Our Zoom call this week will be at our regular time: Friday at Noon EDT. Our guests will be Ofer Cassif and Iyad El-Baghdadi. Ofer is a Jewish member of the Knesset from the largely Palestinian Hadash party. He was recently suspended for 45 days for criticizing Israel’s attacks in Gaza. Iyad is a Palestinian writer based in Norway. He’s one of the best
By the way, Peter, to go back to the topic of how we should all listen to Palestinians, one of the speakers at the Penn Palestine writing festival you advocated for responded to a tweet about the IDF finding a baby burned in an oven by Hamas on 10/7 with "With or without baking powder?". https://twitter.com/itranslate123/status/1718743186393223398
And Mariam Barghouti, a Palestinian journalist with over 100k followers on Twitter, tweeted on 10/7 that "Gaza just broke out of prison" and that "This is all Palestine fighting, to live. To breathe. The attempt to hijack Palestinian defiance and label it as "Khamas!" is sinister, out of touch, and false. It's a strategic trap."
Just so you know, Peter. We're listening to the Palestinians.
Funny how none of Peter's many bootlickers, who never fail to deliver a snarky rejoinder to any criticism of Palestine, have anything to say in response to your point.
I think like Peter, they claim to be in support of the Palestinians, but really are far more comfortable attacking Israel and criticizing the Israeli government than facing the reality in Palestine of what Palestinians think, want, and believe. How many 10/7 deniers do you think read this Substack? Quite a few I would guess.
Peter, once again you fall into the same old trap you always do, which is you place all of the responsibility for the situation on Israel and none on the Palestinians. Stop with the racism of low expectations. The Gazans are capable of recognizing that Hamas has put them into the situation they're now in and leaving Hamas in power will result in similar situations. The Gazans are capable for deciding for themselves if they want that. They're not children.
Any Palestinian election overseen by Israel automatically will not have legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian people. Not "allowing" Hamas to run automatically invalidates the results. Anyone elected will just be seen, as Abbas is now, as the lap dog of the evil Zionists.
As for what should happen to Gaza once Hamas is eliminated, we can look to history. It's quite clear. Hamas are Nazis, so Gaza needs to undergo denazification.
Instead of spending your energy criticizing and insulting Peter, why don’t you make an argument why you believe that Israel will be better off in the long run if it destroys thousands more lives in Gaza and commits what the international community will undoubtedly consider serious war crimes? Do you actually believe that that show of “strength” on the part of the Israeli government will ultimately lead to a stable, safe State of Israel? Will it decrease the escalation of anti-Semitism happening right now across the globe? I realize that Israel is making some attempts to minimize civilian casualties, but the evidence indicates that those attempts have been highly inadequate and are simply serving to appease the collective conscience of Jews—many of whom believe, on some level, that all Palestinians are terrorists by choice and are thus deserving of being exterminated. And do you believe that an ideology can be destroyed with violence or that greater oppression and destabilization of the Palestinian people will solve this crisis in the long-term? Those are the issues that Peter is grappling with. What you appear to misunderstand is that Peter’s concern for Palestinian human rights is not only rooted in his belief that all people deserve to be free, but also his deep desire for the long-term safety and security of the Israeli people.
In addition, why don’t you offer reasons why you believe that Israel is essentially blameless in this crisis. And don’t claim that you don’t believe Israel is blameless because it is the responsibility that Peter places on the Israeli government’s policies that consistently triggers your vitriol—so much so that you can’t even allow your brain to fully process Peter’s unwavering acknowledgment that Hamas’s action on October 7th were evil and unacceptable. In fact, the progressive Jewish community’s efforts over the past decades have been to warn everyone involved that occupying an entire group of people is not sustainable and will ultimately trigger a catastrophe like the one that happened on October 7th. Sadly, that warning was not heeded.
