This is one if the most persistently self-delusional pieces ever written about the conflict.
The author first fails to understand that the Oslo process was all along a ruse by the Palestinian side to destroy the Jewish stage by stages. The PA rejected several generous peace deals offered by Leftist Israeli leaders and responded not with counteroffers but with Intifadas.
The second big thing the author misses is that the fundamental opposition to Israel’s existence is Islamist. The Islamist perspective rejects the liberal idea naively championed by the author that we all need to live together and respect one another. Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and many others are all highly illiberal and are dedicated to imposing their ideology on the world. That includes killing or forcibly converting all Jews. They also feel a religious obligation to retake any lands that were once conquered by Islam.
The other glaring omission is failing to recognize the hand of the Shia theocracy of Iran in all this. Israel faces a threat from Hezbollah and Iran in the north greater than the threat from Hamas. Hamas was being at least partly supplies by Iran. Iran is also behind the Houthis.
The lesson of Oct 7 was that the idea of appeasing Hamas with a de facto two state solution with territory to rule and money to buy luxuries was stupid. The most pro-Palestinian Israelis were raped, killed, and mutilated. Their politics did not matter- only murdering and desecrating Jews. Hamas kidnapped and is still holding hostages. Did it ever occur to the author that hostage takers are irreconcilably non-liberal and must be defeated the way the Nazis were defeated. The author refuses to learn the lesson of Oct 7 and instead proposes another failed peace process that will just get more Jews killed.
That's kind of weird, because a straightforward interpretation of your above comment might (or maybe even "is almost guaranteed to") lead one to believe that liberalism is necessarily good, as opposed to the actually correct answer, it is unknown whether liberalism is good.
I think liberalism IS good in the sense that it is not authoritarian and allows greater freedom to be wrong and allows greater opportunity to take corrective action when things go wrong.
The essay that gave rise to these comments does not argue that either side of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is “100% correct” but is arguing that liberalism provides the only realistic path for an eventual imperfect messy resolution.
> I think liberalism IS good in the sense that it is not authoritarian
a) Are you referring to the abstract definition (or ~"intent") of liberalism, or the object level thing itself (a comprehensive summary of all actions by all actors within all systems *identified/perceived as* liberal)?
b) If a competing system objectively had 75% better results, would you still identify liberalism as "good", under 100% of scenarios?
I assume you're using "therefore, consequently" for the meaning of "So..." - care to explain what in my comment makes that assertion? Or are you saying something else?
> Should the West have taken their viewpoints into consideration, or something?
Humans are welcome to take whatever they'd like into consideration, or not, and Mother Nature will reward you accordingly.
> Do you cowardly appeasers not even hear yourselves?
Do you Allistic Normies have *any* sense of how confused you are about reality?
Imagine not being able to call for the military destruction of an entity as blatantly evil as Hamas and then accusing others of being confused about reality.
I will never condemn righteous Palestinian resistance to genocide and ethnic cleansing Palestine will be free from the river to the sea in our lifetimes! Israel will be fought all over the world
For decades in the early 20th century, there was an influx of Jews to Ottoman (and later, British Mandate) "Palestine", and they bought their own land. There were anti-Jewish riots in the decades BEFORE 1948. That's when we learned what "Palestine' is all about: "Jews not welcome here."
A narrative of Exile and Return has been a defining element of Jewish identity throughout the world for over 2,000 years. Are you saying that Jews must repudiate that sustained, distinguishing narrative ("Next year in Jerusalem") -- in effect, that Jews must repudiate Judaism -- or, worse, that Jewish identity is a fraud?
It's one thing to condemn the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, ostensibly in Israel's "self-defense." It's quite another thing to declare that "Israel will be fought all over the world."
In the words of Matt Yglesias: "The specific thing that has transfixed a global audience of idealistic young people is the concrete suffering of Palestinian civilians. That’s something that could be resolved far short of dissolving the State of Israel."
> For decades in the early 20th century, there was an influx of Jews to Ottoman (and later, British Mandate) "Palestine", and they bought their own land. There were anti-Jewish riots in the decades BEFORE 1948. That's when we learned what "Palestine' is all about: "Jews not welcome here."
It's interesting how they seem to have trouble wherever they go in the world. Seems to me there's a saying about that.
> A narrative of Exile and Return has been a defining element of Jewish identity throughout the world for over 2,000 years. Are you saying that Jews must repudiate that sustained, distinguishing narrative ("Next year in Jerusalem") -- in effect, that Jews must repudiate Judaism -- or, worse, that Jewish identity is a fraud?
They could lay off on the Meme Magic narratives a bit, and maybe work on some other things.
> It's one thing to condemn the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, ostensibly in Israel's "self-defense." It's quite another thing to declare that "Israel will be fought all over the world."
