I think a central flaw in modelling this conflict is the (appealing) premise that Hamas oppresses the people of Gaza. It's just not supported by the evidence.
We know that Arabs (a crude but useful generalization) are pretty good at taking up arms against what they regard as oppressive governance. It just so happens that when they do that successfully--at least recently--they replace it with something that looks like (or is) Hamas. It's been said for the umpteenth time, Hamas was democratically elected. There isn't much evidence that another election would lead to a different result.
Hamas isn't oppressive. It's the antidote to oppressive. Hamas certainly doesn't represent *every* Arab in Gaza, but it's more representative of the people of Gaza than the U.S. Government is representative of the people of America (and I strongly suspect the people of Gaza are far more cohesive than the people of America). To the extent leaders are responsible for creating and aligning a vision for their constituents--i.e. telling people what to think--then you can credibly say "the people of Gaza have been betrayed by their leaders." But that doesn't change the fact that the people of Gaza are, for the most part, willingly led by Hamas. Perhaps they've been betrayed by themselves, but where does that leave you?
That of course is why the actual line between civilians and combatants is so thin--like Israelis, the Arabs in Gaza are willing to fight to the last man. Some might leave if Egypt would let them, but many would stay because it's perceived as their duty. Not everyone can be a solider, but everyone can do their part. They know that their presence makes it harder for the IDF to operate, which is why they want to be there. That's how to fight, if you're not actually holding a gun (even if many do that too). They put their lives at risk for the cause--anything less is a dereliction of duty.
The Western model predicts that any time a state actor does what we consider to be bad stuff, it must reflect an "oppressive" state. It's the state, not the people--which of course presupposes there is a "people" and that too is often not the case. In all events, there are no "bad" peoples. We must save the Russians from Putin, save the Iraqis from Sadaam, save the Afghanis from the Taliban, etc. I understand the appeal of that model (really), but where's the evidence that it's correct?
It would be more accurate to refer to Gazans as Hamasans then to disaggregate the two. The implications are what they are, and perhaps aspirations of alternative reality can help make it so, but we proceed on a false premise at our peril.
The other (bigger) flaw in the model is the notion that "independent statehood" is or was something that anyone cares about. Hamas' objective vis a vis Israel is restoring the status quo ante of Arab/Islamic sovereignty to the entire region. That objective is broadly popular and understood across MENA. "Independent statehood" is a Western projection and always has been. The "interests of the palestinian people" refer to their interests as proxies to restore the right and just hierarchy that existed for hundreds of years, until the fall of the Ottoman Empire (and not any specific people, form of governance, or some right derived from western international law or political philosophy . . . the notion is so obviously stupid, and yet).
That doesn't mean "islamofascist theocracy" (or some other neocon construction) is broadly popular--there's plenty of disagreement of who ought to be in charge and what that looks like (and there is far more bloodshed over that), but basically everyone agrees that whoever is in charge, it should be an Arab-Muslim (and definitely not a Jew). It is a disgrace that an Islamic land has fallen out of Islamic control. That's not "radical." Nor does it require a "hatred of Jews." That's what totally normal, decent hospitable people, with regular day jobs, who'd help change your tire or give you a ride in the rain, think. (Yes, there's prevalent jew-hating in MENA, but there are lots of people who would genuinely say "I don't hate jews" and also "Palestine is properly controlled by Muslims"--it's not Jew-hating, it's Islam-loving.)
In other words, the problem they are solving for is that there is *any* land in that part of the world where Islam/Muslims do not represent the top of the hierarchy (which is, again, not unreasonable given that's how it was for a long time). There are varying degrees to which people care about that problem--for lots of people it's pretty far down the list--but that's still an accurate description of the problem, and therefore statehood isn't a solution. It's not a secret or bigoted projection. Just ask them. (The bigotry is assuming the universality of western morality, but I digress.)
Our diplomatic efforts are like telling someone who's dream is to complete their masterpiece "what if we gave you 99%?" "No, I want to finish it. It's the unfinished parts that are driving me nuts." "OK, well what about 99.2%" "What the hell is wrong with you? Aren't you listening to me? 100% is the point. Anything less than that is the problem." "OK, 99.3%." "You idiot."
Israel's position, otoh, has been 'some-but-not-none'--Jews need to restore some of their sovereignty, bc no sovereignty is untenable. The maximalists who want the entirety of mandatory palestine (including the [palestinian state of] Jordan) have no purchase and never have. Statehood works for that. The Arab World's position (again, a generalization, but a meaningful one) is 'all-and-not-most.' Palestinian Statehood does not solve the problem of Jewish statehood, anymore than Egyptian or Syrian statehood does (other than being incrementally closer to removing the 'Zionist Stain.')
"Not nothing" and "Nothing less than all" are very different problems, and the solutions are mutually exclusive and zero-sum. (Unless you revive the old Uganda option for the Jews, but y'know.)
If you feel one is more just or fair than the other, then pick a side--I do, but I'm biased. But again, don't make a fundamental mistake about the lay of the land. And don't keep pounding the table "why won't you take this better version of a thing that we want you to want, but you don't actually want and never have?! Gosh this is so frustrating." It sounds dumb, and it is.
It's worse than dumb, it's counterproductive. It's like dangling the very thing that they want just out of reach, and then saying "OK, now we insist you stop wanting it."
