"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 chee…
"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).
"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).