In regard to the fate of Palestinian civilians, this analysis from Palestinian human-rights activist Bassem Eid seems to me realistic and, ultimately, humane:
"For nearly two decades, Hamas has allowed its people to live in squalor, using the humanitarian aid it is given from the international community to stockpile ammunition and deliberately turn severe poverty and deprivation in Gaza into hatred of Israel.
"Now, Hamas uses my brothers and sisters in Gaza as human shields, hiding their weapons in hospitals, schools and mosques, and embedding their terror fighters among women, children, the elderly and families. This is all by design. They don't want peace; they want Gazans to die in a propaganda victory over Israel. . . .
"The Palestinian people of Gaza deserve liberation from Hamas. If Israel ends the unjust rule of the terror gang, it will be doing my brothers and sisters in Gaza a life-changing favor."
Great that you posted this. It perfectly encapsulates my view/worries. I think Arnold is correct on the key points of justification. Hamas is terrible/evil. They use their own civilians as shields/publicity stunts, and the the world condemns Israel and not Hamas. Many other countries (including our own) kill or have killed civilians in military engagements all throughout time so Israel is clearly being held to a ridiculous standard. Just think of what would happen if Israel didn’t kill civilians, it’s ability to defend itself and its people would be impossible so please stop with that nonsense.
But in the end I agree with Sethi that the result will be another group just like Hamas or worse governing Gaza with a lot of new recruits willing to die for the cause. The Germany/Japan analogies aren’t very persuasive. Those were very cohesive societies with elites that agree to the surrenders in order to rebuild and move on. There’s nothing like that in Gaza. So Israel is justified in what it is doing and in my opinion has no choice but at the same time, it won’t solve anything and might make it a lot worse. It’s grim and sad, and everyone needs to grow up and realize it’s what the world is often like.
Yes, this is exactly correct. The notion that this can be won on the battlefield is a fantasy. Maybe it can't be won with diplomacy either, but sending 300,000 reservists into an asymmetrical warfare meat grinder will be worse than doing nothing.
Palestinian supporters of insurgency are not "in the right," but they have enough legitimate grievances that they don't deserve anything approaching the treatment Nazi Germany got. Sadly, genocidal antisemitic hatred is widespread enough among Palestinians that a one state solution will never work. Seems to me the best plan is to retaliate moderately, shore up defenses on the Gaza border and then try to move things in a more diplomatic direction in the medium term by tearing down settlements.
Good chance this will still fail but it has better odds than the scorched earth plan.
Sethi's and Arnold's argument point out difficulty of reaching agreement when one or both parties fail to choose a side. I think Arnold has chosen a side while Sethi seems to equivocate. Sethi's posisiton is pretty common among western intellectuals. I think they fail to see the role of Islam in Hamas and the role of Islam binding the forces in the mid-east in general. As I see it, it is a conflict between western (post enlightenment) ideals and Islam. No common ground exists between those two views and thus NO negotiated agreement will occur until one side or the other becomes dominant and, of course, that won't be a negotiation.
If you want to solve the problem, choose a side and do whatever it takes to make that side prevail. The current position of many in the west is what I call "Rodney King" diplomacy. with the silly and fruitless view "Why can't we all get along?"
The notion that any peace between Palestine and Israel is possible while Hamas runs Gaza I find naive. Hamas has always had the policy of deliberately scuttling any chance of peace between Israel and Palestine, as that is compatible with their core aim of Muslim dominion, explicitly understood as entailing and requiring the destruction of Israel.
It is true that Islam has very strong recurring patterns. As I discuss here:
It is also true that Hamas has been structured around networks, rather than a centrally organised political Party on the Bolshevik/Fascist/Nazi model. Which does raise questions about how successfully Israel can dislodge Hamas as a governing force. Or whether it can destroy Hamas (not the same question). As I discuss here:
But Israel can no longer dodge attempting the former, even if the latter is much less likely to succeed.
Westerners tend to see Hamas and Fatah through Western political lenses. This is highly misleading, given that Hamas has religious aims with a political expression.The Western lens is also misleading given how much Palestinians, and especially their leaders, are paid not to make peace with Israel.
If Palestinians stop being refugees, they stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Peace means they stop being refugees. Hence the refusal to give up the right of return (which is the base of their refugee status) and which is incompatible with peace with Israel.
Thanks for bringing up Islam as the fundamental problem. So much of the discussion I see and hear simply skirts around the elepahnt in the room. I have a fundamental question that I have asked in other places with no response. "Have any prominent Muslim Imans or Muslim group spoken out condeming Hamas?" I don't explect an answer because, as I understand it, Islam prohibits such criticism.
I am NOT saying all Muslims support Hamas or its behavior. The New Testament suggests that Christians should forgive their enemies, all Christians do not. The Koran, mainly in Sura 9 but in other places as well, commands Muslims kill their enemies, Many if not most Muslims are unaware of the command. Although Muslim leaders are quick to point this out to their followers when needed.
The Quran 9:23 states: “O you who believe, do not take your fathers and your brothers as your friends, if they prefer infidelity to Faith. Those of you who have friendship with them are the wrongdoers”.
The Quran, according to Islamists, should be taken literally. It is the direct word of Allah and is not subject to interpretation. This means of course that a devout Muslim could not take an Infidel as a friend.
The Quran is not organized chronologically so it is wrong to view Surah 9 as following, in time Surah 8 or precedes Surah 10. The chronological order of reveation has some importance because of contradictions between Surahs. Later ones have standing over previous ones.
I'm not going any further into this question because the discussion could become endless. Look at Lorenzo's comment. He lists other sources on Islam and from there I'm sure you can get started on answering other questions like this.
That sounds a lot like St. Paul's second letter to the Corinthians: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch not the unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, And ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (KJV 6:14-18)
Most Christians today don't take that seriously, or a lot of other things in the Bible, like Jesus saying, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (KJV Matthew 10:34-35)
I think many people just assume that Muslims will stop taking those verses seriously, like western Christians do. After all, the arc of history ...
Arnold, thank you for posting the exchange in full and without additional comment. I appreciate this. I also agree that the contributions of Handle are worth reading, since some of the responses above are to him rather than directly to you.
If the belief that "there's no solution" is what draws our this argument, is like to sketch one. Imagine at some point Israel controls Gaza and all know Hamas leaders are neutralized. Set up multiple charter cities / refugee cities / sustainable development zones in Gaza. Doesn't have to be all of it, and you can leave some areas to "democratically elected" governance. Palestinians who leave the open areas and join one of the charter cities have to give something up (maybe signing away their "right if return") but get the choice to not be ruled by Hamas. In my imagination, these zones are administered by some large maquilladora firm with security from Constellis (neé Blackwater). Any zone that is a source of attacks in Israel are liable.
This solution has two aspects that I find valuable. 1) I think most Palestinians are angry and hate Israel, but it's a luxury belief. Having that belief looses them nothing in their lives, and we should change that. 2) The best way to improve the world is to give people more choices, then let people handle the consequences of those choices. I'd like a way to sift out the most rational of the population.