I have a very good friend from college that is Vietnamese. He put the matter of the Vietnam war quite clearly. "We hate the communist, but they are Vietnamese. First we get rid of you whites, then we sort it out. Maybe not perfect, maybe not even the best outcome, but it is what it is."
Still, trying to look at it objectively, it's a pretty stupid view. That's because it says to take on targets in the reverse order of urgency just because your most dangerous likely future opponent looks more like you do. In that particular instance it would have been easier to get the whites to leave after the communists were no longer an issue, than it was to get rid of the communists after the whites left.
After all, no one sorts out anything with the Communists, just ask the Vietnamese. That's kind of their thing since Lenin, "At the first opportunity and by any means necessary we make it impossible for anybody who objects to what we want to sort out anything." Has any side in a civil war ever not regretted making allies of the Communists?
With our knowledge it's a dumb view. We know communism is super plus mega bad and way worse then a typical flawed native government that might come into being.
With the knowledge level of a 1960s third world farming peasant Communist liberation movements seem "fresh" and maybe it will work out. And certainly the regimes we were backing in those places had lots of flaws too. It sucks that they were wrong, but it was understandably wrong.
What wasn't fresh was colonialism, which wasn't "the white man has an occupying army here and keeps us down by force (mostly)". Colonialism was, "the white man figures out all of our internal divisions and gets us to kill each other by supporting one side over another, switching support when any side shows signs of wanting their own real sovereignty." After 100 years of that you can see how someone would say, "you know, we just need to put aside out internal divisions for awhile if we ever want our own country."
Incidentally, there is actually *some* data from 2023 that ~70% of Gazans would prefer the PA to Hamas (or at least Hamas's armed units), but sample bias and also recency bias predominate. Either way, seems hopeful. https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1712655653846565149/
I keep thinking of the kids there, who are close to a majority of the population (median age 18), who did nothing to deserve being trapped in such a place and bear no responsibility for Hamas's atrocities, and who are likely about to die by the thousands in horrific ways. It seems to me all parties bear some responsibility to do what they reasonably can for those kids now.
I hope the US can work with Egypt and Israel and whoever else they need to in order to at least let as many as possible of those kids and their mothers get out of Gaza before any ground incursion. It seems to me that this would be the right thing to do morally, and practically would be useful in a couple of ways. It would demonstrate to the Arab world that even as we support Israel we genuinely care for innocent Palestinian lives, indeed more than any of their regimes have. And the fewer innocent kids are left in Gaza the less difficult it will be for Israel to do what it needs to do to defeat Hamas there.
It may be that Hamas would stop them leaving, the better to keep them as human shields. Certainly they are evil enough to do such a thing. But that does not relieve us of our responsibility to make a good faith effort to offer a way out.
I saw a documentary on our Channel 12 the other day. The journalist was interviewing (in Arabic with Hebrew subtitles) some young-ish Gazans who had relocated to an unnamed European city (it took me about 0.2 seconds to recognize Antwerp). They had been given visas by Turkey (on the strength of which Egypt let them pass) and then joined Erdogan's refugee tap into Europe ;) They actually said they left Gaza because you can only have a career or a business there if you join HamaSS - which runs the strip like a Mafiocracy.
A well-known Arab affairs journalist (and onetime intelligence operative), Zvi Yechezkeli, quoted a total figure for this "silent exodus" of about 375K over 20 years.
God forbid we let their innocent fathers out of Gaza too. I guess every Palestinian male above the age of puberty is a terrorist ala Western policy in Afghanistan and Iraq huh. Israel learning from the best.
How do you suggest anyone go about discerning who is guilty or innocent when the guilty only survive by hiding among and looking innocent, even to professionals whose job it is to try to hunt them down?
The only plausible way to do it is to go full CCP-in-Xinjiang. Plenty of ability to separate the innocent from the guilty with perfect accuracy when one watches everything everyone does everywhere all the time.
It was more the misandry angle that annoyed me. If Israel wants to relinquish the hollow high ground they've had since the 1940's to "solve" the problem, I have no bones with it. But generally in the West we tend to frown on anyone but the US, UK, Albania, and Croatia indiscriminately just shooting anyone whom the servicemember pulling the trigger at the time just arbitrary thinks belongs to they wrong religion under the guise "God can sort them out" while also assuming their gender to be male. /s on that list part.
I do not believe that Leftist hostility to Israel is even primarily about a concern for the Palestinian people. The real driver is to signal that your narcissistic (and privileged) little wonderful self is ever on the side of 'the oppressed'. To these people 'oppression' is a shallow abstraction that serves to inflate their personal vanity as one of the good guys. This poisonous vanity has been pouring out of Western academia for decades. I still remember the drug-addled anti-Zionist 'sit-in' at my UK university in 1972.
Thank you for this. It epitomises the tragedy of the situation. I can’t hate anyone either, even as I decry individuals who murder, rape and kidnap civilians. I have often felt that the Palestinians have been betrayed by the rest of the Arab world. The Jews from Arab countries were accepted by Israel; the Arabs from Israel were accepted by… no one. It suits all the surrounding countries to have them as impoverished refugees, and to blame Israel for it.
There are no good solutions any longer, and maybe there never were any. The status quo as it stood a week ago, with Gaza launching occasional rocket attacks, isn't stable any longer given the failure of the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. Israel also can't reoccupy Gaza on a permanent basis. I now think Netanyahu's plan is to empty Gaza of its Arab residents one way or the other, and I really can't think of another solution that would be politically possible from the viewpoint of the Israelis. So, someone/s is going to have to step forward and take the Gazans as refugees- something the Arab world should have been forced to do 80 years ago, but now isn't something that they can be forced to do.