And why don’t you explain further why you believe that the power dynamic between Hamas and Israel is equivalent to that of Nazis and Jews in the 1930’s? I don’t recall learning that Jews in Germany at that time were the ones denying people of their basic human rights. Is it simply too emotionally painful for you to acknowledge that this conflict is not a clear case of Good vs. Evil, that the dynamics are far more complicated—and that BOTH sides are made up of generationally traumatized people who are too overwhelmed with fear and hate to make the kind of sound decisions that will prevent this nightmare from re-occurring? Or do you believe that Netanyahu’s authoritarian tactics and his systematic efforts to make a two-state solution an impossibility are the right direction forward? In essence, do you believe that an indefinite occupation of the Palestinian people is either sustainable or morally sound? These are the issues that Peter grapples with—issues that you clearly see as illegitimate enough to justify accusing Peter of being disloyal to the Israeli people and to Jewish interests, in general. The only substantive difference between your loyalty to Israel and Peter’s is that he believes that it’s critical to consider how to acquire peace in the long-term rather than continue with the ineffective, shortsighted approach that you appear to support.
"why you believe that Israel will be better off in the long run if it destroys thousands more lives in Gaza and commits what the international community will undoubtedly consider serious war crimes?"
Answer: It will be able to return the thousands of citizens it had to clear out for their safety in case the Jihadist maniacs infiltrate again trying to perpetuate another massacre. That seems better off, no?
No. After the slaughter of thousands of terrorists and innocent civilians, the rage of the remaining Palestinians will be even more impossible to control; they will feel even more compelled to slaughter Jews in Israel. The more hopeless and demoralized they become, the less they will have to lose. That’s when people are the most dangerous and most inhumane.
Is that what happened after WWII in Germany? After the slaughter of thousands of civilians, were the Germans even more enraged and compelled to slaughter Jews? No, they admitted defeat and surrendered. Palestinians are capable of doing the same, if they don't have people like you to enable and encourage their intransigence.
Maybe after tens of millions of people die like in WWII, there would be a halt to the violence. I just don’t happen to think that a conflict where the fight is not between good and evil is the time to wage WWIII.
I hope not. I'd prefer Hamas surrenders and no one else dies. Of course, that would mean Palestine gives up the fight to destroy Israel. Hopefully that day will come soon.
Well, I guess we will see. Just know that the more Israelis feel insecure or suffer attacks, the more the Palestinians will suffer. Convince everyone you know and demand in the streets for Hamas to give up the hostages and surrender.
My my, Joanne. Quite the rant. I see I must have touched a nerve.
I'm not going to address a rant full of strawmen and full of statements that begin with "you believe." You would not appreciate it if I declared that you believe Hamas' actions on 10/7 were completely justified and deserved, so I would appreciate it if you did not preach to me what I believe.
If you have an actual genuine question that comes from a place of intellectual honesty and not a place of whining baseless strawmen, feel free to pose it. I'd be happy to answer any question that you like.
Your defensive, non-substantive response makes it clear that I touched a nerve in you! For someone claiming that I’ve misinterpreted your words, it’s interesting how quick you are to put words into Peter’s mouth and repeatedly ignore the words that contradict the reasons for your vitriol towards Peter’s extraordinarily humane perspective. You wrote above that Peter is putting all the responsibility for the situation on Israel and none on the Palestinians—even though he never neglects to acknowledge the savagery and inhumanity of Hamas’s horrific attack and NEVER justifies it regardless of the years of oppression they have experienced. Peter does not condone the inhumane treatment of anyone. If that doesn’t bother you, then why do you consistently misinterpret what Peter believes, and why are your responses so nasty? Your own responses are what makes it appear that you are uncomfortable with characterizing this conflict as one without a good side and an evil side. And claiming that Hamas is equivalent to Nazi’s underscores that discomfort. So if I misinterpreted that, does that mean you do acknowledge that this isn’t a battle between good and evil? If you were being intellectually honest, you would respond by clarifying what I’ve gotten wrong about your reasons for trashing Peter.
And If my questions are so intellectually dishonest, then why are they the same questions being asked by millions of Jews who are concerned that the consequences of an all out war in Gaza will do nothing to make Israel safe? Instead of being so defensive, why don’t you just clarify the what I haven’t understood about your perspective?
" You wrote above that Peter is putting all the responsibility for the situation on Israel and none on the Palestinians"
Where in the piece above does Peter lay out anything for the Palestinians to do? You read the essay, right, about an alternative to a ground invasion, and Peter lays out multiple things for Israel to do. Hunt down the people who did 10/7, let out "political prisoners,", set up elections in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, stop settlement growth, reaffirm the status quo on the Temple Mount, and negotiate with the PA in the West Bank. All of those are things for Israel to do. So where does he say anything in there for the Palestinians to do? Please quote the relevant section, because I'm afraid I must have missed it.