I get the sense a lot of people can't deal with reality. The reality is that the Palestinians would be very happy to see every Jew in Israel dead, and, please, don't tell me that Hamas isn't supported by a majority of Palestinians- I am not falling for that lie. What has happened in the last 3 weeks is that the Israelis would now be happy if every Palestinian in Gaza and the West Bank were dead, too.
Here is the reality:
(1) The Palestinians are never going to get their land back from Israel proper, or that lost on the West Bank to the settlers;
(2) There isn't going to be a two-state solution- the Palestinians were given complete rule in Gaza and Hamas' depredations is what they did with it over a period of 16 years. The place is a bigger sh**hole than it was 16 years ago. It will be a bigger one 16 years from now. This experiment at letting the Palestinians govern themselves has failed utterly.
I don't know what Israel is going to do in the next 3 months- they are clearly being heavily coerced by the United States to agree to a cease-fire while only getting the remaining living hostages returned as a reward for doing so. Is a cease-fire politically tenable after the massacre? I don't know. I would think that a cease-fire should require Qatar to turn over Hamas' leadership residing in Doha to the Israelis, and require the Palestinians to turn over the Hamas soldiers and leadership in Gaza- neither of which are going to happen- again, we are looking at reality, not fantasy.
I wrote 3 weeks ago that the only humanitarian solution ever likely to occur would be Israel cutting off the water, the electrical power it had been supplying, cutting off all trade, and closing the border gates between Israel and Gaza completely, then mining the perimeter to a depth of 500 feet and shooting down anything that comes in over the fence without warning. Such a solution would be condemned worldwide, too, and still leave Israel an international pariah.
Sethi makes a big deal about how no one has an idea about how to solve this problem, but not proposing ideas is a copout still. I suspect Sethi is someone who wants to go back the status quo of October 6th, but is afraid of being ridiculed for suggesting it.
"The reality is that the Palestinians would be very happy to see every Jew in Israel dead, and, please, don't tell me that Hamas isn't supported by a majority of Palestinians"
While a majority voted for Hamas, we don't know if a majority voted for Hamas for that reason. It does not logically tell us whether a majority want all Israeli Jews dead.
"In terms of the in real life interlocuters that I’ve debated over these questions, one of the more disturbing and yet more affable was someone I met randomly during grad school. He was a reservist with the IDF. He was indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians and felt that the long term solution was to expel them from the region, into Egypt or Jordan or wherever else. I pointed out that this was ethnic cleansing, and to my surprise he agreed; he acknowledged that what he was describing was ethnic cleansing, but maintained that Palestinians deserve no Geneva Convention protections, and anyway, it was necessary. And when I said to him that Israel is an ethnonationalist state, again, he readily admitted that was true. That was the whole point. Over time, as I poked and prodded about human rights, and the egalitarian ideal, and the basic concept of liberalism, he made himself very plain: he acknowledged that those ideals were in conflict in the concept of a Jewish state, and he chose support for the Jewish state. That was more important to him. Israel was a reality; universal human rights were an abstraction. An abstraction, and a luxury for others."
When we defeated Germany and Japan it was fairly straightforward to reboot those societies. They had what it took to build successful and prosperous futures.
That isn't the case with the Palestinians. Low human capital. They won't be able to build successful futures. And when they are unsuccessful they will blame someone (Israel) for their lack of success and we will get a new Hamas all over again.
Not because the Israeli's caused the Palestinians plight (if Israel was never formed Palestine would probably be a another poor unsuccessful middle eastern country).
Not because the IDF kills civilians. We killed a lot of civilians in other wars and people moved on.
Because they are Arabs.
Maybe if they were sitting on a lot of oil relative to their population like the UAE they could sell it for the semblance of a successful society, but they don't have that.
It was perhaps a mistake of the Jews to try to found their country in such an inhospitable land, but it's done now. To the victor go the spoils. The Palestinians will not move on from their loss until they are scattered far away from Israel.
This whole thing has the weird subtext that Israel has the Midas touch to confer upon Palestinians a beautiful dream of citizenship with freedom and dignity that is surely rare in the Muslim political world (as distinct from the private world of Islam, which is opaque to me obv.).
And in a way I guess this has some basis in fact since *as a minority* Arab Israelis seem to be doing alright in that regard. But it's also kind of ludicrous, this expectation, no? Apart from the math? And once again, we see that the anti-semitism has that odd paradoxical flavor of - Jews are the master race thay can do anything they set their minds to - *and must*.
And I will add, that people keep bringing up Indian reservations. America got pretty lucky with its Indian population. Because they are not like Palestinians. Sure, it's sad to hear stats about dysfunction among native Americans, especially around substance abuse, and disconcerting to see all the horrible dreary PSA signs the government and various churches have littered all over the reservations; and the of-course-hollow promise that is casino gambling (which just seems remote from most of them, no matter how many casinos spring up).
But overall Indians seem very realistic to me. They just seem to know intuitively that some things are incompatible, and they are not very compatible with American consumerism and perpetual striving after goals they may not care about and various other aspects of our culture. Education, whatever. It's just what it is. And yes, this lends a certain dignity - that activists only chip away at, but so far have not destroyed.
We don't know how Indians would act if they were 50% of the population.
And that 50% number is just within Israel/Palestine. If we include the entire Arab world obviously they vastly outnumber the Jews, and that Arab world does support them to some degree.
Blacks are 13% and they cause a lot more ruckus.
I mean if I was 1% of the population I would intuitively understand that if I started up some shit I'd get smacked down and accomplish nothing, so I might as well try another tack.
The issue with the left on Israel I have noticed is that their arguments, suggested solutions, and demands of Israel are the exact same as they would have been had they been asked for their opinions on October 6th. They condemn the attacks, but then go on to discuss how Israel should act as if nothing has changed. This conversation reminds me a lot of the Ezra Klein / Peter Beinart conversation two weeks ago. Arnold - who doesn't just condemn what happened, but recognizes it must be reckoned with - could have been talking to a pre-recorded version of Sethi from last month.
What if the Saudis annex Gaza? "Neom II on the Med" has a great ring to it, and the Saudis have no qualms in repressing dissent.
- Saudis get Med beach side real estate and access to Israel's tech sector. Large investment projects can link Gaza to the Gulf via high speed rail, pipelines, etc. There will be too much money on the line to risk further war.
- Gazans get the ability to move to SA and access a much larger economy with high wages.
- Israelis get a quiet neighbor and peace with the largest Sunni nation, effectively ending the Israel-Arab conflict.
I'm so corrupted by the American real estate obsession that I keep thinking of that angle too. The Mediterranean! No hurricanes! People love to redevelop stuff!
When they finish that, they can redevelop South Padre Island, which has a sucky 70s vibe.
