"Free Palestine from Israel? or Hamas? or both? Who is the trustworthy negotiating partner that represents the interests of the Palestinians now? Certainly it's not Hamas."
Yes, I agree completely. I even wrote an article entitled "Free Palestine From Hamas." The Palestinian people are the great losers in all of this. Controlled by Israel…
"Free Palestine from Israel? or Hamas? or both? Who is the trustworthy negotiating partner that represents the interests of the Palestinians now? Certainly it's not Hamas."
Yes, I agree completely. I even wrote an article entitled "Free Palestine From Hamas." The Palestinian people are the great losers in all of this. Controlled by Israel and ruled over by Hamas, neither of whom care whether they live or die. I oppose Hamas and I oppose what the Israeli government is doing and has done to them for decades. But I admit, my focus leans toward the group that is killing them by the tens of thousands right now.
I'm not narrowly choosing quotes. As I've said, I don't have an agenda here other than thinking through an end to the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people and a path to a lasting peace. When I talk to zionists, I obviously spend more time talking about the flaws in the Zionist narrative. When I talk to people who think Hamas are "freedom fighters" I spend more time talking about the sheer idiocy of that idea. But peace cannot be achieved without a clear-eyed recognition of both sides of this. The good and the bad.
A) I think David Ben-Gurion's quote sums up the situation perfectly. And is equally true today as it was all these years ago. There are serious conceptual problems with the founding of Israel. It's frustrating to see people today deny this or call noticing it antisemitic when the founding father of Israel understood them perfectly well.
And while, as I said to Tom, that's the situation we have and the Palestinians have to accept that, it's unreasonable to ignore the fact that they. have a valid grievance there.
You've never seen and will never see me write a word in defence of Hamas. But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether Israel has mistreated the Palestinian people. Palestinian protests against Hamas (which, again, I've written about) don't change Ben-Gurion's point or the injustices Israel is perpetrating. Palestinians are right to be protesting both.
B) My quote of Shlomo wasn't meant to be the final word on the Israel-Palestine peace process. As I said, quite clearly I think, it was a rebuttal to this half-brained talking point that Palestinians don't want peace because they turned down deals brokered by the U.S. The first question, in that case, should surely be, what were they offered? And Shlomo's point, is that what they were offered wasn't great.
And as I mention, there *is* a counter offer, sitting on the floor of the UN, which Palestine have agreed to, which hundreds of other member states support, and which has been vetoed repeatedly by, you guessed it, Israel and America. That doesn't mean Israel don't want peace either. It says you can't simply blame one side for the lack of a deal. Which is what Tom was trying to do.
You say this isn't a symmetric position. And I agree. But where that asymmetry lies depends entirely on the perspective you look at it from (See? There's that nuance you know and love😉). The Israeli government has been breaking international law and aiding and abetting extremists as they commit acts of aggression and terror against the Palestinians every single day. This has been true for decades.
Various Palestinian leaderships have countered this with brutal attacks on innocent civilian targets, most horrifically, on October 7th.
Hopefully everybody can agree that both of these are wrong. Which is worse? I have my feelings, as does everybody. But I frankly don't think the question is very useful. A peace process requires everybody to look forward. And part of that is recognising the futility of playing "who is worse" forever.
Agreed with much of what you wrote - I tried to read your article (Save Palestine from Hamas) but it was paywalled - fair enough! :)
A. You mention "thinking though an end...to a lasting peace". What do you imagine that looks like? I'm genuinely curious and it's not a loaded question - I feel like I only hear 3 different options, none of which is satisfying: 1) 2 state solution, but make it better this time. 2) No more Israel. 3) no more Palestine.
B. You also describe having issues with the founding of Israel - I assume you mean the Balfour declaration (1917) or do you mean the resolution of the Arab-Israel war in 1948/Nakba- you don't mention anything by name. As you certainly know, the "zionist" project was in response to the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust. Since you are, in principle, opposed to genocide, it seems odd not to recognize the underlying need or motivation here.