To a lot of the world, Gazans living where and how they do is not a problem that needs a solution. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Leftist regimes in Western countries might take some for the usual reason of demographic electorate-reshaping, but most other countries want them to stay put and stay angry.
This is not true. The most obvious good solution is for Palestinians to stop trying to kill Jews where ever and when ever they can and live in peace and accept Israels right to exist.
Guarantee you the second this happens there will be peace.
Good background to the current situation. I realized reading this that I had forgotten quite a bit of the context of how the conflict arrived at its current state.
I always enjoy Arnold's memories and insights into conditions that cause conflicts. However, this one falls a little short. Arnold's history of Gaza starts in 1948. Suddenly we have many many refuges in Gaza. Where did they come from? What was going on in the area between WWI and WWII when Britain controlled the area. What agreements between the arabs in the area and Britain including the promises Britain made to limit the influx of Jews into the area. No mention of Zionist lobbying and promoting a Jewish homeland to the British. No mention of the conflict between Jews and Arabs between the end of WWII and 1949 and its impact on the number of refuges fleeing to Gaza. Also, Arnolds description of Israel's reasoning for leaving Gaza doesn't in clude its realization that if it continued its presence in Gaza, the UN (rest of the world) insist on Israel mainting the welfare of the citizens of Gasa instead of the UN.
My main complaint is that Arnold's history paints Israel as having no agency in the conditions of the arabs in Gaza and thus innocent victoms of Hamas. Hamas and other Arab countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sysia, Egypt, Jordan etc. Also have some maybe most of the responsibility of conditions in the regions. They too could have taken steps in the past to more peaceful solutions.
I think Arnold's point about the jews wanting both a democracy and a religious state makes it clear that Israel didn't want the arabs that livend in the area now know as Israel. Of curse, this position is , although not the only cause, a significant cause for the existence of refuges in Gaza. Israel offered the arabs an opportunity to live in their existing homes. However, the arabs knew they would be second class citizens and the Israelis knew the arabs were aware of this. So, although the offer was genuine it was hollow. The Arabs also have religious reasons (read the Koran) for hating jews.
Although there are no "good" reasons for jews to hate arabs, try tell that to them.
Pogroms such as the Cosack's are usually based on hatred for a group. There is no question that the Hamas attack was barbaric and vicious. However, Israel can't wash its hands of being an istigator. The istigation took place over many years and each instance not a major provocation. None the less, Israel bears some responsibility for the attack.
" So, although the offer was genuine it was hollow. The Arabs also have religious reasons (read the Koran) for hating jews.
Although there are no "good" reasons for jews to hate arabs, try tell that to them."
Arguable. If you subscribe to the continuity of Abraham camp, Arabs are the children of Hagar and Sarah has hated them since day one. Arabs were effectively exiled out of Jew lands and generally the punishment for violating exile by returning historically in all cultures is death.
Ethically Arabs are the aggrieved party here but dem da bones when you aren't the chosen people and they were given a pretty sweet consolation prize as long as they left much to the chagrin of Sarah who would have preferred their deaths.
> However, the arabs knew they would be second class citizens and the Israelis knew the arabs were aware of this.
That was a lot for the Arabs to know the day after founding, but leaving that aside - I'd venture to say being a second-class citizen in Israel would probably be a good day in much of the world, and certainly in the Dar al-Islam.
I'd go further back with the analysis. If Wikipedia is to be trusted, it is of course wealthy Arabs elsewhere, perpetual screwer-overs, who were happy to take the Jews' money - who has ever not been? - in the 19th century despite Ottoman hurdles to Jews buying land.
"The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 "brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers".[11]
Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this.[citation needed] Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favorable to purchase from the wealthy owners.[citation needed] As well many small farmers became in debt to rich families which led to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers.[citation needed]"
An interesting write up! Thanks for sharing. It would be interesting to hear more of your thoughts about the socialist and communitarian practices of Israel, from the government to small scale farming commune levels. I have often heard them used as examples of various social dynamics, but never much detail about how they treated each other, etc.
Good reminder of what Israel was like in 1980. I’ve always been relatively neutral in my view of the situation there. The attack was horrific and I wonder what the game plan is now? Israel must eliminate Hamas but what comes after? It seems inevitable that it slides into some kind of apartheid even if they prop up someone local to administer it. All bad choices.
Some kind of apartheid? Please be specific as to what you mean because this term is far too willingly thrown around by leftists with a total disregard for the differences citizens and non-citizens are treated around the ENTIRE world. But apparently only Israel is expected to treat non-citizens as citizens when the same is not expected from any other country??
regarding Israel's Arabs, the civil service still sees it's priority to improve their lot. purely from an economic perspective, but also thinking it will reduce any risk of local unrest.
the government before the current one, did have an Arab country inside the coalition, and allocated significant monies to improve their lot.
the current government isn't keen. but previous plans hasn't been scrapped. in fact, it's an inside government struggle about how much of those will go forward.
You missed the part where Hamas terrorists cut children's heads off, raped and burned women alive, and took hostages and hid them among a civilian population. Given that oversight, your post seems to (1) excuse such atrocities as an outcome of poverty, and (2) remove any agency from Gazans, who "were betrayed" (note the passive voice).