"even though he never neglects to acknowledge the savagery and inhumanity of Hamas’s horrific attack and NEVER justifies it regardless of the years of oppression they have experienced."
You don't need to white knight for Peter. We can all read his essay in which he wrote, "Because people are going to resist oppression. You can’t blame them. That’s just what human beings do." He literally wrote you can't blame Hamas for 10/7. He wrote it. And he'll never be able to unwrite it.
Do you disagree that humans have an inherent drive to resist oppression? Do you disagree that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians? Do you disagree that the Palestinians are the powerless ones in this conflict? Because it sure seems like you disagree with those objective truths. Otherwise you would not get so worked up whenever Peter expresses a need for Israel to stop oppressing the Palestinian people if they want to live in safety. You wouldn’t be so obsessed with feeling how unfair it is that Israel needs to be the ones to take charge of a peace process. I want my own people to be the righteous ones. I grew up believing that, after centuries of oppression, Jews cared deeply about social justice for all. That’s what being Jewish has always meant to me. That’s what was written in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. It says: The State of Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” That’s the Israel I long for. And that’s the Israel that Peter is fighting for!
Joanne, Winters and a few more anonymous commentators on this blog, I believe are hasbara merchants working for Israel.
"Among early Zionists it was common to label communicative efforts propaganda. Theodor Herzl used the term at the 3rd Zionist Congress in 1899, where he asked fellow Zionists in the audience "to engage in propaganda". At the time the term "propaganda" was considered neutral. The term is now pejorative. Propaganda is now typically used for official government statements or by critics of pro-Israeli advocacy groups to portray the communication as misleading and manipulative."
You are an imbecile…Hasbara “ merchants” like the Merchant of Venice you Anti Semitic piece of garbage…you and the “ professor” deserve each other…what slime pit did you crawl out of 😡
It's quite common for supporters of Palestine to dehumanize and degrade people who disagree with them. Whether it's "bots" or in Sean's case "hasbara merchants" (a reference to the "Happy Merchant" anti-Semitic trope), it's difficult if not impossible for Palestine supporters to see people who don't share their views as human beings.
You are such a hypocrite. You are the one incapable of treating someone you disagree with i.e., Peter Beinart, with the understanding that he is a decent human being that you happen to disagree with! You are too emotionally unhinged to see that you accuse others of doing what you, yourself, do!
You do realize that Hamas came to Israel to kill everyone that they could?
You do realize that even IF Israel stopped...RIGHT NOW, and declared a cease fire...Hamas will NOT stop till their mission is complete?
You do realize that Hamas children are raised to HATE JEWS from that day that they are born?
You do realize that Hamas even hates Palestine (They use them as shields)?
Maybe it is time to allow the MEN to take the reigns here? Not in a sexist way...but unless YOU are willing to strap on a 50cal to protect innocent lives...
Do you realize that Netanyahu supported Hamas over the Palestinian Authority because of his own desire to kill any possibility of a two-state solution? Do you realize that Netanyahu has policies that promote terrorizing Palestinians in the West Bank because he has no intention of stopping settlement growth or the occupation? Do you realize that Netanyahu’s government will do virtually nothing to minimize killing thousands of civilians in their attempt to destroy Hamas—despite his rhetoric claiming otherwise? Do you realize that all those issues I stated above will make it impossible to destroy Hamas’s ideology of wanting to kill all Israelis and take the land—and will instead breed even more terrorism and anti-Semitism!
I never suggested that Israel have a ceasefire and sit back while Hamas continues to barbarically kill more Israelis. I would like to see an humanitarian pause and a greater effort to bring back Israeli hostages. I would like a strategic military approach to destabilizing Hamas, not indiscriminate killing. And I would like Israelis to get rid of their incompetent authoritarian leader who is responsible for exposing the Israeli people to this horribly tragic, inhumane attack. Netanyahu put Israel in this devastating LOSE-LOSE situation by replacing competent people with incompetent authoritarian sycophants—just to maintain power and keep himself out of jail!
