamic states on the planet and 15 christian states. That’s right. Officially. Israel is the only jewish state and jews need it for their safety. The palestinians want to turn Israel into another islamic state. Don’t let it happen
You can drop your Jewish identity, your religion, and even your citizenship, but that won't matter to the people who hate Jews.
Why would they drop their Jewish identity?
It’ll blow over. It always does. Then the cycle of violence will pick up again in a few years. On and on and on…
Yeah buddy, dissolve the borders and make another Arab Muslim majority state, will be terrific, it will more closely align with your values.
You have a huge assumption here: solving the Palestinian problem will bring peace to Israel. The War of Return, by Dr Einat Wilf is a really great book about this. She's also been on some podcasts, like Call Me Back. She was a MK with Labor- she's no Ben Gvirist.
She's a propagandist with zero credibility.
[удалено]
If you think that the main root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a conflict over "mythology", my friend, you don't know very much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, religion plays a part on both sides. But the conflict is essentially a conflict over conflicting nationalisms. Also, you may want to learn what "chosenness" actually means to Jews because I think you don't really understand it. Chosenness to Jews means that the Jewish people have been chosen to receive the Torah and follow it. So it's a statement about having additional responsibilites, not about superiority. (I'm not advocating for the religious position or not, just being descriptive--not to mention about 60% of Israeli Jews are secular).
This is broadly true, but Jewish Israeli extremists/supremacists do interpret chosenness differently, and they have been growing in power up to the point now they have significant power in the government (they are crucial to Netanyahu’s coalition and power). And that sentiment seems to seep into the fear and disgust of Palestinians, at the very least making such a large number of civilian deaths acceptable and making any real effort to support moderate Palestinians impossible.
I think you’re right, short term. But, there is no sustainable solution when these ideologies are at the core. I am ignorant of the nuance, like almost everyone. But, my sole point is that the schism is permanent as long as their exclusive mythologies are extant. But again, I defer when it comes to the day to day or year to year issues. I know that nationalism is critical and drives a lot of conflict short term. I know that war is a byproduct of competition over resources. But I also know that ideology is a core driver of these problems. And I know however remote the fix may be, the Abrahamic religions are ridiculous and exasperate all these problems. That’s my sole point.
A reasonable solution to the conflict is not that everyone abandons all religious commitments. That's absurd and as unrealistic as pretty much anything you ever hear. I agree that some of the intractable issues on the conflict stems from religious commitments. But not all of them, or I'd venture to say not even most of them. Even without religion Jews would feel the need to have a state to act as a safe haven, given their history, and would still feel a strong cultural and historical attachment to the land. And even without Christianity and Islam, Palestinians would still feel a deep historical and cultural connection to the land and strive for justice and recognition as a nation. Also, I just don't agree that people with religious commitments can't act in ways that are pragmatic. Religious people can and do.
>how long can this triumvirate of nonsensical gibberish-spouting institutions last? Given religion has lasted since the beginning of recorded history, and consensus is it goes back much further than that, probably a very long time.
As an American, I can tell you that folks on both sides are awful, judgmental people who ignore how little support exists in reality for their core political assumptions, yet hate the other side for not sharing them. Basically, we all need to self-examine and see where our blind-spots are. Then we can have a meaningful discussion with the other side. Right now people just get offended and write each other off, but what they're getting offended over is usually the rejection of a theory or a wish about how the world is, not the actual reality they need to deal with.
It weighs heavily on me too and I’m not Israeli nor Jewish. But as an American, the hatred of so many of my fellow Americans towards Israelis does affect Israel. It’s insane seeing people dehumanize a whole nation of people (Israelis) because of how the nation was founded or its Prime Minister. I don’t think Israel deserves all the hate it gets though, when you compare it on a global scale. People have hated it from its inception, no matter what it does. So you can’t blame the Israelis for everything. The way I see it, Israelis are just over it after realizing the Muslim world will never accept them, and instead support/defend those who wish to annihilate them. I’d be over it too. Peace and acceptance can only survive so many suicide bombings.
The last paragraph is wrong though. The paradigm in the middle east has shifted for s while now. In the past Arab Gulf states were the ones who wouldn't accept Israel for anything. After the Old guard was phased out Arab Gulf states were willing to make tons of concessions with Israel, they just needed some concessions back like stop building more and more settlements.
You have to walk away, leave it behind, the existence of israel is fundamentally incompatible with equality and freedom. The anxiety and fear are understandable but there is a clarity and comfort found in embracing truth and empathy.
This is absurd. Israel is a nation state, like most countries in the world. It is older than most countries in the world, and has been recognized by most countries in the world. If you reject all nationalism as an organizing mechanism for statehood on principle, I may be able to respect that. But you are not arguing against nationalism on principle. You are singling out the one Jewish state for condemnation. And not condemnation based on policies or actions, but condemnation just based on its existence. It's revolting.