The invasion was not a pogrom by drunk Cossacks, it was meticulously planned for years, intentionally live streamed for maximum psych impact. It was highly strategic. A pogrom is not the right comparison.
What type of boys and men constitute Hamas? Where is the demarkation between terrorist and brainwashed teenager who has grown up playing games like 'stab an Israeli' or learned math by completing word problems such as 'If you have 5 Jews in a room and kill one Jew, how many Jews do you have left?' It seems there is a gradation of indoctrination among the youth of Gaza. It seems like an unsolvable problem to eliminate Hamas without setting up some sort of humanitarian settlement outside the war zone where basic needs can be addressed and the youth deprogrammed. I don't see any support for this.
"By 2005, Israel had decided that Gaza was a strategic liability, not an asset. It hastily pulled out of Gaza, leaving it to the Arab world to assume control." and yet I'm pretty sure maps since 2005 still include it as part of Israel, it wasn't returned to Egypt, nor is it a newly independent country, i.e. like all modern nations, Israel like it it not has a responsibility to those within its territorial borders.
I don't think Arnold, nor any of the other philosemites would condone the US building walls around Amerindian "reservations" and then intentionally not only keep them in abhorrent abject poverty but actively working to ensure it effectively forever while also still claiming sovereignty over them while washing away any responsibility with "well Canada should assume control".
Israel doesn't get to have it's cake and eat it too on this one.
The US did much worse to the Indians and for the people who did it, such proposals as you mention wouldn't have caused them to blink an eye. They only stopped doing those things once the threat of Indian violence was permanently eliminated, which it was.
I don't disagree in the slightest, I have no moral issue with what Israel is, or will, doing (nor Hamas for that matter); it's a struggle as old as man. My annoyance is the abounding hypocrisy of philosemites who routinely condemn Brennus in modern times; i.e. IDF killing kids good, Hamas killing kids bad. Israel concentration camps good, German ones bad. Serbian killing UGK terrorists bad, Israel killing Hamas terrorists good. Dead fathers good, dead mothers bad, etc. It's not the gnashing of the teeth that bothers me, it's the veneer they try and give themselves about it being in line with the modern western liberal values they so care about .. something about atheists in foxholes, etc. 9/11, Israel, COVID, Trump, etc .. amazing how fair weather their values are lol when it's no longer ethereal but instead, in their backyard.
"making it impossible for Israel to be both democratic and a Jewish homeland."
That's the rub.
The math just doesn't work. It would be fair to say that the Jews, and especially the Ashkenazi Jews, are lifting the whole thing up on their shoulders. But there are so few of them relative to the many many others. If it's one man one vote, they will get swamped. Even just having a robust welfare state would probably be too much.
Imagine if a huge proportion of America was people living on Indian reservations. Even if there were no reservations, just imagine if we were majority Native American in demographics. We wouldn't be a first world country.
I just want to dissent somewhat from your claim that Ashkenazi Jews are "lifting the whole thing up." There are two large elements of Ashkenazi Jews that are doing the opposite: the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) and the socialist left.
The Mizrachis are free of such craziness. They practice a much saner form of Orthodox religion, and they are not socialist. The anti-Bibi protesters earlier this year came from the old Ashkenazi leftist elite. The Mizrachis are a vital element of Israeli society.
High IQ + Not Religious Extremist + Not Socialist = Productive
When I google "per capita income Israel Mizrachis" I get a bunch of results that look like:
Ashkenazi earn a lot. Mizrachis earn a lot less. Arabs earn a lot less than Mizrachis.
If the Ashkenazi numbers are being pulled down by Haredi Ashkenazi then the non-Haredi Ashkenazi must be even more super plus awesome.
So I think its fair to say that the non-Haredi Ashkenazi are carrying Israel on their shoulders.
Israel has a really big and impressive smart fraction and then a lot of hangers on. Just like Arab countries have to divide a fixed pie of oil revenue amongst however many mouths they have to feed, Israel has to divide the bounty of its fixed smart fraction amongst however many mouths it has to feed. Increase the mouths (by say integrating the people in Gaza) and you have less per mouth.
Maybe you are right that the non-Haredi Ashkenazi are so far left socialist that without unproductive right wing groups to vote for Bibi they would destroy their own economy with too much socialism. I will remain agnostic on that question.
However, I do think it's easier to convince the non-Haredi Ashkenazi to pair back their socialism then to raise the average IQ of low IQ demographics. And I doubt adding a few million Arabs to Israels population would do much to reduce socialism.
The other Arab countries don't want more mouths. Israel doesn't want more mouths. The people of Gaza have nothing to offer that would make people want them. So they are stateless, or near enough.
Sucks that they blame Israel for their plight when its just something that was bound to happen, but its to be expected. I bet many Native Americans blame us, but they are few so what are they going to do about it.
I think a central flaw in modelling this conflict is the (appealing) premise that Hamas oppresses the people of Gaza. It's just not supported by the evidence.
We know that Arabs (a crude but useful generalization) are pretty good at taking up arms against what they regard as oppressive governance. It just so happens that when they do that successfully--at least recently--they replace it with something that looks like (or is) Hamas. It's been said for the umpteenth time, Hamas was democratically elected. There isn't much evidence that another election would lead to a different result.