If the J's don't like it, maybe they should stop slaughtering Palestinians. Just an idea!!
> In the words of Matt Yglesias: "The specific thing that has transfixed a global audience of idealistic young people is the concrete suffering of Palestinian civilians. That’s something that could be resolved far short of dissolving the State of Israel."
"Maybe they should stop slaughtering Palestinians"? I agree -- but meanwhile, you don't seem to have a problem slaughtering Jews....
You write: "It's interesting how [Jews] seem to have trouble wherever they go in the world. Seems to me there's a saying about that."
Seems to me there's a term for that sort of animus toward Jews. And if the outcome is that "Israel will be fought all over the world," I guess that might bring about a Final Solution (to the trouble wherever Jews go in the world).
> "Maybe they should stop slaughtering Palestinians"? I agree -- but meanwhile, you don't seem to have a problem slaughtering Jews....
I have not even punched a Jew, let alone slaughter one. You People are fond of story telling, aren't you. News flash: some of us don't like people telling tall tales, especially when it leads to people dying.
> Seems to me there's a term for that sort of animus toward Jews.
There sure is! And it has been weaponized via this popular technique:
> And if the outcome is that "Israel will be fought all over the world," I guess that might bring about a Final Solution (to the trouble wherever Jews go in the world).
It may indeed! Best put on your thinking cap and work on optimizing your strategies.
> Stop right there. You've said quite enough!
No. You are welcome to continue telling stories though, they are fun to mock.
After what they've done to the Palestinians, I can certainly see how someone could feel that way. Also, I'm "not a fan" of propaganda, and imho Israel is the best at it, so that's not doing them any favours in my assessment.
Thank you for this thoughtful essay. I agree with a lot of what you say. Except for one very major point, and I'd like to hear what Palestinians have to say about this. But in all my conversations, I have never had the impression that "dishonor" is the key fear for them, but rather justice or Injustice in terms of how they've been treated. And especially that these ongoing injustices have been virtually ignored, despite bouts of peace-making like Oslo, by Western democracies, and most especially the US, that pride themselves on "justice for all". I'm wondering how that might change your essay, because the experience of injustice is very different from the perception of dishonor. I condemn what Hamas did 100%, and they clearly leave zero room for any sustainable vision of the future between these two peoples, based on their promise to repeat the acts of October 7th again and again. But what their actions do, in provoking Israel's response, is to bring the injustices being suffered by Palestinians into global focus, after most everyone else (myself included) had ignored them for 20+ years. Shame on us for closing our eyes. And I have heard from Israelis about how alone and unprotected this makes them feel. I come back to agreeing with you in many of your arguments here for how to proceed now. But I do think you're wrong on the idea of dishonor, and I think understanding the Palestinian sense of injustice, ignored in a hypocritical way by powerful democracies, could change the argument in potentially constructive ways.
Thank you for this thoughtful response and question. To some extent you are correct, although for me justice itself can only be validated by something like liberalism. Is an autocrat's diktat just, even if it might be good or increase well-being? So my argument for liberalism incorporates the answer to your question, to a degree.
Looking at it another way: I think about Arab citizens of Israel proper (not Arabs in the West Bank). They live in an unjust reality of massive discrimination against them. It's not at all Apartheid, or even Jim Crow, but its unjust. Yet there is remarkably little violence against Jews from this community. What anti-Jewish violence has cropped up has been largely the work of organized crime, and it has been sporadic. The vast majority of violence in this community is against other Arabs in a terrible, criminal way. Why is this? They have an unjust reality. Yet they have honor. They are citizens. They can vote. They have political parties in the Knesset (getting closer and closer to real political power).
Lastly, a third angle on this question: imagine the Palestinians could achieve something like just reparations. Monetary payments for homes lost in 1948 and 1967. Autonomous control over a viable territory including water rights. Land swaps. The UAE building a Dubai on the Med. I hold that extremists would have an easy time pressing on historic dishonor in order to keep the fight going no matter how much justice the Palestinian population might experience. It might be harder, because people would be more invested in a lovely status quo, but only the honor that comes with full political autonomy and a Palestinian version of liberal democracy would inoculate the population against a Hamas.
This is one if the most persistently self-delusional pieces ever written about the conflict.
The author first fails to understand that the Oslo process was all along a ruse by the Palestinian side to destroy the Jewish stage by stages. The PA rejected several generous peace deals offered by Leftist Israeli leaders and responded not with counteroffers but with Intifadas.
The second big thing the author misses is that the fundamental opposition to Israel’s existence is Islamist. The Islamist perspective rejects the liberal idea naively championed by the author that we all need to live together and respect one another. Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and many others are all highly illiberal and are dedicated to imposing their ideology on the world. That includes killing or forcibly converting all Jews. They also feel a religious obligation to retake any lands that were once conquered by Islam.