Finally, I see this conflict not as one involving good vs. evil—but one in which two groups of people, both generationally traumatized by oppression, are unable to see the humanity in each other—or accept the fact that both have rights to the land in question. Activists who find themselves energized by the ideological purity that comes with good vs. evil scenarios make grave mistakes when their trauma blinds them from seeing the humanity of their enemy. The far right is calling Palestinians “animals” who should be exterminated—as if every Palestinian is to blame for the horrifying nature of Hamas’s 10/7 attack on Israelis. The far left is cheering Hamas and acting as if their barbaric slaughter was morally justified. The bottom line is that both those dehumanizing reactions are incredibly harmful to the overriding goal of peace and safety for all.
Men, their macho egos and their refusal to find compromise and compassion for all of humanity are responsible for this and every other war that humanity has waged.
EXAMPLE: They put a baby...in an oven, cranked it up to high! Ate their food, made the husband watch them while they raped and killed his wife, then killed him, then burned the place to the ground!
Pretty sure I blocked this troll. But, what she fails to understand is...Israel is NOT gunning for the Palestinians. Hamas is using the Palestinian's as human shields while STILL killing the Israelis. What are they supposed to do? Allow Hamas to continue to the killing?
The peeps on the left are so busy genuflecting to the people of Islam...they have become useless. If Hamas left...the bombing would stop. Point. Blank. Period!
Since you had no idea that Netanyahu was supporting Hamas over the P.A., maybe you should have the humility to accept that you don’t know enough about this conflict to have an informed opinion!
“For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.”
Mr. Winters - you appear to be what they call a "troll". You have lost your own humanity sadly and can only proceed by demonising and dehumanising the Other, as to do otherwise is too difficult for you.
I'm not a troll, I just disagree with Peter. If you're going to whine about dehumanization and demonising, you might not want to dehumanize me first. Very hypocritical.
If you have a counter to this point, you really should bring it. There are many of us wondering what alternative there is to Jewish suicide which I am sure you are not advocating.
SO much disinformation flying around right now ( most of it seemingly picked up by groups on college campuses). From what I have heard, the Hamas members managed to both indoctrinate young Palestinia men ( not hard to do if you have no job or future), while at the same time terrorizing and even murdering those among its own who disagreed with them. It is quite easy to believe that Hamas held many of the citizens of Gaza in a grip of fear. Anyone with knowledge of the mechanisms of the Third Reich and other authoritarian governments will be able to understand that.
The argument needs to start that there is a majority Jewish state called Israel. It will not be wiped out, it is a legitimate member of the UN and is recognized and supported by the West. Even if that support is not there, Israelis will fight to the death to keep their state. After we have established that this will not change, we can ask What can we do to realize the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians and respecting that reality.
This was essentially the ultimatum given to Yassir Arafat and the PLO in the late-80’s. The PLO accepted the premise—however tentatively—and Hamas famously did not.
From a moderate-inclined Palestinian perspective to whom you make your appeal, how has it worked out for the PLO and its Oslo-borne offshoot, the PA, to end the occupation in the West Bank?
Doesn't matter what the PLO said or signed. The buses started exploding and the wave in terrorism convinced Israelis that they were not safe and the Palestinians suffered from the crackdown. I don't think Arafat convinced the Israeli public that he could be trusted. It is on the Palestinians to convince them or nothing will change. It's a good question who are the Palestinian moderates that can move the ball forward. I don't really see any moderates having much power. Maybe Peter and his ilk can give them some sort of legitimacy and support? For all the screaming and shouting it doesn't seem like the left has much sway in moderating the Palestinians, it seems like they are making them more extreme.
The bride died having coffee with her dad the night before her wedding when Ararat’s people blew up a coffee shop in Jerusalem. The high school kids celebrating died in a disco in Tel Aviv.
Terror towards Israeli civilians has been systemic in Palestinian actions.
The Fatah-run PA made material concessions to that effect and was a reliable security partner with Israel in the West Bank for 15 years until that very reliability undermined its own credibility and popular support. That reliability succeeded only in allowing the Israeli public to believe that the Palestinian matter had been suitably set to rest and could be safely ignored.
It didn’t advance long-term Palestinian interests an iota. When Abbas went or threatened to go to the international community—the ICJ, ICC, or UNGA—to gain leverage on the Israelis by nonviolent means, he was blocked at ever turn by the US and had a harsh retaliation waiting for him from the Israelis upon his return.