I am an enormous fan of Arnold’s analysis most generally, AND I am disgusted by the media pandering that is happening on both obvious “sides” of this intractable conflict (particularly, the pro-Hamas ignorance from the fashionably left side-side of the spectrum), HOWEVER, it’s clear that a point (sincere or not) made here by Sethi is correct: Hamas is simply the next in a long line of brutal responses (opportunistic or not) to an entire body of people’s who have been displaced for many years by the artificial establishment of the political Jewish state which led to many years of violent retaliations and subsequent defensive responses and ultimately, political separation by ethnicity. Aborigines in the Americas were essentially extinguished. Today’s warfare and capabilities provided through global capitalism make asymmetric warfare less effective. Sethis point that Hamas will be replaced while Israel will clearly continue to be isolated as an etho-national state (my words) is clear. I don’t think he is suggesting a solution, but continuing to hammer on Palestinians as a proxy for Hamas is probably not a good, long term solution. Sadly, I cannot suggest a solution and perhaps in support of Arnold’s sentiment (and Sethis), it’s pretty clear than Israel will likely only continue to be attacked regardless of what they do. By Hamas, or the next guy.
Ah. So you were chastising me for not using the “proper” term to refer to my people. Thanks. I’ll make sure I comply next time. Please let me know when this changes again.
If your people are among the tens of millions of indigenous people of the Americas - it was the “extinguished” that puzzled me. Obviously I neither know nor care who your people are any more than you do mine.
Arab States attacked Israel with 3 major wars and lost territories as it happens in any war when you lose. Austria, Hungary, Germany, Italy all lost plenty of land, France after Sedan had to indemnify Germany with monetary damages totaling 25% of GDP at the time, if I am not wrong. When it comes to the inhabitants of the area identified with Palestine they had a historical choice: either integrate over time within a democratic State and growing economy or keep fighting through wars and terrorism relentlessly. On the back of a largely false narrative. They never accepted any peace offer and they delegated people like Arafat or organizations like Hamas to represent their interests. The troubles in Northern Ireland didn’t end because of lack of ammunitions but because somehow there was the willingness to come to a deal. Lesson to be learned but that would require Palestinians to get rid of the mafia who governs them.
I've suggested a few ways to prevent "the next Hamas". Short of genocide, of course, which shouldn't be on the table. But all sorts of things that haven't been considered acceptable (massive scale Saledorean style incarceration, immigration, cultural and educational censorship) should be.
I would argue that these solution are consistent with Arnold's assertion that the Hamids of the world may be worse than Hamas. Why is it that there will be "the next Hamas" at some point in the future? Because the Hamids of the world will have a hand in creating them.
This is clear if you think about the drastic moral depravity of the Hamids of the world not with respect their Israeli or Jewish enemies, but with respect to their Palestinian "friends". What is the moral obligation of a friend?
A good friend looks out of for the long-term health and well-being of those he purports to care for. Hamids "care" for their Palestinian friends by justifying their hatred, nursing their grievances, and keeping them in poverty. That's not friendship, it's evil! it's the "friendship" of a cheering on a fight to the death.
A moral person would attempt to turn his friend away from eternal violence. There are literally endless ways to go about this. Offer to take them in, sponsor education, refuse to support violence and violent thoughts, counsel them to be productive and make something of their lives.
I submit that the Hamids of the world are no friends of Palestinians. They simply use them as props to their own political ends. Just like the most bloody-minded enemies of Russia will gladly fight to the last Ukrainian, these friends of Palestine have guided and cheered on self-destructive behavior at every turn.
I don't know anything else about Hamid but didn't have any problem with what he said in this WaPo piece. There is one comment I didn't agree with and the more I think about it, the more significant it becomes.
"Intellectual humility is difficult, but it should be easier for the powerful, because while they have more to lose, they are less likely to lose it."
Much as Arnold has suggested this probably isn't true. Israel is not only fighting for its existence but the continued ability of Jews to live in the middle east. Maybe there isn't a high probability of Israel losing what they have but Palestinians have little or nothing to lose. The issue is what Palestinians hope to gain (land). One could argue they have unrealistic expectations but either way, it definitely isn't what they could likely gain by ending their aggression (economic growth). Herein lies the issue. Might it be useful for there to be more public talk about what could be gained?
"openly celebrated the atrocities (as Arnold seems to do)"
I don't know to what atrocities Mr. Sethi refers, but his suggestion that Mr. Kling "openly celebrated [] atrocities" persuades me to disregard anything Sethi has to say. He's dishonest or deranged, and untrustworthy in either case.
You have completely misunderstood what I was saying, please read the original exchange. I was referring to the fact that Arnold hates people like Hamid more than he hates those who openly celebrated the atrocities. This is by his own admission, follow the link in his initial response to me. Arnold does not dispute or object to what I said here about his position on Hamid.
It's okay. I understand the conversation is a bit hard to follow without going to the original thread, and emotions are running high. Hopefully you don't think I'm dishonest or deranged (though of course I may be wrong on substance).
I don't. The syntactical complexity of your sentence, clear enough in retrospect, defeated me. I should've taken a breath before commenting. Thanks for your understanding.
I hope you've forgotten the above exchange, but I want to apologize again, sincerely and unreservedly, for my initial reaction to your comment. I've recalled it with shame at least once a week since. Something must've had me pre-irked when I read it, but I have no idea what, and regardless my response was disgraceful. Your behavior, meanwhile, was admirable. Take care, and best wishes.
Arnold's position has a lot of logic to it that I don't think you're grappling with. To a large degree, I think anyone should recognize that "who to hate more" is an emotional stance, but to make sense of it, one must look at the underlying logic of it. Who's more responsible for an atrocity? Who should we fear most? Who's likely to do it again?"
To draw a parallel, who do I hate most amongst
1. A Nazi brownshirt who carries out Kristallnacht because they're average human beings carrying out orders and inculcated with beliefs they may hold strongly but don't think much about.
2. Bloodthirsty Germans who cheer them on because they're the kind of below average human beings that exist in some quantities everywhere but are usually discouraged by society.
3. The cool-headed Nazis who, after observing the widespread disgust in Germany with the racially animated persecution of Kristalnacht, did not openly embrace it (as even they didn't publicly embrace the final solution) but who worked tirelessly to eliminate this sympathy and justify feelings of hatred and violence against the Jews.
This third group is clearly the most evil, the most culpable, and the most to be feared. They're the animating spirit behind the persecution.
Even at the time, the "cool headed Nazis" category consisted of people who took independent and varied rhetorical approaches to Kristallnacht.
Put Hamid's rhetoric in that context:
"We can — and must — condemn the Nazis' heinous acts against Jewish civilians while refusing to forget that Jews have been perpetrators of brutal crimes against Germany."
Sounds more than a little inappropriate and on the wrong side of history. Now... you might argue that I've taken what he's saying out of context, but let's look at the context...
He starts off by addressing this as if he's going to come down on the right side by saying "But victimization isn’t a competition. Why must one form of suffering negate another?"
but then concludes by dismissing this and coming down clearly on the side of "bothsidesism":
"Some will condemn this as “bothsidesism,” but there are, quite literally, two primary parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with competing — and, sadly, irreconcilable — narratives. How could it be otherwise?"
Well, it could be otherwise in a lot of ways, but the act of constraining the discourse to this stunted, and self-destructive dynamic doesn't allow for it.