Hamas isn't oppressive. It's the antidote to oppressive. Hamas certainly doesn't represent *every* Arab in Gaza, but it's more representative of the people of Gaza than the U.S. Government is representative of the people of America (and I strongly suspect the people of Gaza are far more cohesive than the people of America). To the extent leaders are responsible for creating and aligning a vision for their constituents--i.e. telling people what to think--then you can credibly say "the people of Gaza have been betrayed by their leaders." But that doesn't change the fact that the people of Gaza are, for the most part, willingly led by Hamas. Perhaps they've been betrayed by themselves, but where does that leave you?
That of course is why the actual line between civilians and combatants is so thin--like Israelis, the Arabs in Gaza are willing to fight to the last man. Some might leave if Egypt would let them, but many would stay because it's perceived as their duty. Not everyone can be a solider, but everyone can do their part. They know that their presence makes it harder for the IDF to operate, which is why they want to be there. That's how to fight, if you're not actually holding a gun (even if many do that too). They put their lives at risk for the cause--anything less is a dereliction of duty.
The Western model predicts that any time a state actor does what we consider to be bad stuff, it must reflect an "oppressive" state. It's the state, not the people--which of course presupposes there is a "people" and that too is often not the case. In all events, there are no "bad" peoples. We must save the Russians from Putin, save the Iraqis from Sadaam, save the Afghanis from the Taliban, etc. I understand the appeal of that model (really), but where's the evidence that it's correct?
It would be more accurate to refer to Gazans as Hamasans then to disaggregate the two. The implications are what they are, and perhaps aspirations of alternative reality can help make it so, but we proceed on a false premise at our peril.
The other (bigger) flaw in the model is the notion that "independent statehood" is or was something that anyone cares about. Hamas' objective vis a vis Israel is restoring the status quo ante of Arab/Islamic sovereignty to the entire region. That objective is broadly popular and understood across MENA. "Independent statehood" is a Western projection and always has been. The "interests of the palestinian people" refer to their interests as proxies to restore the right and just hierarchy that existed for hundreds of years, until the fall of the Ottoman Empire (and not any specific people, form of governance, or some right derived from western international law or political philosophy . . . the notion is so obviously stupid, and yet).
That doesn't mean "islamofascist theocracy" (or some other neocon construction) is broadly popular--there's plenty of disagreement of who ought to be in charge and what that looks like (and there is far more bloodshed over that), but basically everyone agrees that whoever is in charge, it should be an Arab-Muslim (and definitely not a Jew). It is a disgrace that an Islamic land has fallen out of Islamic control. That's not "radical." Nor does it require a "hatred of Jews." That's what totally normal, decent hospitable people, with regular day jobs, who'd help change your tire or give you a ride in the rain, think. (Yes, there's prevalent jew-hating in MENA, but there are lots of people who would genuinely say "I don't hate jews" and also "Palestine is properly controlled by Muslims"--it's not Jew-hating, it's Islam-loving.)
In other words, the problem they are solving for is that there is *any* land in that part of the world where Islam/Muslims do not represent the top of the hierarchy (which is, again, not unreasonable given that's how it was for a long time). There are varying degrees to which people care about that problem--for lots of people it's pretty far down the list--but that's still an accurate description of the problem, and therefore statehood isn't a solution. It's not a secret or bigoted projection. Just ask them. (The bigotry is assuming the universality of western morality, but I digress.)
Our diplomatic efforts are like telling someone who's dream is to complete their masterpiece "what if we gave you 99%?" "No, I want to finish it. It's the unfinished parts that are driving me nuts." "OK, well what about 99.2%" "What the hell is wrong with you? Aren't you listening to me? 100% is the point. Anything less than that is the problem." "OK, 99.3%." "You idiot."
Israel's position, otoh, has been 'some-but-not-none'--Jews need to restore some of their sovereignty, bc no sovereignty is untenable. The maximalists who want the entirety of mandatory palestine (including the [palestinian state of] Jordan) have no purchase and never have. Statehood works for that. The Arab World's position (again, a generalization, but a meaningful one) is 'all-and-not-most.' Palestinian Statehood does not solve the problem of Jewish statehood, anymore than Egyptian or Syrian statehood does (other than being incrementally closer to removing the 'Zionist Stain.')
"Not nothing" and "Nothing less than all" are very different problems, and the solutions are mutually exclusive and zero-sum. (Unless you revive the old Uganda option for the Jews, but y'know.)
If you feel one is more just or fair than the other, then pick a side--I do, but I'm biased. But again, don't make a fundamental mistake about the lay of the land. And don't keep pounding the table "why won't you take this better version of a thing that we want you to want, but you don't actually want and never have?! Gosh this is so frustrating." It sounds dumb, and it is.
It's worse than dumb, it's counterproductive. It's like dangling the very thing that they want just out of reach, and then saying "OK, now we insist you stop wanting it."
+1, emphatically.
I have a very good friend from college that is Vietnamese. He put the matter of the Vietnam war quite clearly. "We hate the communist, but they are Vietnamese. First we get rid of you whites, then we sort it out. Maybe not perfect, maybe not even the best outcome, but it is what it is."
That's a good description of a common view.
Still, trying to look at it objectively, it's a pretty stupid view. That's because it says to take on targets in the reverse order of urgency just because your most dangerous likely future opponent looks more like you do. In that particular instance it would have been easier to get the whites to leave after the communists were no longer an issue, than it was to get rid of the communists after the whites left.