You can simply assert unfalsifiably that in the beating heart of every Mahmoud Abbas is Josef Goebbels or a Hamas Islamist Jihadi lying in wait. Therefore complete refusal to have worked for a peaceful solution with the Palestinians and to allow continued dispossession in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for the last 15 years is justified.
Awfully convenient, if your goal is permanently ensure the status quo and endless cycles of violence until the end of time.
For somone who you claim isn't like Josef Goebbels, Abbas sounds shockingly similar to... Joseph Goebels
Abbas said: “They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews.
“No. It was clearly explained that they fought them because of their social role and not their religion.” Abbas later clarified that he was referring to “usury, money and so on”.
And what more enlightened views on Jews, anti-semitism, and the Holocaust do you think the average Jordanian, Egyptian, Turkish, Moroccan, Saudi, or Emirati politician holds and shares with receptive private crowds? Should that have derailed peace talks or paths to normalization with those countries? Merely saying ignorant, ahistorical things about Jews in public is not why Goebbels is notorious in history.
From the Palestinian perspective make an appeal to the Israeli public and Israeli leaders. It worked for Sadat, it worked for King Hussein, it worked for the UAE. If it is accompanied by violence no amount of words, gestures, signatures etc. makes a difference.
It seems to me that moderate Palestinians had been appealing to the Israeli public and the international community to stop the expansion of settlement units in the West Bank, dispossession in East Jerusalem, and to end the blockade in Gaza for 15 years since the end of second intifada.
Israel’s response was to keep electing increasingly right wing governments increasingly hostile to Palestinian interests. The response from the international community was to herald the arrival of the Abraham Accords that completely ignored them.
No Palestinian moderate has a leg to stand on in beseeching the polity against returning to wide-scale acceptance of armed violence.
You don't get it. To Israelis, this sounds like stop protecting yourselves first and then maybe we can talk. The Israelis need to hear "We will not threaten you anymore if you negotiate borders and give use self determination". No Palestinian leader ever states that clearly. You know why?
The Palestinian movement has never internalized that they will never ever be able to return to "Palestine". The fact that a Palestinian moderate doesn't have a leg to stand on is not the fault of Israel. It is the fault of the Palestinian movement that holds on the hope that they will one day return to their villages that are long gone that existed in 1948. This will NEVER HAPPEN unless there is a real Jewish genocide which is highly unlikely and is not something anyone with any power really wants.
Believe it or not, I get the fear and reluctance, especially after 10/7. I suspect for at least a plurality(if not more) of the Israel public, your assertions ring true.
But no political solution until “Jews feel safe” is an untenable emotive position for a people with enough collective historical trauma to last for a millennium, independent of anything Palestinians could do or not do now. And it is inherently unjust in that it unequally weights the security and desire to feel “safe” of Israeli Jews over the same for Palestinians. You can say “tough shit” to all that, but that comes at a cost to world opinion, sympathy, and prestige for Israel. Even I was shocked at how quickly sympathy for Israelis evaporated after 10/7 when the intense bombing of Gaza began.
Analogously to your mention of Palestinian rejectionism, it’s also a bit too glib to suggest that the Israeli public is so monolithic in its willingness to give up Judea and Samaria if only for the security concerns. As if it were a matter of Mahmoud Abbas whispering enough sweet-nothings into the ear of Bezelel Smotrich to be granted a sovereign state of Palestine. You just can’t say that with a straight face.
The increasingly powerful segment of the Israeli polity that opposes concessions to the Palestinians opposed them on principles dating back before the 1948 founding. The maximalist settlement franchise is a core aspect of Zionism itself and has been entrenched since the founding to 1967 and beyond, it’s not some fringe extracurricular movement. Where are the Israeli moderates holding it in check? Nowhere, because they either fully support it, tacitly support it, or are otherwise powerless to curb it.
So what hope then does a moderate Palestinian politician have to do so to gain a base of political support among his own constituents?
I believe Israel has made concessions in the past and will in the future. and the majority support it. Smotrich and Ben Gvir are anomalies and the result of the messed up Israeli parliamentary setup. We can debate how far the Israeli public will go, but we do know they proposed peace deals that included considerable concessions. The exact parameters of those deals is always debated but it is universally accepted that concessions were made.
