Rajiv Sethi Comments

A Thread on a previous post

On this post, Rajiv Sethi and I had a mostly civil back-and-forth. I reproduce it here.¹

Sethi: I hope your readers will follow the link to Hamid's piece and make up their own minds about his perspective. Based on your snippet and comment above, they may be surprised to find that he begins the piece with the observation that Hamas "brutally massacred hundreds of civilians" Here's a link that bypasses the paywall: https://wapo.st/475NkNR

Me: See https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/i-condemn-but

Sethi: Yes I did see that earlier post, and I understand that you hate Hamid more than you hate Hamas, but perhaps you have some readers who feel differently, and I would urge them to read his article before reaching a conclusion about his perspective.

Me: I would urge you to look at what Hamid omits. About 1948, for example, he makes it sound like the only thing that happened was that Israel decided to drive out lots of Arabs. He makes no mention of the fact that Arab states launched a war of extermination the day that Ben-Gurion declared a state. If there is a charitable interpretation of Hamid's article, I don't see it. Maybe other people will.

Sethi: He is describing what pro-Palestinian activists tend to emphasize, and he is doing so accurately. They certainly do not tend to emphasize the war that preceded the expulsions. Here is the exact quote:

"For their part, pro-Palestinian activists tend to emphasize an original set of injustices that occurred in 1948 when Israel was created — namely, the expulsion of Palestinians from their land and homes — and then the subsequent injustice of a never-ending occupation that began in 1967. Because these are the original sins, everything else can seem like a distraction from the core grievance. Even for Palestinian opponents of Hamas — and there are many — Hamas might be vile, but it is more a symptom of the conflict than a cause."

If you think that Hamid's position is no different (or even worse) than that of Hamas itself, or of those who openly celebrated the atrocities (as Arnold seems to do) that's your prerogative. Personally, I think it's an absurd and inhuman position that will continue to cost a lot of lives, Israeli and Palestinian. I don't know Hamid but I imagine that what he wants is an end to the violence as well as freedom and dignity for Palestinians on par with what Israelis routinely enjoy. That's the humanistic position. It may be unattainable in the foreseeable future, in which case we will have more violence and continued misery. If you hate Hamid and his ilk more than you hate Hamas (as Arnold claims to do) then so be it, all I can say is that the position strikes me as absurd and inhuman.

Hamas can be destroyed but other organizations will take its place, and there is a steady supply of recruits, more created with every civilian death. Meanwhile technology is advancing, with drones the size of insects and other weapons that are increasingly difficult to defend against, including deadly pathogens. This is not a conventional war between standing armies, and it won't be won by simply hunting down existing adversaries. I don't see this ending soon or ending well for either side under the current trajectory.

But enough said, all I wanted was for people to judge Hamid based on his own words and not a selective extract and third party interpretation.

Me: "Hamas can be destroyed but other organizations will take its place, and there is a steady supply of recruits, more created with every civilian death. "

That position demands that Israel engage in immaculate retaliation. It ignores the fact that Hamas seeks civilian deaths, even among Palestinians. It ignores the fact that the defeat of Germany and Japan in World War II did not result in a "steady supply of recruits" to Nazism and Japanese imperialism. This sort of sympathy for the genocidal "pro-Palestinian cause" is not humanistic. It's the opposite.

Sethi: I am not demanding anything Arnold. I am merely observing, with sadness, that there is no solution available that resembles the case of standing armies as in WW2. To accuse me of sympathy for a genocidal cause simply because I don't believe it can be defeated in the manner you propose is not just false, it is willfully blind. There are many issues on which you think clearly but this is not one of them.

Me: I agree that using military force to try to defeat the genocidal cause may not succeed, especially in the long run. When someone comes up with a more promising approach, let me know. I have yet to come across someone with your viewpoint who does not dodge the question of how to defeat Hamas in a way that avoids the risks that you rightly worry about.

Sethi: There is a difference between dodging a question and not having an answer. I don't have an answer. I don't think Hamid does either, I think he is trying to get people to question entrenched positions in the hope it leads somewhere useful.

1. I omit the contributions of Handle to the thread. But they are worth reading, also.