I could be mistaken, but at the time my understanding of history is that the Jews were mostly moving into unoccupied swampland, etc. and not overthrowing major metropolitan areas or taking desirable farmland. Indeed there was no state of "Palestine" in 1917, etc. for them to take as you know. So it's hard for me to grasp your specific beef with it all historically. What is the alternative there? A global diaspora of Jews vs. a specific state? I can't understand what you would advocate for in response to the Holocaust.
C. Lastly, you deride the notion that "Palestinians don't want peace". That's really hard to square with all of the available evidence - the squandering of a massive amount of global charity money on weapons instead of food and infrastructure, a charter (recently revised) that literally calls for the extermination of Jews, etc. The cheering after Oct 7th in the streets. I could go on, of course.
Per our prior dialogue, you can pin this on Hamas if you wish - but at some point you have to ascribe agency to people, even if they're subject to indoctrination from early on in life. To be fair, I don't doubt that there is a strong cohort of Palestinians who are increasingly tired of Hamas but scared to rise up - there have been recent cases where Hamas has brutally murdered people speaking up about this in the streets - but again if Palestinians aren't afraid to violently rise up against one class of oppressors (Israel) how is it fair to not expect them to rise up against their most local oppressors (Hamas)? It's one of many double standards that are again, frustrating.
I'm thinking through this as well, and I don't have a position other than Hamas had to know what the response to Oct 7th would be prior to acting. They knew the Palestinian people would suffer, and Israel would suffer - all while they sat in mansions in Qatar.
D. Question on media consumption/construction of reality - I'm also trying to sort out how to arrive at reliable figures on this - how are you sourcing numbers? I see things in some media on the thousands killed (which you gesture at), then I see media on the other side of the spectrum saying these numbers are from the Gaza ministry of health, and many of the "children" being killed are teenage freedom fighters and not innocents. And analyses of the numbers released by the Gaza ministry of health - the rapidity and absolute certainty of death tolls that get revised daily in unusual ways. It's just impossible for me to know what's going on so I'm curious how you're sorting through information.
"C. Lastly, you deride the notion that "Palestinians don't want peace". That's really hard to square with all of the available evidence - the squandering of a massive amount of global charity money on weapons instead of food and infrastructure, a charter (recently revised) that literally calls for the extermination of Jews, etc. The cheering after Oct 7th in the streets. I could go on, of course."
I'll address this one first, because I think it's the key reason why people see Palestine so differently.
The first point you mention, squandering global charity money on weapons, is obviously "pinned" on Hamas. Just as you don't decide how the U.S government spends money, the people of Gaza don't decide how Hamas spends money. I'm sure they'd rather that money was spent on food and infrastructure for them and their families. This is uncontroversial, no?
But as for the cheering in the street after Oct 7th, I think this is only confusing if you overlook a few things. First of all, I'm confident in saying that the majority of people in Gaza hate Israel. Not Jews necessarily, but Israel. And I find this incredibly easy to understand. If you or I were born and raised in Gaza, I'm almost certain we'd feel the same way.
And while I'm certain there's antisemitism mixed in with that, I think the key reason is the aforementioned rather brutal oppression Israel has inflicted on them for decades. So yes, I think Gazans, like all other human beings, want peace. But I think they want liberation from Israel's tyranny just as much. And I think while that tyranny persists, many of them will be happy that somebody has struck a blow against their enemies (it's worth noting here that polls suggest most Gazans are unaware of the full horror of what Hamas did, state media and all that).
So I don't judge them too harshly for their celebrations on October 7th. Of course, I disagree with them, but I haven't lived their life. It makes me think of Nat Turner's slave rebellion. Nat Turner killed dozens of women and children, even babies during his rebellion. Am I horrified by that? Of course! Do I condemn his actions from my position of safety and liberty? Absolutely. Would I judge slaves too harshly if they said they understood or approved of his aims, even if not his methods? No.