Now, I'm more favorable to some of what he says afterward (about both sides having moral agency), but much of his preening about the "morally indefensible" Israelis and "no ethical case" for "brutalizing Palestinians" puts the lie to the intent of a lot of what might otherwise be productive contributions.
I particularly like his conclusion, where he says, "Morality cannot be situational. We are all products of structures beyond our control, but this does not mean we are prisoners to them."
I particularly dislike that the meat of his article (at least directly with respect to Israel) is at odds with this. Once you recognize that we are products of structures beyond our control, we have a duty to stop reinforcing and being in thrall them. You can't say that, and at the same time say you have a moral imperative to remember (and bring up at every turn) the wrongs done by the other side.
“Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
If the Jews did what the Nazi's say they did, then the final solution was justified. If they did not, it wasn't.
We condemn the Nazi's because we feel they were wrong about the nature of the Jews, not because if the picture of Jews put forth by the Nazi's was true it would be right to let them run loose.
If I were to propose a general principle it is this:
1) People often attribute crimes to others they are not guilty of
2) People often assume a higher degree of retribution is necessary to get the desired outcome
3) Collective guilt especially is nasty
Since trying to convince anyone of these things in the heat of the moment is difficult there is value in universal restraining principles (universal human rights) which we are supposed to respect even when we don't think we should.
And I think that is good as far as it goes. It probably isn't "universally true", but 9/10 it makes things better than worse.
So getting back to the Palestinians, if you had been driven out of your land, put under occupation, lived in massive poverty, and all of your attempts to change the situation without violence had failed, wouldn't you be justified in violence?
I disagree because I disagree with that narrative, but if I thought it was true I would have a lot more sympathy for the Palestinians. I might even find violence understandable, given the amount of time more peaceful means have been tried and failed. I think I've made clear why I don't find that narrative compelling though.
I'd argue that even if they (the Nazis) were literally correct in their allegations, collective guilt being bad would make their actions unacceptable.
Anyway, the real question to me is whether anyone could reasonably say "all of your attempts to change the situation without violence had failed".
Hah, maybe they literally could say that, because they've made no attempts to change their situation without violence, and their friends have mostly not allowed them to.
They've nursed and educated generations of their children to demand violence. They turn every conceivable thing, from pipes for water to rocks to their own ascetic dismissal of all other goals, to the end of committing violence. And the rest of the world, mostly, only encourages this.
The Palestinians will be deserving of sympathy when they, as a people, don't so well personify Captain Ahab. But mostly, it's "To the last I grapple with thee; from Hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
Then you should be able to respond to the passages I'm quoting from the article and identify where I am mistaken.
Let me boil it down to the essentials:
"We... must... refus[e] to forget that Israel has been a perpetrator of a brutal occupation against Palestinians. [T]here are... two... parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... sadly, irreconcilable."
"How could it be otherwise?"
No matter how sad he might be about it, when you boil it down to the essentials, is he not saying the sides are irreconcilable? And he forthrightly demands that we not forget the oppression the other side has done to the side for which he has more sympathy.
He offers no way out. He requires that we dwell on (his version) of the past, and nurse these grievances. But the way to reconciliation, or at least living, is work toward letting them go.
To do otherwise... well, maybe Hamid isn't personally bloodthirsty enough to enact a Final Solution, but he offers no alternatives, and allows no exit from the path.
Also worth noting that the board of directors of the Cherokee Nation Businesses - do not look nearly as Cherokee as a few people I saw around the Indian Affairs office in that little town; and they certainly do not look as Indian, say, as I feel certain that analogous Navajo leaders look.
I was in a little Cherokee town a few months ago, that was so cute. I mean not because Indian stuff is cute - rather in the sense that some towns have the wit to make themselves appealing so as to draw tourists. Interestingly my husband recalled it being pretty dismal when he was a kid, while a town down the road was the cuter, more thriving one. Now flipped.
I will have to look up the name in a minute.
Many nice businesses, landscaping, the sort of street lights the Commerce department seems to furnish via Main Street grants, street signs in Cherokee … the river an amenity for fly fishermen.
However, the motel we stayed at - the Drama Inn - was not operated by a Cherokee. In general, one would not have known it was a reservation were it not for the signs.
ETA: duh, the town is called Cherokee; the river is the Oconaluftee.
None of this happens, of course, without the designation of the national park …
Cherokee, North Carolina and Great Smoky Mountains National Park? Though the Park was established in 1934 (and was the site of a lot of Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration activity).
Interesting that this came up in the context of a debate about Gaza. A good deal of the land for Great Smoky Mountains National Park was sold by people who could no longer make a living farming and hunting or who simply forfeited the land for nonpayment of taxes (the Great depression sped up a long-term decline). But some of it resulted from "ethnic cleansing". The feds declared that people within the boundaries of the new Park had to leave. And there were more than a few of them.
This is why the park has always been free. And boy howdy have the descendants of the mountain people made the most of it, in and out of the park.
Only this past spring did NPS initiate a $5 "parking fee" and absurdly, the rangers were hearing about it in the visitors' center! It is essentially voluntary and of course it is still free to drive the US highway through the park..
It's especially poignant to drive through Cades Cove and think about the people's lives.* It's hard not to think - this was paradise, and they had to give it up. Now I don't know if that was true in more than an aesthetic sense, and the feds there and elsewhere in the South felt, I believe, that the land use was mostly unproductive ...
Also, some sections of the park were owned by timber companies that engaged in thoroughly ruinous practices; there is no reason to lament them! In fact, you can now tour a little sort of "company town resort" within the park, right off the main road. That and a sort of lodge were grandfathered in through the 20th century, and only reverted to NPS a couple decades ago. It's a weird little spot. You can just walk right into the little cottages which some Friends group is restoring, liking the architecture I guess. Not sure this is a great use of funds, but whatever.
*You will drive through slowly! Everybody stops for the bears, of course. At one point we were halted about 15 minutes. I was peering through the binoculars at what everyone seemed to be looking at. "I'm not sure it isn't a turkey", I said. If all these people have stopped for a turkey, my husband muttered, but did not complete the threat.
In regard to the fate of Palestinian civilians, this analysis from Palestinian human-rights activist Bassem Eid seems to me realistic and, ultimately, humane:
"For nearly two decades, Hamas has allowed its people to live in squalor, using the humanitarian aid it is given from the international community to stockpile ammunition and deliberately turn severe poverty and deprivation in Gaza into hatred of Israel.
"Now, Hamas uses my brothers and sisters in Gaza as human shields, hiding their weapons in hospitals, schools and mosques, and embedding their terror fighters among women, children, the elderly and families. This is all by design. They don't want peace; they want Gazans to die in a propaganda victory over Israel. . . .