After all, no one sorts out anything with the Communists, just ask the Vietnamese. That's kind of their thing since Lenin, "At the first opportunity and by any means necessary we make it impossible for anybody who objects to what we want to sort out anything." Has any side in a civil war ever not regretted making allies of the Communists?
With our knowledge it's a dumb view. We know communism is super plus mega bad and way worse then a typical flawed native government that might come into being.
With the knowledge level of a 1960s third world farming peasant Communist liberation movements seem "fresh" and maybe it will work out. And certainly the regimes we were backing in those places had lots of flaws too. It sucks that they were wrong, but it was understandably wrong.
What wasn't fresh was colonialism, which wasn't "the white man has an occupying army here and keeps us down by force (mostly)". Colonialism was, "the white man figures out all of our internal divisions and gets us to kill each other by supporting one side over another, switching support when any side shows signs of wanting their own real sovereignty." After 100 years of that you can see how someone would say, "you know, we just need to put aside out internal divisions for awhile if we ever want our own country."
Thank you for stating reality so eloquently.
This might be a nitpick, but remember state can easily be both oppressive and popular. Legitimate even.
Thank you for that exceptionally high quality comment.
Hamas objective is the eradication of Israel and Jews.
Pretty hard to work with Hamas when they have no interest in your continued existence.
Well, yes. They are dead men walking or hiding or whatever cowardly pose they prefer.
Incidentally, there is actually *some* data from 2023 that ~70% of Gazans would prefer the PA to Hamas (or at least Hamas's armed units), but sample bias and also recency bias predominate. Either way, seems hopeful. https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1712655653846565149/
I keep thinking of the kids there, who are close to a majority of the population (median age 18), who did nothing to deserve being trapped in such a place and bear no responsibility for Hamas's atrocities, and who are likely about to die by the thousands in horrific ways. It seems to me all parties bear some responsibility to do what they reasonably can for those kids now.
I hope the US can work with Egypt and Israel and whoever else they need to in order to at least let as many as possible of those kids and their mothers get out of Gaza before any ground incursion. It seems to me that this would be the right thing to do morally, and practically would be useful in a couple of ways. It would demonstrate to the Arab world that even as we support Israel we genuinely care for innocent Palestinian lives, indeed more than any of their regimes have. And the fewer innocent kids are left in Gaza the less difficult it will be for Israel to do what it needs to do to defeat Hamas there.
It may be that Hamas would stop them leaving, the better to keep them as human shields. Certainly they are evil enough to do such a thing. But that does not relieve us of our responsibility to make a good faith effort to offer a way out.
I saw a documentary on our Channel 12 the other day. The journalist was interviewing (in Arabic with Hebrew subtitles) some young-ish Gazans who had relocated to an unnamed European city (it took me about 0.2 seconds to recognize Antwerp). They had been given visas by Turkey (on the strength of which Egypt let them pass) and then joined Erdogan's refugee tap into Europe ;) They actually said they left Gaza because you can only have a career or a business there if you join HamaSS - which runs the strip like a Mafiocracy.
A well-known Arab affairs journalist (and onetime intelligence operative), Zvi Yechezkeli, quoted a total figure for this "silent exodus" of about 375K over 20 years.
God forbid we let their innocent fathers out of Gaza too. I guess every Palestinian male above the age of puberty is a terrorist ala Western policy in Afghanistan and Iraq huh. Israel learning from the best.
How do you suggest anyone go about discerning who is guilty or innocent when the guilty only survive by hiding among and looking innocent, even to professionals whose job it is to try to hunt them down?
The only plausible way to do it is to go full CCP-in-Xinjiang. Plenty of ability to separate the innocent from the guilty with perfect accuracy when one watches everything everyone does everywhere all the time.
It was more the misandry angle that annoyed me. If Israel wants to relinquish the hollow high ground they've had since the 1940's to "solve" the problem, I have no bones with it. But generally in the West we tend to frown on anyone but the US, UK, Albania, and Croatia indiscriminately just shooting anyone whom the servicemember pulling the trigger at the time just arbitrary thinks belongs to they wrong religion under the guise "God can sort them out" while also assuming their gender to be male. /s on that list part.
I do not believe that Leftist hostility to Israel is even primarily about a concern for the Palestinian people. The real driver is to signal that your narcissistic (and privileged) little wonderful self is ever on the side of 'the oppressed'. To these people 'oppression' is a shallow abstraction that serves to inflate their personal vanity as one of the good guys. This poisonous vanity has been pouring out of Western academia for decades. I still remember the drug-addled anti-Zionist 'sit-in' at my UK university in 1972.
That and they hate evil white colonisers...completing ignoring the fact that the Jews are indigenous to the area.
Thank you for this. It epitomises the tragedy of the situation. I can’t hate anyone either, even as I decry individuals who murder, rape and kidnap civilians. I have often felt that the Palestinians have been betrayed by the rest of the Arab world. The Jews from Arab countries were accepted by Israel; the Arabs from Israel were accepted by… no one. It suits all the surrounding countries to have them as impoverished refugees, and to blame Israel for it.
There are no good solutions any longer, and maybe there never were any. The status quo as it stood a week ago, with Gaza launching occasional rocket attacks, isn't stable any longer given the failure of the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. Israel also can't reoccupy Gaza on a permanent basis. I now think Netanyahu's plan is to empty Gaza of its Arab residents one way or the other, and I really can't think of another solution that would be politically possible from the viewpoint of the Israelis. So, someone/s is going to have to step forward and take the Gazans as refugees- something the Arab world should have been forced to do 80 years ago, but now isn't something that they can be forced to do.