A. Yes, I'm in the "two-state solution but make it better" camp. This is clearly the only viable peaceful solution, regardless of whether it's difficult. And knowing what I know today, I place a significant chunk of the blame for the failure of a two-state solution on Israel. International law states that all of the land Israel has occupied since 1967 is illegally occupied. Palestine has said for over a decade that it will accept a two-state solution that includes a return to the 1967 borders and a right to return for Palestinians forced from their homes (this is also required by international law). Israel have refused to accept this, partly for reasons I'll come to later.
Given that Israel has broken these laws for so many decades, I acknowledge the there are major logistical problems with just moving all of the Israelis living in illegal settlements within Israel's borders. Compromise will be necessary from both sides here. It's going to be uncomfortable for all concerned. Just, I think, less uncomfortable than other 75 years of killing.
B. Yes, I'm opposed, in principle and in practice, to genocide. But that doesn't mean I think any action that uses the Holocaust as justification is right or makes sense. As I'm sure you know, Jews and Arabs have lived side-by-side in that part (and other parts) of the world, largely without issue for centuries. The problem with Israel, conceptually, is taking a part of that land, where Arabs were living, and saying, "This is ours. This is only (or at least very preferentially) for Jews."
The reason for the Nakba, the reason Israeli is so dead set against the right of return, the reason for the settlements, the reason a Jew born in Brooklyn has greater citizenship rights in that part of the Middle East than a Muslim born in Jerusalem, is because they want to maintain or create Jewish majorities as they slowly take over more land. Israel have been quite open about this.
Israel is the only place in the world where rights are granted not by birthplace, not by residency status, not even by religion (there are lots of secular Jews), but by group identity. Personally I don't think this concept can survive, because I think it's flawed at its root. I mean, just imagine an explicitly white or black or Mormon nation state, where people with this identity receive preferential treatment and the government openly manufactures majorities to ensure its influence.
Israel exists and I support its continued existence. But I think it needs to change.
D. I have no particular problem accepting figures from Gaza's health ministry. Given that there have been decades of killing, Hamas have had many occasions to report death figures. Those past figures have been independently verified, including by Israel, and always found to be accurate. The "ThOsE aRe HaMaS fIgUrEs" rhetoric is just a deflection in my opinion. We trust Israel's figures too. Even though they've gone from 1400 innocent civilians to 1200 to around 1000 to around 700 innocent civilians with another 300 or so soldiers.
Same goes for the "are they really children" rhetoric. According to current figures, around 10,000 children have been killed. That's people 17 and under. Let's assume that every single one of those 0-17-year-old boys is a child soldier. That leaves is with 5,000 baby and teenage girls killed in just 100 days. Fifty every single day, none of whom are Hamas. And remember, this horrific outcome is the best case scenario in which we have to imagine 2-year-old boys as "freedom fighters."
So as far as information goes, even if we assume dishonesty, and there's no solid reason to do so, the horror of what's happening is just overwhelming.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and share another layer of depth in how you're thinking about this very complex issue. Particularly regarding what a humane endpoint might look like and how you process or think about sources of information.
You've been a good-faith exponent for the principled version of (what strikes me as) a more pro-Palestinian perspective. As we've both stated, there are legitimate grievances on both ends, and fundamental asymmetries. Uncontroversially, I mourn for the dead on both sides, am horrified both by the thought of hostages (including babies) in the Gazan tunnels as well as the ongoing reports of decimation against the Palestinians. Everyone is wrong and everyone is righteous.
Before one can broker a more stable agreement, the thugs of Hamas must be ejected from power. I see scattered reports of Palestinians protesting them (as they refuse to eg distrubute aid or horde resources), but I don't know how to really move things forward until new leadership is recognized there. We might disagree on some finer points, but this has been a fruitful discussion for me; hopefully for you. A ceasefire is as temporary as the next suicide bomber or rocket, and just welcomes another inevitable cycle of reprisal and death. Some regions just enter into a mess and never emerge (Darfur).