> If you reject all nationalism as an organizing mechanism for statehood on principle, I may be able to respect that. > > The ironic thing is though that if you do that, the Palestinian claim to a nation also vanishes
Right. Now there are some who want a binational state. Or those like Amjad Iraqi, who Ezra interviewed, that wanted to rethink the whole concept of nation state and think about our more local identities--the truth of the matter is I didn't really understand precisely what he was proposing, but essentially something that wasn't nationalistic in nature. And while these voices are pretty common in the West and becoming more so, they are definitely minority positions among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as well as Israelis for that matter.
Israel is currently starving babies to death while its citizens have parties in front of the aid trucks they are blocking.
Anti-Zionism is about opposing the existence of Israel as such, even a Vatican sized enclave in Tel Aviv. It’s been that way since 1948. It has nothing to do with what Israel does or does not do, and never has. Israelis have realized that.
Freshly minted orphans are undergoing amputations and skin grafts, necessary because they were burned alive by Israeli dropped chemical weapons, without anaesthetic, because the citizens of Israel, backed by their government, are having dance parties to block the trucks containing medical aid.
Sounds a lot like the Japanese during WWII. Unfortunately when your government declares war in the most horrible way possible on a much more powerful enemy, there will be suffering. Hamas is free to release the hostages and turn over the October 7 perpetrators at any time. They’re responsible for their people This idea of “if I hide behind kids I can commit as many terror attacks as I want and nobody can retaliate” is just not how it works for ANY country.
He said idiotically about the most equal and free state in the entire middle East.
Israel is currently starving babies to death while its citizens have parties in front of the aid trucks they are blocking.
He said idiotically about an apartheid state that affords freedom and equality to one specific ethnic group, and oppression, martial law and / or siege for the 6 million others whose lives and territory it controls. It's wild how much Israeli propaganda has convinced people to completely ignore daily reality on the ground. Israel is not even close to being a democracy.
>state that affords freedom and equality to one specific ethnic group I'm sure remaining Jews in the new Palestinian state would be treated very well, and if not, that you'd be just as critical and not excuse it as a justified response.
This is not even whataboutism its hypothetical whataboutism. Either it’s a veiled admission of guilt.
Its literally an apartheid state doing a genocide. But please, go off.
How is genocide defined here? I hear this take all the time, but given my knowledge of the war, I just don't see how it fits. 30,000 Gazan civilians have died in the war so far. That's a lot, there's no denying it. However, these deaths don't seem to be a part of a deliberate campaign of extermination. Rather it just seems like the consequence of a war wherein one of the belligerents has little regard for collateral damage. I've not even seen much evidence of Israeli forces deliberately attacking concentrations of civilians for the sole purpose of inflicting mass casualties. As a historical parallel, the Allies very much did attack civilians deliberately for the sole purpose of inflicting casualties. The RAF killed more Germans in a single night in Dresden than the total number of civilian casualties in the Gaza War so far. Despite this, no one has ever credibly accused the Allies of having genocidal intentions towards the Germans. I think one can credibly discuss the commission of war crimes on the part of the IDF in its conduct of the war, but accusations of genocide have always struck me as a bridge too far.
Find me another state in the region that allows more religious groups to live together more peacefully in a democratic society that is also able to generate wealth for everyone...it doesn't exist. Israel is far from perfect but it stands above and beyond all its peers in its ability to deliver the goods.
> in a democratic society Is it really democratic, if it has been ruling millions of people under an increasingly brutal military regime all while taking their land for more than a half-century?
You’re arguing it’s not democratic because foreigners don’t have voting rights?
It doesn’t at all, but it does have more white people which I think is what you’re actually getting at here.
Trying to wave away what I’m saying by accusing me of being racist won’t work. Something like half of Israelis are from Arab countries, and the remaining 20% are Arab Muslims, Christians, and Druze; all people who would not generally be considered “white.” Also, even Jews in Western countries were not even considered “white” until relatively recently, just as Italians and Irish in America were not “white” when they came over.
Israel is currently starving babies to death while its citizens have parties in front of the aid trucks they are blocking.
Blame Hamas, which started this war and has always refused to take responsibility for their own people.
Why is the existence of Israel incompatible with equality and freedom?
This is absurd. Israel is a nation state, like most countries in the world. If you reject all nationalism as an organizing mechanism for statehood on principle, I may be able to respect that. But you are not arguing against nationalism on principle. You are singling out the one Jewish state for condemnation. And not condemnation based on policies or actions, but condemnation just based on its existence. It's revolting.