To a lot of the world, Gazans living where and how they do is not a problem that needs a solution. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Leftist regimes in Western countries might take some for the usual reason of demographic electorate-reshaping, but most other countries want them to stay put and stay angry.
This is not true. The most obvious good solution is for Palestinians to stop trying to kill Jews where ever and when ever they can and live in peace and accept Israels right to exist.
Guarantee you the second this happens there will be peace.
Good background to the current situation. I realized reading this that I had forgotten quite a bit of the context of how the conflict arrived at its current state.
I always enjoy Arnold's memories and insights into conditions that cause conflicts. However, this one falls a little short. Arnold's history of Gaza starts in 1948. Suddenly we have many many refuges in Gaza. Where did they come from? What was going on in the area between WWI and WWII when Britain controlled the area. What agreements between the arabs in the area and Britain including the promises Britain made to limit the influx of Jews into the area. No mention of Zionist lobbying and promoting a Jewish homeland to the British. No mention of the conflict between Jews and Arabs between the end of WWII and 1949 and its impact on the number of refuges fleeing to Gaza. Also, Arnolds description of Israel's reasoning for leaving Gaza doesn't in clude its realization that if it continued its presence in Gaza, the UN (rest of the world) insist on Israel mainting the welfare of the citizens of Gasa instead of the UN.
My main complaint is that Arnold's history paints Israel as having no agency in the conditions of the arabs in Gaza and thus innocent victoms of Hamas. Hamas and other Arab countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sysia, Egypt, Jordan etc. Also have some maybe most of the responsibility of conditions in the regions. They too could have taken steps in the past to more peaceful solutions.
I think Arnold's point about the jews wanting both a democracy and a religious state makes it clear that Israel didn't want the arabs that livend in the area now know as Israel. Of curse, this position is , although not the only cause, a significant cause for the existence of refuges in Gaza. Israel offered the arabs an opportunity to live in their existing homes. However, the arabs knew they would be second class citizens and the Israelis knew the arabs were aware of this. So, although the offer was genuine it was hollow. The Arabs also have religious reasons (read the Koran) for hating jews.
Although there are no "good" reasons for jews to hate arabs, try tell that to them.
Pogroms such as the Cosack's are usually based on hatred for a group. There is no question that the Hamas attack was barbaric and vicious. However, Israel can't wash its hands of being an istigator. The istigation took place over many years and each instance not a major provocation. None the less, Israel bears some responsibility for the attack.
" So, although the offer was genuine it was hollow. The Arabs also have religious reasons (read the Koran) for hating jews.
Although there are no "good" reasons for jews to hate arabs, try tell that to them."
Arguable. If you subscribe to the continuity of Abraham camp, Arabs are the children of Hagar and Sarah has hated them since day one. Arabs were effectively exiled out of Jew lands and generally the punishment for violating exile by returning historically in all cultures is death.
Ethically Arabs are the aggrieved party here but dem da bones when you aren't the chosen people and they were given a pretty sweet consolation prize as long as they left much to the chagrin of Sarah who would have preferred their deaths.
> However, the arabs knew they would be second class citizens and the Israelis knew the arabs were aware of this.
That was a lot for the Arabs to know the day after founding, but leaving that aside - I'd venture to say being a second-class citizen in Israel would probably be a good day in much of the world, and certainly in the Dar al-Islam.
I'd go further back with the analysis. If Wikipedia is to be trusted, it is of course wealthy Arabs elsewhere, perpetual screwer-overs, who were happy to take the Jews' money - who has ever not been? - in the 19th century despite Ottoman hurdles to Jews buying land.
"The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 "brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers".[11]
Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this.[citation needed] Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favorable to purchase from the wealthy owners.[citation needed] As well many small farmers became in debt to rich families which led to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers.[citation needed]"
An interesting write up! Thanks for sharing. It would be interesting to hear more of your thoughts about the socialist and communitarian practices of Israel, from the government to small scale farming commune levels. I have often heard them used as examples of various social dynamics, but never much detail about how they treated each other, etc.
Good reminder of what Israel was like in 1980. I’ve always been relatively neutral in my view of the situation there. The attack was horrific and I wonder what the game plan is now? Israel must eliminate Hamas but what comes after? It seems inevitable that it slides into some kind of apartheid even if they prop up someone local to administer it. All bad choices.
I was very surprised by the detail about the phone service. One sort of thinks of things like that becoming instantly available.
Some kind of apartheid? Please be specific as to what you mean because this term is far too willingly thrown around by leftists with a total disregard for the differences citizens and non-citizens are treated around the ENTIRE world. But apparently only Israel is expected to treat non-citizens as citizens when the same is not expected from any other country??
Gaza sources of assistant are:
international donors (humanitarian aid)
Qatar (monthly Monday to pay civil servants, supervised to a degree to avoid funding Hamas. but apparently it's not strictly policed)
Palestinian Authority budget. in fact, Gaza's civil service is technically under the Palestinian authority. don't ask how it works exactly lol
regarding Israel's Arabs, the civil service still sees it's priority to improve their lot. purely from an economic perspective, but also thinking it will reduce any risk of local unrest.
the government before the current one, did have an Arab country inside the coalition, and allocated significant monies to improve their lot.
the current government isn't keen. but previous plans hasn't been scrapped. in fact, it's an inside government struggle about how much of those will go forward.