"Free Palestine from Israel? or Hamas? or both? Who is the trustworthy negotiating partner that represents the interests of the Palestinians now? Certainly it's not Hamas."
Yes, I agree completely. I even wrote an article entitled "Free Palestine From Hamas." The Palestinian people are the great losers in all of this. Controlled by Israel and ruled over by Hamas, neither of whom care whether they live or die. I oppose Hamas and I oppose what the Israeli government is doing and has done to them for decades. But I admit, my focus leans toward the group that is killing them by the tens of thousands right now.
I'm not narrowly choosing quotes. As I've said, I don't have an agenda here other than thinking through an end to the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people and a path to a lasting peace. When I talk to zionists, I obviously spend more time talking about the flaws in the Zionist narrative. When I talk to people who think Hamas are "freedom fighters" I spend more time talking about the sheer idiocy of that idea. But peace cannot be achieved without a clear-eyed recognition of both sides of this. The good and the bad.
A) I think David Ben-Gurion's quote sums up the situation perfectly. And is equally true today as it was all these years ago. There are serious conceptual problems with the founding of Israel. It's frustrating to see people today deny this or call noticing it antisemitic when the founding father of Israel understood them perfectly well.
And while, as I said to Tom, that's the situation we have and the Palestinians have to accept that, it's unreasonable to ignore the fact that they. have a valid grievance there.
You've never seen and will never see me write a word in defence of Hamas. But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether Israel has mistreated the Palestinian people. Palestinian protests against Hamas (which, again, I've written about) don't change Ben-Gurion's point or the injustices Israel is perpetrating. Palestinians are right to be protesting both.
B) My quote of Shlomo wasn't meant to be the final word on the Israel-Palestine peace process. As I said, quite clearly I think, it was a rebuttal to this half-brained talking point that Palestinians don't want peace because they turned down deals brokered by the U.S. The first question, in that case, should surely be, what were they offered? And Shlomo's point, is that what they were offered wasn't great.
And as I mention, there *is* a counter offer, sitting on the floor of the UN, which Palestine have agreed to, which hundreds of other member states support, and which has been vetoed repeatedly by, you guessed it, Israel and America. That doesn't mean Israel don't want peace either. It says you can't simply blame one side for the lack of a deal. Which is what Tom was trying to do.
You say this isn't a symmetric position. And I agree. But where that asymmetry lies depends entirely on the perspective you look at it from (See? There's that nuance you know and love😉). The Israeli government has been breaking international law and aiding and abetting extremists as they commit acts of aggression and terror against the Palestinians every single day. This has been true for decades.
Various Palestinian leaderships have countered this with brutal attacks on innocent civilian targets, most horrifically, on October 7th.
Hopefully everybody can agree that both of these are wrong. Which is worse? I have my feelings, as does everybody. But I frankly don't think the question is very useful. A peace process requires everybody to look forward. And part of that is recognising the futility of playing "who is worse" forever.
Hi Steve,
Agreed with much of what you wrote - I tried to read your article (Save Palestine from Hamas) but it was paywalled - fair enough! :)
A. You mention "thinking though an end...to a lasting peace". What do you imagine that looks like? I'm genuinely curious and it's not a loaded question - I feel like I only hear 3 different options, none of which is satisfying: 1) 2 state solution, but make it better this time. 2) No more Israel. 3) no more Palestine.
B. You also describe having issues with the founding of Israel - I assume you mean the Balfour declaration (1917) or do you mean the resolution of the Arab-Israel war in 1948/Nakba- you don't mention anything by name. As you certainly know, the "zionist" project was in response to the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust. Since you are, in principle, opposed to genocide, it seems odd not to recognize the underlying need or motivation here.