The position is not emotive, it is very realistic and I am not putting forth my position I am explaining what I think the reality is, the Israelis will have to make and live with their decisions. I just don't believe there will be any movement until the Palestinians give up there hope of returning. Until then the resulting reality will be much worse for the Palestinians. For that reason it is on them (the Palestinians), Israelis can live with the occupation and when it flares up they respond and the Palestinians suffer even more. It just seems that the Palestinians don't act in their best interest.
So Beinart, after all the war crimes and massacres and atrocities Hamas has committed, which you have not bothered to discuss in detail but anyone who claims to be informed should know about already...your big plan is to just give Hamas everything they want? And you don't think that will send a message to the entire world that mass murder and unspeakable crimes is a good idea, thereby encouraging other terrorist groups to do exactly the same thing if not worse? Or would that involve thinking too far ahead?
As for why this happened in the first place, one of the main reasons was that Israel was getting close to making a real peace with Saudi Arabia. And yet you encourage Israel to resume doing it? Why would that prevent future terrorist massacres like this one?
Oh, and if you listen to Palestinians, they might talk about "oppression", sometimes. We usually hear that more from propagandist "mansplainers" on the Internet, not so much Palestinians themselves. What we hear more often are chants like "there is only one solution" and "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". No reason to talk about that, though, as it violates the narrative.
Here's an idea, Beinart? Why don't you just stop talking for a while and let the Palestinians speak for themselves? Then we could all know exactly what is going on with no need for spin.
Professor Beinart--so Israel will be able to hunt down Hamas leaders and kill them because of the "evil" of their attack. Will Palestinians be able to hunt down and kill the entire Israeli cabinet because of the evil of their terror-assaults on Gaza? And will there be any justice for the series of Zionist massacres in Gaza, going all the way back to Rafah and Khan Yunis back in 1956? And Hamas will have to make some promises before it can be reintegrated into the Palestinian polity? Same thing for Likud and Israel, Professor Beinart? Or is there some profound ethical difference between Hamas soldiers shooting an Israeli child, and Israeli soldiers crushing a Palestinian child under tons of debris?
I much prefer the solution of Peter Beinart from two weeks ago: set the captives free. The 220+ Israeli captives, the 10,000 Palestinian captive political prisoners in Israel, languishing without charges or trials. The 2.4 million captives in the Gaza Concentration Camp. And the many semi-captives in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Then, a truth and reconciliation commission. But if you begin by insisting that Hamas is metaphysically evil and exterminable, then the Israeli analogies will not be slow in coming.
The Nazis made the same argument as you during the Nuremberg trials, James. They felt that their actions were morally equivalent to the Allied bombing raids against the German war machine. And unfortunately for you and them, the judges at Nuremberg had none of it.
"A city is bombed for tactical purposes… it inevitably happens that nonmilitary persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls, it is aimed at the railroad yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to these same railroad tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them."
So, yes, there is a profound ethical difference between Hamas soldiers shooting an Israeli child and Israel soldiers striking Hamas an a Palestinian child gets crushed as a result.
Your faith in the virtue of the Israeli artillerymen and pilots ("Ooops! an apartment building! Oops! a hospital!") is bracing. So the solution is obvious: give Hamas an air force and field artillery, and all of the ensuing civilian deaths ("Ooops! a kibbutz!") will also be collateral damage, which you will find sad but acceptable. Problem solved!
If you actually cared about Palestinian deaths, rather than rejoicing in them so you can use them in your crusade against Israel, you would agree with me that Hamas should surrender immediately so no one dies. Do you?
Peter aligns with Hamas on goals, he’s just a bit squeamish on their methods. Sure, he’s into victim blaming Israel for a massacre carried out by Palestinian death squads - JewishCurrents carried that antisemitic “Jews killed themselves” message. He’s also fine with pro Hamas protests calling for the genocide of Jews “from the river to the sea” and “by any means”. He also supports assaults on Jewish students on campus by his pro Hamas friends, if they’re Zionists. Peter Beinart is a professor, and his idea of safe spaces are ones where the only approved hate speech and assault is by SJP and similar antisemitic organizations.