"The Palestinian people of Gaza deserve liberation from Hamas. If Israel ends the unjust rule of the terror gang, it will be doing my brothers and sisters in Gaza a life-changing favor."
https://www.newsweek.com/im-palestinian-west-bank-hamas-alone-responsible-any-bloodshed-gaza-opinion-1835360
Great that you posted this. It perfectly encapsulates my view/worries. I think Arnold is correct on the key points of justification. Hamas is terrible/evil. They use their own civilians as shields/publicity stunts, and the the world condemns Israel and not Hamas. Many other countries (including our own) kill or have killed civilians in military engagements all throughout time so Israel is clearly being held to a ridiculous standard. Just think of what would happen if Israel didn’t kill civilians, it’s ability to defend itself and its people would be impossible so please stop with that nonsense.
But in the end I agree with Sethi that the result will be another group just like Hamas or worse governing Gaza with a lot of new recruits willing to die for the cause. The Germany/Japan analogies aren’t very persuasive. Those were very cohesive societies with elites that agree to the surrenders in order to rebuild and move on. There’s nothing like that in Gaza. So Israel is justified in what it is doing and in my opinion has no choice but at the same time, it won’t solve anything and might make it a lot worse. It’s grim and sad, and everyone needs to grow up and realize it’s what the world is often like.
Yes, this is exactly correct. The notion that this can be won on the battlefield is a fantasy. Maybe it can't be won with diplomacy either, but sending 300,000 reservists into an asymmetrical warfare meat grinder will be worse than doing nothing.
Palestinian supporters of insurgency are not "in the right," but they have enough legitimate grievances that they don't deserve anything approaching the treatment Nazi Germany got. Sadly, genocidal antisemitic hatred is widespread enough among Palestinians that a one state solution will never work. Seems to me the best plan is to retaliate moderately, shore up defenses on the Gaza border and then try to move things in a more diplomatic direction in the medium term by tearing down settlements.
Good chance this will still fail but it has better odds than the scorched earth plan.
Sethi's and Arnold's argument point out difficulty of reaching agreement when one or both parties fail to choose a side. I think Arnold has chosen a side while Sethi seems to equivocate. Sethi's posisiton is pretty common among western intellectuals. I think they fail to see the role of Islam in Hamas and the role of Islam binding the forces in the mid-east in general. As I see it, it is a conflict between western (post enlightenment) ideals and Islam. No common ground exists between those two views and thus NO negotiated agreement will occur until one side or the other becomes dominant and, of course, that won't be a negotiation.
If you want to solve the problem, choose a side and do whatever it takes to make that side prevail. The current position of many in the west is what I call "Rodney King" diplomacy. with the silly and fruitless view "Why can't we all get along?"
Does dominance mean ethnic cleansing?
The notion that any peace between Palestine and Israel is possible while Hamas runs Gaza I find naive. Hamas has always had the policy of deliberately scuttling any chance of peace between Israel and Palestine, as that is compatible with their core aim of Muslim dominion, explicitly understood as entailing and requiring the destruction of Israel.
It is true that Islam has very strong recurring patterns. As I discuss here:
https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/hamas-displays-a-muslim-way-of-war
It is also true that Hamas has been structured around networks, rather than a centrally organised political Party on the Bolshevik/Fascist/Nazi model. Which does raise questions about how successfully Israel can dislodge Hamas as a governing force. Or whether it can destroy Hamas (not the same question). As I discuss here:
https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/what-is-hamas
But Israel can no longer dodge attempting the former, even if the latter is much less likely to succeed.
Westerners tend to see Hamas and Fatah through Western political lenses. This is highly misleading, given that Hamas has religious aims with a political expression.The Western lens is also misleading given how much Palestinians, and especially their leaders, are paid not to make peace with Israel.
If Palestinians stop being refugees, they stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Peace means they stop being refugees. Hence the refusal to give up the right of return (which is the base of their refugee status) and which is incompatible with peace with Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNRWA
Much of the funding to Hamas from the Muslim world is predicated on them being opposed to peace with Israel.
Folk rarely consider the incentives on Palestinians and their leadership to not make peace with Israel. That strikes me as analytically inadequate.
Thanks for bringing up Islam as the fundamental problem. So much of the discussion I see and hear simply skirts around the elepahnt in the room. I have a fundamental question that I have asked in other places with no response. "Have any prominent Muslim Imans or Muslim group spoken out condeming Hamas?" I don't explect an answer because, as I understand it, Islam prohibits such criticism.
I am NOT saying all Muslims support Hamas or its behavior. The New Testament suggests that Christians should forgive their enemies, all Christians do not. The Koran, mainly in Sura 9 but in other places as well, commands Muslims kill their enemies, Many if not most Muslims are unaware of the command. Although Muslim leaders are quick to point this out to their followers when needed.
It is possible to turn an enemy into a friend. Does Islam admit such a possibility? If so, is it possible with someone outside the faith?
The Quran 9:23 states: “O you who believe, do not take your fathers and your brothers as your friends, if they prefer infidelity to Faith. Those of you who have friendship with them are the wrongdoers”.
The Quran, according to Islamists, should be taken literally. It is the direct word of Allah and is not subject to interpretation. This means of course that a devout Muslim could not take an Infidel as a friend.
The Quran is not organized chronologically so it is wrong to view Surah 9 as following, in time Surah 8 or precedes Surah 10. The chronological order of reveation has some importance because of contradictions between Surahs. Later ones have standing over previous ones.
I'm not going any further into this question because the discussion could become endless. Look at Lorenzo's comment. He lists other sources on Islam and from there I'm sure you can get started on answering other questions like this.
That sounds a lot like St. Paul's second letter to the Corinthians: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch not the unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, And ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (KJV 6:14-18)
Most Christians today don't take that seriously, or a lot of other things in the Bible, like Jesus saying, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (KJV Matthew 10:34-35)
I think many people just assume that Muslims will stop taking those verses seriously, like western Christians do. After all, the arc of history ...
Arnold, thank you for posting the exchange in full and without additional comment. I appreciate this. I also agree that the contributions of Handle are worth reading, since some of the responses above are to him rather than directly to you.
If the belief that "there's no solution" is what draws our this argument, is like to sketch one. Imagine at some point Israel controls Gaza and all know Hamas leaders are neutralized. Set up multiple charter cities / refugee cities / sustainable development zones in Gaza. Doesn't have to be all of it, and you can leave some areas to "democratically elected" governance. Palestinians who leave the open areas and join one of the charter cities have to give something up (maybe signing away their "right if return") but get the choice to not be ruled by Hamas. In my imagination, these zones are administered by some large maquilladora firm with security from Constellis (neé Blackwater). Any zone that is a source of attacks in Israel are liable.
This solution has two aspects that I find valuable. 1) I think most Palestinians are angry and hate Israel, but it's a luxury belief. Having that belief looses them nothing in their lives, and we should change that. 2) The best way to improve the world is to give people more choices, then let people handle the consequences of those choices. I'd like a way to sift out the most rational of the population.
I get the sense a lot of people can't deal with reality. The reality is that the Palestinians would be very happy to see every Jew in Israel dead, and, please, don't tell me that Hamas isn't supported by a majority of Palestinians- I am not falling for that lie. What has happened in the last 3 weeks is that the Israelis would now be happy if every Palestinian in Gaza and the West Bank were dead, too.