I could be mistaken, but at the time my understanding of history is that the Jews were mostly moving into unoccupied swampland, etc. and not overthrowing major metropolitan areas or taking desirable farmland. Indeed there was no state of "Palestine" in 1917, etc. for them to take as you know. So it's hard for me to grasp your specific beef with it all historically. What is the alternative there? A global diaspora of Jews vs. a specific state? I can't understand what you would advocate for in response to the Holocaust.
C. Lastly, you deride the notion that "Palestinians don't want peace". That's really hard to square with all of the available evidence - the squandering of a massive amount of global charity money on weapons instead of food and infrastructure, a charter (recently revised) that literally calls for the extermination of Jews, etc. The cheering after Oct 7th in the streets. I could go on, of course.
Per our prior dialogue, you can pin this on Hamas if you wish - but at some point you have to ascribe agency to people, even if they're subject to indoctrination from early on in life. To be fair, I don't doubt that there is a strong cohort of Palestinians who are increasingly tired of Hamas but scared to rise up - there have been recent cases where Hamas has brutally murdered people speaking up about this in the streets - but again if Palestinians aren't afraid to violently rise up against one class of oppressors (Israel) how is it fair to not expect them to rise up against their most local oppressors (Hamas)? It's one of many double standards that are again, frustrating.
I'm thinking through this as well, and I don't have a position other than Hamas had to know what the response to Oct 7th would be prior to acting. They knew the Palestinian people would suffer, and Israel would suffer - all while they sat in mansions in Qatar.
D. Question on media consumption/construction of reality - I'm also trying to sort out how to arrive at reliable figures on this - how are you sourcing numbers? I see things in some media on the thousands killed (which you gesture at), then I see media on the other side of the spectrum saying these numbers are from the Gaza ministry of health, and many of the "children" being killed are teenage freedom fighters and not innocents. And analyses of the numbers released by the Gaza ministry of health - the rapidity and absolute certainty of death tolls that get revised daily in unusual ways. It's just impossible for me to know what's going on so I'm curious how you're sorting through information.
"C. Lastly, you deride the notion that "Palestinians don't want peace". That's really hard to square with all of the available evidence - the squandering of a massive amount of global charity money on weapons instead of food and infrastructure, a charter (recently revised) that literally calls for the extermination of Jews, etc. The cheering after Oct 7th in the streets. I could go on, of course."
I'll address this one first, because I think it's the key reason why people see Palestine so differently.
The first point you mention, squandering global charity money on weapons, is obviously "pinned" on Hamas. Just as you don't decide how the U.S government spends money, the people of Gaza don't decide how Hamas spends money. I'm sure they'd rather that money was spent on food and infrastructure for them and their families. This is uncontroversial, no?
But as for the cheering in the street after Oct 7th, I think this is only confusing if you overlook a few things. First of all, I'm confident in saying that the majority of people in Gaza hate Israel. Not Jews necessarily, but Israel. And I find this incredibly easy to understand. If you or I were born and raised in Gaza, I'm almost certain we'd feel the same way.
And while I'm certain there's antisemitism mixed in with that, I think the key reason is the aforementioned rather brutal oppression Israel has inflicted on them for decades. So yes, I think Gazans, like all other human beings, want peace. But I think they want liberation from Israel's tyranny just as much. And I think while that tyranny persists, many of them will be happy that somebody has struck a blow against their enemies (it's worth noting here that polls suggest most Gazans are unaware of the full horror of what Hamas did, state media and all that).
So I don't judge them too harshly for their celebrations on October 7th. Of course, I disagree with them, but I haven't lived their life. It makes me think of Nat Turner's slave rebellion. Nat Turner killed dozens of women and children, even babies during his rebellion. Am I horrified by that? Of course! Do I condemn his actions from my position of safety and liberty? Absolutely. Would I judge slaves too harshly if they said they understood or approved of his aims, even if not his methods? No.