Cassif is exactly like Beinart - accuses Israel for a Hamas massacre, lying that Israel is targeting civilians in Gaza rather than going after Hamas, acting as if a single bomb would have dropped on Gaza if it wasn’t for the Palestinians carrying out their dream of genocide... er liberation, yes liberation - that’s what it was.
Instead Peter could be asking his Pals and his pro Hamas friends to demand that Hamas surrender to the UN for a trial at the ICC. Gaza will be free of a totalitarian regime worse than North Korea, trapping Gazans in an open air prison against their will, and more genocidal than ISIS. But apparently Peter is eager to help Hamas survive. He wants Jews out of Israel one way or another, and further massacres are a small price to pay for a highly ethical propagandist living in the US.
1. Your explanation of what Israel should do does not address the hostages, do you think the hostages should be ignored? You don't even think releasing the hostages should be pre-condition for any of your suggested good-faith actions on the part of the Israelis?
2. And when you talk about hunting down the members of Hamas who committed this atrocity - how is Israel supposed to do that without ground troops or air strikes?
It sounds like you're suggesting that Israel basically do nothing to hold the Hamas murderers to account or to rescue the hostages.
Peter, like most progressive critics of Israel, feels that Hamas/Palestine is incapable of doing anything for itself and only reacts to whatever Israel does. Thus, he does not even bother paying lip service to the idea that Hamas should release the hostages. He cannot comprehend a world where Hamas does anything that isn't a reaction to something Israel did.
There will be endless fighting if the Israeli population looks over there borders and see people talking about erasing their Jewish majority state and killing them. Unless that changes, nothing will change and the Palestinians will always be victims. It doesn't matter how much they cry victimhood, or how much their supporters march and scream. Israel is a nuclear power with a powerful army, no Israeli government will give up sovereignty. You can pontificate, make up solutions, scream injustice, apartheid or whatever. The only way forward is to make Israelis feel safe. Right now and everything Beinart proposes will do the opposite. The left holds out unrealistic scenarios to Palestinians which I think is really cruel. Many Palestinians really believe that they will one day be able to come back to Israel and the Jews will either be expelled or killed. Beinart and the left should be working to strengthen Palestinian moderates to take charge and change their narrative. If not, both Palestinians and Israelis will suffer. The Palestinians being the weaker side will always suffer more.
I like the Bennett plan. Hamas's infrastructure is in northern Gaza. 500 miles of tunnels, weapons caches, operations, headquarters, and 40,000 fighters waiting underground (imagine if all of this money had been used over the years to help civilians and build a Singapore-like country instead of channeling into a war machine).
To avoid potentially large IDF casualities as well as civilian casualities caused by Hamas using cititizens as human shields (their headquarters, for example, are located under a hospital!), Israel should lay seige to the north. The country will have a firm border across the middle of the country with a crossing that allows civilians to move south. Israel has been sending these messages to civilians with greater urgency ahead of a ground invasion.
Then...wait it out. Surround the northern part of the country and let Hamas run out of its fuel, food and water. Force them out of their bunkers. Kill Hamas and destroy their underground war machine.
This idea was floated in the Bret Stephens piece last week in the NYT as well.
And what will Israel do when rockets start hitting the reoccupation forces from the south?
And what about when Israel is called to answer for the optics of the policy as mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing?
How will the Israeli government deal with far-right settler demands to move back into the southern Gush Katif, demands that are much more politically potent than decades ago?
My critique is that the logical end of it is that Israel ends back up in 2001 with complete reoccuption in Gaza and bloody Intifada on all fronts with no alternatives or resolution on the horizon. It moves everything backwards a generation.
There will not be "mass expulsions" and "ethnic cleansing". You might be right about a return to 2001, but the Israelis will put down the Intifada like they did before. Everything that you call "brutal occupation". More dead bodies and definitely more Palestinian dead bodies than Israelis. Convince the Israelis that the Palestinians are not a threat and you will get movement. More violence will just make things worse on the Palestinians.
Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh has said that his terror group needs the "blood of the women, children and elderly" of Gaza in order to "awaken... resolve".
Appearing on on Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen television, he called on the "free people of the world" to stop the bombing of Gaza, which he referred to as the "new Holocaust"
In the footage, originally published by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Hamas leader went on: "The blood of the women, children and elderly […] we are the ones who need this blood, so it awakens within us the revolutionary spirit, so it awakens with us resolve."