You missed the part where Hamas terrorists cut children's heads off, raped and burned women alive, and took hostages and hid them among a civilian population. Given that oversight, your post seems to (1) excuse such atrocities as an outcome of poverty, and (2) remove any agency from Gazans, who "were betrayed" (note the passive voice).
It appears that collective punishment is acceptable when its aimed at Jews.
The invasion was not a pogrom by drunk Cossacks, it was meticulously planned for years, intentionally live streamed for maximum psych impact. It was highly strategic. A pogrom is not the right comparison.
What type of boys and men constitute Hamas? Where is the demarkation between terrorist and brainwashed teenager who has grown up playing games like 'stab an Israeli' or learned math by completing word problems such as 'If you have 5 Jews in a room and kill one Jew, how many Jews do you have left?' It seems there is a gradation of indoctrination among the youth of Gaza. It seems like an unsolvable problem to eliminate Hamas without setting up some sort of humanitarian settlement outside the war zone where basic needs can be addressed and the youth deprogrammed. I don't see any support for this.
"By 2005, Israel had decided that Gaza was a strategic liability, not an asset. It hastily pulled out of Gaza, leaving it to the Arab world to assume control." and yet I'm pretty sure maps since 2005 still include it as part of Israel, it wasn't returned to Egypt, nor is it a newly independent country, i.e. like all modern nations, Israel like it it not has a responsibility to those within its territorial borders.
I don't think Arnold, nor any of the other philosemites would condone the US building walls around Amerindian "reservations" and then intentionally not only keep them in abhorrent abject poverty but actively working to ensure it effectively forever while also still claiming sovereignty over them while washing away any responsibility with "well Canada should assume control".
Israel doesn't get to have it's cake and eat it too on this one.
The US did much worse to the Indians and for the people who did it, such proposals as you mention wouldn't have caused them to blink an eye. They only stopped doing those things once the threat of Indian violence was permanently eliminated, which it was.
I don't disagree in the slightest, I have no moral issue with what Israel is, or will, doing (nor Hamas for that matter); it's a struggle as old as man. My annoyance is the abounding hypocrisy of philosemites who routinely condemn Brennus in modern times; i.e. IDF killing kids good, Hamas killing kids bad. Israel concentration camps good, German ones bad. Serbian killing UGK terrorists bad, Israel killing Hamas terrorists good. Dead fathers good, dead mothers bad, etc. It's not the gnashing of the teeth that bothers me, it's the veneer they try and give themselves about it being in line with the modern western liberal values they so care about .. something about atheists in foxholes, etc. 9/11, Israel, COVID, Trump, etc .. amazing how fair weather their values are lol when it's no longer ethereal but instead, in their backyard.
Very thoughtful. Thanks.
"making it impossible for Israel to be both democratic and a Jewish homeland."
That's the rub.
The math just doesn't work. It would be fair to say that the Jews, and especially the Ashkenazi Jews, are lifting the whole thing up on their shoulders. But there are so few of them relative to the many many others. If it's one man one vote, they will get swamped. Even just having a robust welfare state would probably be too much.
Imagine if a huge proportion of America was people living on Indian reservations. Even if there were no reservations, just imagine if we were majority Native American in demographics. We wouldn't be a first world country.
I just want to dissent somewhat from your claim that Ashkenazi Jews are "lifting the whole thing up." There are two large elements of Ashkenazi Jews that are doing the opposite: the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) and the socialist left.
The Mizrachis are free of such craziness. They practice a much saner form of Orthodox religion, and they are not socialist. The anti-Bibi protesters earlier this year came from the old Ashkenazi leftist elite. The Mizrachis are a vital element of Israeli society.
High IQ + Not Religious Extremist + Not Socialist = Productive
When I google "per capita income Israel Mizrachis" I get a bunch of results that look like:
Ashkenazi earn a lot. Mizrachis earn a lot less. Arabs earn a lot less than Mizrachis.
If the Ashkenazi numbers are being pulled down by Haredi Ashkenazi then the non-Haredi Ashkenazi must be even more super plus awesome.
So I think its fair to say that the non-Haredi Ashkenazi are carrying Israel on their shoulders.
Israel has a really big and impressive smart fraction and then a lot of hangers on. Just like Arab countries have to divide a fixed pie of oil revenue amongst however many mouths they have to feed, Israel has to divide the bounty of its fixed smart fraction amongst however many mouths it has to feed. Increase the mouths (by say integrating the people in Gaza) and you have less per mouth.
Maybe you are right that the non-Haredi Ashkenazi are so far left socialist that without unproductive right wing groups to vote for Bibi they would destroy their own economy with too much socialism. I will remain agnostic on that question.
However, I do think it's easier to convince the non-Haredi Ashkenazi to pair back their socialism then to raise the average IQ of low IQ demographics. And I doubt adding a few million Arabs to Israels population would do much to reduce socialism.
The other Arab countries don't want more mouths. Israel doesn't want more mouths. The people of Gaza have nothing to offer that would make people want them. So they are stateless, or near enough.
Sucks that they blame Israel for their plight when its just something that was bound to happen, but its to be expected. I bet many Native Americans blame us, but they are few so what are they going to do about it.