A. Yes, I'm in the "two-state solution but make it better" camp. This is clearly the only viable peaceful solution, regardless of whether it's difficult. And knowing what I know today, I place a significant chunk of the blame for the failure of a two-state solution on Israel. International law states that all of the land Israel has occupied since 1967 is illegally occupied. Palestine has said for over a decade that it will accept a two-state solution that includes a return to the 1967 borders and a right to return for Palestinians forced from their homes (this is also required by international law). Israel have refused to accept this, partly for reasons I'll come to later.
Given that Israel has broken these laws for so many decades, I acknowledge the there are major logistical problems with just moving all of the Israelis living in illegal settlements within Israel's borders. Compromise will be necessary from both sides here. It's going to be uncomfortable for all concerned. Just, I think, less uncomfortable than other 75 years of killing.
B. Yes, I'm opposed, in principle and in practice, to genocide. But that doesn't mean I think any action that uses the Holocaust as justification is right or makes sense. As I'm sure you know, Jews and Arabs have lived side-by-side in that part (and other parts) of the world, largely without issue for centuries. The problem with Israel, conceptually, is taking a part of that land, where Arabs were living, and saying, "This is ours. This is only (or at least very preferentially) for Jews."
The reason for the Nakba, the reason Israeli is so dead set against the right of return, the reason for the settlements, the reason a Jew born in Brooklyn has greater citizenship rights in that part of the Middle East than a Muslim born in Jerusalem, is because they want to maintain or create Jewish majorities as they slowly take over more land. Israel have been quite open about this.
Israel is the only place in the world where rights are granted not by birthplace, not by residency status, not even by religion (there are lots of secular Jews), but by group identity. Personally I don't think this concept can survive, because I think it's flawed at its root. I mean, just imagine an explicitly white or black or Mormon nation state, where people with this identity receive preferential treatment and the government openly manufactures majorities to ensure its influence.
Israel exists and I support its continued existence. But I think it needs to change.
D. I have no particular problem accepting figures from Gaza's health ministry. Given that there have been decades of killing, Hamas have had many occasions to report death figures. Those past figures have been independently verified, including by Israel, and always found to be accurate. The "ThOsE aRe HaMaS fIgUrEs" rhetoric is just a deflection in my opinion. We trust Israel's figures too. Even though they've gone from 1400 innocent civilians to 1200 to around 1000 to around 700 innocent civilians with another 300 or so soldiers.
Same goes for the "are they really children" rhetoric. According to current figures, around 10,000 children have been killed. That's people 17 and under. Let's assume that every single one of those 0-17-year-old boys is a child soldier. That leaves is with 5,000 baby and teenage girls killed in just 100 days. Fifty every single day, none of whom are Hamas. And remember, this horrific outcome is the best case scenario in which we have to imagine 2-year-old boys as "freedom fighters."
So as far as information goes, even if we assume dishonesty, and there's no solid reason to do so, the horror of what's happening is just overwhelming.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and share another layer of depth in how you're thinking about this very complex issue. Particularly regarding what a humane endpoint might look like and how you process or think about sources of information.
You've been a good-faith exponent for the principled version of (what strikes me as) a more pro-Palestinian perspective. As we've both stated, there are legitimate grievances on both ends, and fundamental asymmetries. Uncontroversially, I mourn for the dead on both sides, am horrified both by the thought of hostages (including babies) in the Gazan tunnels as well as the ongoing reports of decimation against the Palestinians. Everyone is wrong and everyone is righteous.
Before one can broker a more stable agreement, the thugs of Hamas must be ejected from power. I see scattered reports of Palestinians protesting them (as they refuse to eg distrubute aid or horde resources), but I don't know how to really move things forward until new leadership is recognized there. We might disagree on some finer points, but this has been a fruitful discussion for me; hopefully for you. A ceasefire is as temporary as the next suicide bomber or rocket, and just welcomes another inevitable cycle of reprisal and death. Some regions just enter into a mess and never emerge (Darfur).