Here is the reality:
(1) The Palestinians are never going to get their land back from Israel proper, or that lost on the West Bank to the settlers;
(2) There isn't going to be a two-state solution- the Palestinians were given complete rule in Gaza and Hamas' depredations is what they did with it over a period of 16 years. The place is a bigger sh**hole than it was 16 years ago. It will be a bigger one 16 years from now. This experiment at letting the Palestinians govern themselves has failed utterly.
I don't know what Israel is going to do in the next 3 months- they are clearly being heavily coerced by the United States to agree to a cease-fire while only getting the remaining living hostages returned as a reward for doing so. Is a cease-fire politically tenable after the massacre? I don't know. I would think that a cease-fire should require Qatar to turn over Hamas' leadership residing in Doha to the Israelis, and require the Palestinians to turn over the Hamas soldiers and leadership in Gaza- neither of which are going to happen- again, we are looking at reality, not fantasy.
I wrote 3 weeks ago that the only humanitarian solution ever likely to occur would be Israel cutting off the water, the electrical power it had been supplying, cutting off all trade, and closing the border gates between Israel and Gaza completely, then mining the perimeter to a depth of 500 feet and shooting down anything that comes in over the fence without warning. Such a solution would be condemned worldwide, too, and still leave Israel an international pariah.
Sethi makes a big deal about how no one has an idea about how to solve this problem, but not proposing ideas is a copout still. I suspect Sethi is someone who wants to go back the status quo of October 6th, but is afraid of being ridiculed for suggesting it.
"The reality is that the Palestinians would be very happy to see every Jew in Israel dead, and, please, don't tell me that Hamas isn't supported by a majority of Palestinians"
While a majority voted for Hamas, we don't know if a majority voted for Hamas for that reason. It does not logically tell us whether a majority want all Israeli Jews dead.
Good one, Stu.
From Freddie's Substack:
"In terms of the in real life interlocuters that I’ve debated over these questions, one of the more disturbing and yet more affable was someone I met randomly during grad school. He was a reservist with the IDF. He was indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians and felt that the long term solution was to expel them from the region, into Egypt or Jordan or wherever else. I pointed out that this was ethnic cleansing, and to my surprise he agreed; he acknowledged that what he was describing was ethnic cleansing, but maintained that Palestinians deserve no Geneva Convention protections, and anyway, it was necessary. And when I said to him that Israel is an ethnonationalist state, again, he readily admitted that was true. That was the whole point. Over time, as I poked and prodded about human rights, and the egalitarian ideal, and the basic concept of liberalism, he made himself very plain: he acknowledged that those ideals were in conflict in the concept of a Jewish state, and he chose support for the Jewish state. That was more important to him. Israel was a reality; universal human rights were an abstraction. An abstraction, and a luxury for others."
When we defeated Germany and Japan it was fairly straightforward to reboot those societies. They had what it took to build successful and prosperous futures.
That isn't the case with the Palestinians. Low human capital. They won't be able to build successful futures. And when they are unsuccessful they will blame someone (Israel) for their lack of success and we will get a new Hamas all over again.
Not because the Israeli's caused the Palestinians plight (if Israel was never formed Palestine would probably be a another poor unsuccessful middle eastern country).
Not because the IDF kills civilians. We killed a lot of civilians in other wars and people moved on.
Because they are Arabs.
Maybe if they were sitting on a lot of oil relative to their population like the UAE they could sell it for the semblance of a successful society, but they don't have that.
It was perhaps a mistake of the Jews to try to found their country in such an inhospitable land, but it's done now. To the victor go the spoils. The Palestinians will not move on from their loss until they are scattered far away from Israel.
This whole thing has the weird subtext that Israel has the Midas touch to confer upon Palestinians a beautiful dream of citizenship with freedom and dignity that is surely rare in the Muslim political world (as distinct from the private world of Islam, which is opaque to me obv.).
And in a way I guess this has some basis in fact since *as a minority* Arab Israelis seem to be doing alright in that regard. But it's also kind of ludicrous, this expectation, no? Apart from the math? And once again, we see that the anti-semitism has that odd paradoxical flavor of - Jews are the master race thay can do anything they set their minds to - *and must*.
And I will add, that people keep bringing up Indian reservations. America got pretty lucky with its Indian population. Because they are not like Palestinians. Sure, it's sad to hear stats about dysfunction among native Americans, especially around substance abuse, and disconcerting to see all the horrible dreary PSA signs the government and various churches have littered all over the reservations; and the of-course-hollow promise that is casino gambling (which just seems remote from most of them, no matter how many casinos spring up).
But overall Indians seem very realistic to me. They just seem to know intuitively that some things are incompatible, and they are not very compatible with American consumerism and perpetual striving after goals they may not care about and various other aspects of our culture. Education, whatever. It's just what it is. And yes, this lends a certain dignity - that activists only chip away at, but so far have not destroyed.
We do know and we know for certain. Demographics is Destiny.
Ask the Governor General of Texas in 1836 about how well all the Gringos flooding into Texas worked out for Mexico.
We don't know how Indians would act if they were 50% of the population.
And that 50% number is just within Israel/Palestine. If we include the entire Arab world obviously they vastly outnumber the Jews, and that Arab world does support them to some degree.
Blacks are 13% and they cause a lot more ruckus.
I mean if I was 1% of the population I would intuitively understand that if I started up some shit I'd get smacked down and accomplish nothing, so I might as well try another tack.
The issue with the left on Israel I have noticed is that their arguments, suggested solutions, and demands of Israel are the exact same as they would have been had they been asked for their opinions on October 6th. They condemn the attacks, but then go on to discuss how Israel should act as if nothing has changed. This conversation reminds me a lot of the Ezra Klein / Peter Beinart conversation two weeks ago. Arnold - who doesn't just condemn what happened, but recognizes it must be reckoned with - could have been talking to a pre-recorded version of Sethi from last month.
What if the Saudis annex Gaza? "Neom II on the Med" has a great ring to it, and the Saudis have no qualms in repressing dissent.
- Saudis get Med beach side real estate and access to Israel's tech sector. Large investment projects can link Gaza to the Gulf via high speed rail, pipelines, etc. There will be too much money on the line to risk further war.
- Gazans get the ability to move to SA and access a much larger economy with high wages.
- Israelis get a quiet neighbor and peace with the largest Sunni nation, effectively ending the Israel-Arab conflict.
We need to think outside the box!
I'm so corrupted by the American real estate obsession that I keep thinking of that angle too. The Mediterranean! No hurricanes! People love to redevelop stuff!
When they finish that, they can redevelop South Padre Island, which has a sucky 70s vibe.