The other glaring omission is failing to recognize the hand of the Shia theocracy of Iran in all this. Israel faces a threat from Hezbollah and Iran in the north greater than the threat from Hamas. Hamas was being at least partly supplies by Iran. Iran is also behind the Houthis.
The lesson of Oct 7 was that the idea of appeasing Hamas with a de facto two state solution with territory to rule and money to buy luxuries was stupid. The most pro-Palestinian Israelis were raped, killed, and mutilated. Their politics did not matter- only murdering and desecrating Jews. Hamas kidnapped and is still holding hostages. Did it ever occur to the author that hostage takers are irreconcilably non-liberal and must be defeated the way the Nazis were defeated. The author refuses to learn the lesson of Oct 7 and instead proposes another failed peace process that will just get more Jews killed.
Iliberals always think liberalism is delusional.
Those who cannot even call for the military destruction of Hamas are not on the liberal side.
Do you believe that one side is 100% correct and the other 100% incorrect?
I don’t even believe *I* am 100% correct.
That's kind of weird, because a straightforward interpretation of your above comment might (or maybe even "is almost guaranteed to") lead one to believe that liberalism is necessarily good, as opposed to the actually correct answer, it is unknown whether liberalism is good.
I think liberalism IS good in the sense that it is not authoritarian and allows greater freedom to be wrong and allows greater opportunity to take corrective action when things go wrong.
The essay that gave rise to these comments does not argue that either side of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is “100% correct” but is arguing that liberalism provides the only realistic path for an eventual imperfect messy resolution.
> I think liberalism IS good in the sense that it is not authoritarian
a) Are you referring to the abstract definition (or ~"intent") of liberalism, or the object level thing itself (a comprehensive summary of all actions by all actors within all systems *identified/perceived as* liberal)?
b) If a competing system objectively had 75% better results, would you still identify liberalism as "good", under 100% of scenarios?
So, the Nazi's had a point did they? Should the West have taken their viewpoints into consideration, or something?
Do you cowardly appeasers not even hear yourselves?
> So, the Nazi's had a point did they?
I assume you're using "therefore, consequently" for the meaning of "So..." - care to explain what in my comment makes that assertion? Or are you saying something else?
> Should the West have taken their viewpoints into consideration, or something?
Humans are welcome to take whatever they'd like into consideration, or not, and Mother Nature will reward you accordingly.
> Do you cowardly appeasers not even hear yourselves?
Do you Allistic Normies have *any* sense of how confused you are about reality?
Imagine not being able to call for the military destruction of an entity as blatantly evil as Hamas and then accusing others of being confused about reality.
Imagine not being able to even try to respond to questions regarding your claims of fact.
I look forward to more stories.
Haha, what an inventive story!
I will never condemn righteous Palestinian resistance to genocide and ethnic cleansing Palestine will be free from the river to the sea in our lifetimes! Israel will be fought all over the world
You’re perfectly demonstrating the sub rational mindset he wrote about.
It seems fairly reasonable to me, what's your problem with it?
Who picked this fight?
For decades in the early 20th century, there was an influx of Jews to Ottoman (and later, British Mandate) "Palestine", and they bought their own land. There were anti-Jewish riots in the decades BEFORE 1948. That's when we learned what "Palestine' is all about: "Jews not welcome here."
A narrative of Exile and Return has been a defining element of Jewish identity throughout the world for over 2,000 years. Are you saying that Jews must repudiate that sustained, distinguishing narrative ("Next year in Jerusalem") -- in effect, that Jews must repudiate Judaism -- or, worse, that Jewish identity is a fraud?
It's one thing to condemn the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, ostensibly in Israel's "self-defense." It's quite another thing to declare that "Israel will be fought all over the world."
In the words of Matt Yglesias: "The specific thing that has transfixed a global audience of idealistic young people is the concrete suffering of Palestinian civilians. That’s something that could be resolved far short of dissolving the State of Israel."
Live and let live!
> Who picked this fight?
Opinions (typically perceived as facts) vary.
> For decades in the early 20th century, there was an influx of Jews to Ottoman (and later, British Mandate) "Palestine", and they bought their own land. There were anti-Jewish riots in the decades BEFORE 1948. That's when we learned what "Palestine' is all about: "Jews not welcome here."
It's interesting how they seem to have trouble wherever they go in the world. Seems to me there's a saying about that.
> A narrative of Exile and Return has been a defining element of Jewish identity throughout the world for over 2,000 years. Are you saying that Jews must repudiate that sustained, distinguishing narrative ("Next year in Jerusalem") -- in effect, that Jews must repudiate Judaism -- or, worse, that Jewish identity is a fraud?
They could lay off on the Meme Magic narratives a bit, and maybe work on some other things.