I am an enormous fan of Arnold’s analysis most generally, AND I am disgusted by the media pandering that is happening on both obvious “sides” of this intractable conflict (particularly, the pro-Hamas ignorance from the fashionably left side-side of the spectrum), HOWEVER, it’s clear that a point (sincere or not) made here by Sethi is correct: Hamas is simply the next in a long line of brutal responses (opportunistic or not) to an entire body of people’s who have been displaced for many years by the artificial establishment of the political Jewish state which led to many years of violent retaliations and subsequent defensive responses and ultimately, political separation by ethnicity. Aborigines in the Americas were essentially extinguished. Today’s warfare and capabilities provided through global capitalism make asymmetric warfare less effective. Sethis point that Hamas will be replaced while Israel will clearly continue to be isolated as an etho-national state (my words) is clear. I don’t think he is suggesting a solution, but continuing to hammer on Palestinians as a proxy for Hamas is probably not a good, long term solution. Sadly, I cannot suggest a solution and perhaps in support of Arnold’s sentiment (and Sethis), it’s pretty clear than Israel will likely only continue to be attacked regardless of what they do. By Hamas, or the next guy.
"Aborigines in the Americas were essentially extinguished."
???
Yes.
Maybe someone else wants to interpret my use of language here. Maybe I’m using a bad word rather than making any factual error. I think I’m done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
Well, if it was a rhetorical fudge, it was a pretty audacious one. I am sorry if you felt attacked by a pedant.
Ah. So you were chastising me for not using the “proper” term to refer to my people. Thanks. I’ll make sure I comply next time. Please let me know when this changes again.
If your people are among the tens of millions of indigenous people of the Americas - it was the “extinguished” that puzzled me. Obviously I neither know nor care who your people are any more than you do mine.
Arab States attacked Israel with 3 major wars and lost territories as it happens in any war when you lose. Austria, Hungary, Germany, Italy all lost plenty of land, France after Sedan had to indemnify Germany with monetary damages totaling 25% of GDP at the time, if I am not wrong. When it comes to the inhabitants of the area identified with Palestine they had a historical choice: either integrate over time within a democratic State and growing economy or keep fighting through wars and terrorism relentlessly. On the back of a largely false narrative. They never accepted any peace offer and they delegated people like Arafat or organizations like Hamas to represent their interests. The troubles in Northern Ireland didn’t end because of lack of ammunitions but because somehow there was the willingness to come to a deal. Lesson to be learned but that would require Palestinians to get rid of the mafia who governs them.
I've suggested a few ways to prevent "the next Hamas". Short of genocide, of course, which shouldn't be on the table. But all sorts of things that haven't been considered acceptable (massive scale Saledorean style incarceration, immigration, cultural and educational censorship) should be.
I would argue that these solution are consistent with Arnold's assertion that the Hamids of the world may be worse than Hamas. Why is it that there will be "the next Hamas" at some point in the future? Because the Hamids of the world will have a hand in creating them.
This is clear if you think about the drastic moral depravity of the Hamids of the world not with respect their Israeli or Jewish enemies, but with respect to their Palestinian "friends". What is the moral obligation of a friend?
A good friend looks out of for the long-term health and well-being of those he purports to care for. Hamids "care" for their Palestinian friends by justifying their hatred, nursing their grievances, and keeping them in poverty. That's not friendship, it's evil! it's the "friendship" of a cheering on a fight to the death.
A moral person would attempt to turn his friend away from eternal violence. There are literally endless ways to go about this. Offer to take them in, sponsor education, refuse to support violence and violent thoughts, counsel them to be productive and make something of their lives.
I submit that the Hamids of the world are no friends of Palestinians. They simply use them as props to their own political ends. Just like the most bloody-minded enemies of Russia will gladly fight to the last Ukrainian, these friends of Palestine have guided and cheered on self-destructive behavior at every turn.
I don't know anything else about Hamid but didn't have any problem with what he said in this WaPo piece. There is one comment I didn't agree with and the more I think about it, the more significant it becomes.
"Intellectual humility is difficult, but it should be easier for the powerful, because while they have more to lose, they are less likely to lose it."
Much as Arnold has suggested this probably isn't true. Israel is not only fighting for its existence but the continued ability of Jews to live in the middle east. Maybe there isn't a high probability of Israel losing what they have but Palestinians have little or nothing to lose. The issue is what Palestinians hope to gain (land). One could argue they have unrealistic expectations but either way, it definitely isn't what they could likely gain by ending their aggression (economic growth). Herein lies the issue. Might it be useful for there to be more public talk about what could be gained?
"openly celebrated the atrocities (as Arnold seems to do)"
I don't know to what atrocities Mr. Sethi refers, but his suggestion that Mr. Kling "openly celebrated [] atrocities" persuades me to disregard anything Sethi has to say. He's dishonest or deranged, and untrustworthy in either case.
You have completely misunderstood what I was saying, please read the original exchange. I was referring to the fact that Arnold hates people like Hamid more than he hates those who openly celebrated the atrocities. This is by his own admission, follow the link in his initial response to me. Arnold does not dispute or object to what I said here about his position on Hamid.
I see. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize for my misinterpretation and my consequent mischaracterization.
It's okay. I understand the conversation is a bit hard to follow without going to the original thread, and emotions are running high. Hopefully you don't think I'm dishonest or deranged (though of course I may be wrong on substance).
I don't. The syntactical complexity of your sentence, clear enough in retrospect, defeated me. I should've taken a breath before commenting. Thanks for your understanding.
Thanks for calling it syntactical complexity and not ambiguity! Either would have been accurate...
I hope you've forgotten the above exchange, but I want to apologize again, sincerely and unreservedly, for my initial reaction to your comment. I've recalled it with shame at least once a week since. Something must've had me pre-irked when I read it, but I have no idea what, and regardless my response was disgraceful. Your behavior, meanwhile, was admirable. Take care, and best wishes.
Arnold's position has a lot of logic to it that I don't think you're grappling with. To a large degree, I think anyone should recognize that "who to hate more" is an emotional stance, but to make sense of it, one must look at the underlying logic of it. Who's more responsible for an atrocity? Who should we fear most? Who's likely to do it again?"
To draw a parallel, who do I hate most amongst
1. A Nazi brownshirt who carries out Kristallnacht because they're average human beings carrying out orders and inculcated with beliefs they may hold strongly but don't think much about.
2. Bloodthirsty Germans who cheer them on because they're the kind of below average human beings that exist in some quantities everywhere but are usually discouraged by society.
3. The cool-headed Nazis who, after observing the widespread disgust in Germany with the racially animated persecution of Kristalnacht, did not openly embrace it (as even they didn't publicly embrace the final solution) but who worked tirelessly to eliminate this sympathy and justify feelings of hatred and violence against the Jews.
This third group is clearly the most evil, the most culpable, and the most to be feared. They're the animating spirit behind the persecution.
I can see the logic but strongly disagree with the claim (if that is what you are making here) that Hamid can be equated with the "cool-headed Nazis"
Even at the time, the "cool headed Nazis" category consisted of people who took independent and varied rhetorical approaches to Kristallnacht.
Put Hamid's rhetoric in that context:
"We can — and must — condemn the Nazis' heinous acts against Jewish civilians while refusing to forget that Jews have been perpetrators of brutal crimes against Germany."
Sounds more than a little inappropriate and on the wrong side of history. Now... you might argue that I've taken what he's saying out of context, but let's look at the context...