> It's one thing to condemn the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, ostensibly in Israel's "self-defense." It's quite another thing to declare that "Israel will be fought all over the world."
If the J's don't like it, maybe they should stop slaughtering Palestinians. Just an idea!!
> In the words of Matt Yglesias: "The specific thing that has transfixed a global audience of idealistic young people is the concrete suffering of Palestinian civilians. That’s something that could be resolved far short of dissolving the State of Israel."
Speculative.
> Live and let live!
Tell that to the J's.
Live and let live! -- "Tell that to the J's"?
I'm Jewish, and I said it (and mean it!) myself.
"Maybe they should stop slaughtering Palestinians"? I agree -- but meanwhile, you don't seem to have a problem slaughtering Jews....
You write: "It's interesting how [Jews] seem to have trouble wherever they go in the world. Seems to me there's a saying about that."
Seems to me there's a term for that sort of animus toward Jews. And if the outcome is that "Israel will be fought all over the world," I guess that might bring about a Final Solution (to the trouble wherever Jews go in the world).
Stop right there. You've said quite enough!
> I'm Jewish, and I said it myself.
Well, spread the word.
> "Maybe they should stop slaughtering Palestinians"? I agree -- but meanwhile, you don't seem to have a problem slaughtering Jews....
I have not even punched a Jew, let alone slaughter one. You People are fond of story telling, aren't you. News flash: some of us don't like people telling tall tales, especially when it leads to people dying.
> Seems to me there's a term for that sort of animus toward Jews.
There sure is! And it has been weaponized via this popular technique:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
> And if the outcome is that "Israel will be fought all over the world," I guess that might bring about a Final Solution (to the trouble wherever Jews go in the world).
It may indeed! Best put on your thinking cap and work on optimizing your strategies.
> Stop right there. You've said quite enough!
No. You are welcome to continue telling stories though, they are fun to mock.
“Palestine will be free from the river to the sea in our lifetimes! Israel will be fought all over the world” are reasonable goals to you?
After what they've done to the Palestinians, I can certainly see how someone could feel that way. Also, I'm "not a fan" of propaganda, and imho Israel is the best at it, so that's not doing them any favours in my assessment.
That didn’t answer my question.
Ah ok, try this: Yes, I think it is reasonable.
Appreciate the nuanced and informed opinion on this matter. That is hard to find right now.
Thank you for this thoughtful essay. I agree with a lot of what you say. Except for one very major point, and I'd like to hear what Palestinians have to say about this. But in all my conversations, I have never had the impression that "dishonor" is the key fear for them, but rather justice or Injustice in terms of how they've been treated. And especially that these ongoing injustices have been virtually ignored, despite bouts of peace-making like Oslo, by Western democracies, and most especially the US, that pride themselves on "justice for all". I'm wondering how that might change your essay, because the experience of injustice is very different from the perception of dishonor. I condemn what Hamas did 100%, and they clearly leave zero room for any sustainable vision of the future between these two peoples, based on their promise to repeat the acts of October 7th again and again. But what their actions do, in provoking Israel's response, is to bring the injustices being suffered by Palestinians into global focus, after most everyone else (myself included) had ignored them for 20+ years. Shame on us for closing our eyes. And I have heard from Israelis about how alone and unprotected this makes them feel. I come back to agreeing with you in many of your arguments here for how to proceed now. But I do think you're wrong on the idea of dishonor, and I think understanding the Palestinian sense of injustice, ignored in a hypocritical way by powerful democracies, could change the argument in potentially constructive ways.
Thank you for this thoughtful response and question. To some extent you are correct, although for me justice itself can only be validated by something like liberalism. Is an autocrat's diktat just, even if it might be good or increase well-being? So my argument for liberalism incorporates the answer to your question, to a degree.
Looking at it another way: I think about Arab citizens of Israel proper (not Arabs in the West Bank). They live in an unjust reality of massive discrimination against them. It's not at all Apartheid, or even Jim Crow, but its unjust. Yet there is remarkably little violence against Jews from this community. What anti-Jewish violence has cropped up has been largely the work of organized crime, and it has been sporadic. The vast majority of violence in this community is against other Arabs in a terrible, criminal way. Why is this? They have an unjust reality. Yet they have honor. They are citizens. They can vote. They have political parties in the Knesset (getting closer and closer to real political power).
Lastly, a third angle on this question: imagine the Palestinians could achieve something like just reparations. Monetary payments for homes lost in 1948 and 1967. Autonomous control over a viable territory including water rights. Land swaps. The UAE building a Dubai on the Med. I hold that extremists would have an easy time pressing on historic dishonor in order to keep the fight going no matter how much justice the Palestinian population might experience. It might be harder, because people would be more invested in a lovely status quo, but only the honor that comes with full political autonomy and a Palestinian version of liberal democracy would inoculate the population against a Hamas.