He starts off by addressing this as if he's going to come down on the right side by saying "But victimization isn’t a competition. Why must one form of suffering negate another?"
but then concludes by dismissing this and coming down clearly on the side of "bothsidesism":
"Some will condemn this as “bothsidesism,” but there are, quite literally, two primary parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with competing — and, sadly, irreconcilable — narratives. How could it be otherwise?"
Well, it could be otherwise in a lot of ways, but the act of constraining the discourse to this stunted, and self-destructive dynamic doesn't allow for it.
Now, I'm more favorable to some of what he says afterward (about both sides having moral agency), but much of his preening about the "morally indefensible" Israelis and "no ethical case" for "brutalizing Palestinians" puts the lie to the intent of a lot of what might otherwise be productive contributions.
I particularly like his conclusion, where he says, "Morality cannot be situational. We are all products of structures beyond our control, but this does not mean we are prisoners to them."
I particularly dislike that the meat of his article (at least directly with respect to Israel) is at odds with this. Once you recognize that we are products of structures beyond our control, we have a duty to stop reinforcing and being in thrall them. You can't say that, and at the same time say you have a moral imperative to remember (and bring up at every turn) the wrongs done by the other side.
“Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
If the Jews did what the Nazi's say they did, then the final solution was justified. If they did not, it wasn't.
We condemn the Nazi's because we feel they were wrong about the nature of the Jews, not because if the picture of Jews put forth by the Nazi's was true it would be right to let them run loose.
If I were to propose a general principle it is this:
1) People often attribute crimes to others they are not guilty of
2) People often assume a higher degree of retribution is necessary to get the desired outcome
3) Collective guilt especially is nasty
Since trying to convince anyone of these things in the heat of the moment is difficult there is value in universal restraining principles (universal human rights) which we are supposed to respect even when we don't think we should.
And I think that is good as far as it goes. It probably isn't "universally true", but 9/10 it makes things better than worse.
So getting back to the Palestinians, if you had been driven out of your land, put under occupation, lived in massive poverty, and all of your attempts to change the situation without violence had failed, wouldn't you be justified in violence?
I disagree because I disagree with that narrative, but if I thought it was true I would have a lot more sympathy for the Palestinians. I might even find violence understandable, given the amount of time more peaceful means have been tried and failed. I think I've made clear why I don't find that narrative compelling though.
I'd argue that even if they (the Nazis) were literally correct in their allegations, collective guilt being bad would make their actions unacceptable.
Anyway, the real question to me is whether anyone could reasonably say "all of your attempts to change the situation without violence had failed".
Hah, maybe they literally could say that, because they've made no attempts to change their situation without violence, and their friends have mostly not allowed them to.
They've nursed and educated generations of their children to demand violence. They turn every conceivable thing, from pipes for water to rocks to their own ascetic dismissal of all other goals, to the end of committing violence. And the rest of the world, mostly, only encourages this.
The Palestinians will be deserving of sympathy when they, as a people, don't so well personify Captain Ahab. But mostly, it's "To the last I grapple with thee; from Hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
I repeat, there is no reading of Hamid's article under which he can be likened to a cool-headed Nazi. None. I understand that you disagree.
Then you should be able to respond to the passages I'm quoting from the article and identify where I am mistaken.
Let me boil it down to the essentials:
"We... must... refus[e] to forget that Israel has been a perpetrator of a brutal occupation against Palestinians. [T]here are... two... parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... sadly, irreconcilable."
"How could it be otherwise?"
No matter how sad he might be about it, when you boil it down to the essentials, is he not saying the sides are irreconcilable? And he forthrightly demands that we not forget the oppression the other side has done to the side for which he has more sympathy.
He offers no way out. He requires that we dwell on (his version) of the past, and nurse these grievances. But the way to reconciliation, or at least living, is work toward letting them go.
To do otherwise... well, maybe Hamid isn't personally bloodthirsty enough to enact a Final Solution, but he offers no alternatives, and allows no exit from the path.
There are at least two Native American tribes that have proved extraordinarily adept at demonstrating compatibility with American consumerism:
googl "Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community" and/or "Cherokee Nation Businsesses."
Why other tribes have not followed their example, I do not know....
Also worth noting that the board of directors of the Cherokee Nation Businesses - do not look nearly as Cherokee as a few people I saw around the Indian Affairs office in that little town; and they certainly do not look as Indian, say, as I feel certain that analogous Navajo leaders look.
I was in a little Cherokee town a few months ago, that was so cute. I mean not because Indian stuff is cute - rather in the sense that some towns have the wit to make themselves appealing so as to draw tourists. Interestingly my husband recalled it being pretty dismal when he was a kid, while a town down the road was the cuter, more thriving one. Now flipped.
I will have to look up the name in a minute.
Many nice businesses, landscaping, the sort of street lights the Commerce department seems to furnish via Main Street grants, street signs in Cherokee … the river an amenity for fly fishermen.
However, the motel we stayed at - the Drama Inn - was not operated by a Cherokee. In general, one would not have known it was a reservation were it not for the signs.
ETA: duh, the town is called Cherokee; the river is the Oconaluftee.
None of this happens, of course, without the designation of the national park …
Cherokee, North Carolina and Great Smoky Mountains National Park? Though the Park was established in 1934 (and was the site of a lot of Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration activity).
Yes, precisely. The town is one of the gateways to the park. Insofar as the area thrives, it does so because of the park.
Interesting that this came up in the context of a debate about Gaza. A good deal of the land for Great Smoky Mountains National Park was sold by people who could no longer make a living farming and hunting or who simply forfeited the land for nonpayment of taxes (the Great depression sped up a long-term decline). But some of it resulted from "ethnic cleansing". The feds declared that people within the boundaries of the new Park had to leave. And there were more than a few of them.
This is why the park has always been free. And boy howdy have the descendants of the mountain people made the most of it, in and out of the park.
Only this past spring did NPS initiate a $5 "parking fee" and absurdly, the rangers were hearing about it in the visitors' center! It is essentially voluntary and of course it is still free to drive the US highway through the park..
It's especially poignant to drive through Cades Cove and think about the people's lives.* It's hard not to think - this was paradise, and they had to give it up. Now I don't know if that was true in more than an aesthetic sense, and the feds there and elsewhere in the South felt, I believe, that the land use was mostly unproductive ...
Also, some sections of the park were owned by timber companies that engaged in thoroughly ruinous practices; there is no reason to lament them! In fact, you can now tour a little sort of "company town resort" within the park, right off the main road. That and a sort of lodge were grandfathered in through the 20th century, and only reverted to NPS a couple decades ago. It's a weird little spot. You can just walk right into the little cottages which some Friends group is restoring, liking the architecture I guess. Not sure this is a great use of funds, but whatever.
*You will drive through slowly! Everybody stops for the bears, of course. At one point we were halted about 15 minutes. I was peering through the binoculars at what everyone seemed to be looking at. "I'm not sure it isn't a turkey", I said. If all these people have stopped for a turkey, my husband muttered, but did not complete the threat.
That should have been a Reply to luciaphile's post about native Americans and American consumerism. My bad.