Israel's demise is "inevitable," said Haniyeh, adding that preparations must be made for the "post-occupation" phase.
I have been thinking about a similar alternative which I briefly outlined below:
1. Hamas' Oct 7 attack was cruel and barbaric and there must be a response.
2. Reducing Gaza to rubble will kill thousands more while completely turning the world against Israel, will not stop Hamas and may cause a regional or world war.
3. Instead, call on Hamas to release all hostages now. In return Israel will release all Palestinian political prisoners , especially the children, and including Marwan Barghouti. I recognize that the definition of "political prisoner" is open to some debate. Certainly, all people being held by administrative detention, all minors, all people like Barghouti who are known to be politically active should be released. I would in fact say anyone other than those convicted of property or human injury charges against civilians should be let out.
4. Israel will request a dialogue with Hamas, Abbas and Barghouti to begin to outline a peace plan , the implementation of which will be proceeded by a Palestinian election.
5. Yes, Hamas are terrorists, including to their own people, but they must be at the table. Yes, Abbas is totally discredited as ineffective and corrupt and the stooge of Israel, head of its outsourced security agent in the West Bank, but they must be at the table too. And Marwan Barghouti must be there. As you note while in prison he has made statements to suggest that he sees value in making peace with Jewish Israelis.
6. This group, with Israel, will begin discussions of what a peace might look like. I too favor one state. At the least, it must be sincere and just, or it won't last, but otherwise it must be shaped by those who will live it.
7. This group will also make plans for an election by a date certain which must not be postponed by Fatah, Hamas, Israel or the US. All Palestinians can vote in the election including those in Jerusalem. I would say even those in the diaspora but that would take too long under the circumstances.
8. On the ballot will be the choosing of new leadership for Palestinians. Also on the ballot should be some broad outline of possible alternatives of Palestinian existence with Israel.
9. In this interim, Israelis must control its right-wing, in the West Bank in particular. The harm and harassment and extrajudicial killings must be, if not eliminated, at least turned back to the level of a couple of years ago before this Israeli government took office.
10. Perhaps there can be some international peacekeeping to help with this in the West Bank, as well as to administer the elections.
11. As you noted, this Israeli administration will not be inclined to any of this but hopefully, for a variety of reasons, the citizens of Israel will see fit to quickly replace them.
12. All through the process, Hamas, Fatah, Barghouti and Israel must meet regularly to discuss sincere and just alternatives for peace and the administration of a fair and prompt election for new Palestinian leadership.
Like Peter's this is well thought through, even better because you put Hamas at the table, and equally unlikely, but a great starting point.
I would amend 5. thus: 5. Yes, Hamas are terrorists, including to their own people, as are the Israeli government state terrorists including to its own citizens. Otherwise Just scrap the first words.
My heroes in this are people like Peter, Gideon Levy, Avi Schlaim, Gabor Maté, Ilan Pappé, Norman Finkelstein, Rachel Shabi, Shlomo Sand, Bet'selem, Not in Our Name, Breaking the Silence, the list is thankfully long and growing ..in short, the true Menches, Jewish and/or Israeli. Zionism is racism. Is that your label?
Maxwell - Thanks for reading and commenting. Fully fleshed out my thoughts are a plea to Israel in its response, a plea to be courageous. As such, calling out wrong for wrong wouldn't be helpful. More importantly, I don't think Israel is equivalent to Hamas. For Israel's actual citizens there are still traditions of democracy including due process. Even for Palestinians, Israel's cruelty and physical harm is not like the medieval horror that Hamas perpetrated Oct. 7th on Jewish Israelis (and others who happened to be near them at the time). I know a woman who works in Gaza providing humanitarian aide. A few years ago she told me the story of a young Gazan entrepreneur who was working to establish a solar power business. Hamas flat out told them that if they continued Hamas would kill them. I guess this effort risked competing with Hamas in the area of energy which they prefer, for strategic reasons of oppression and war, to control. In other words, even those whom Hamas says it represents and fights for are subject to its terror.
Thank you. The thing that is good about Peter's debate philosophy is to listen to (reasonable) people whose opinion you don't share or vary even just a little with. Because I respect your analysis, your call for Israel to be courageous (I love the yiddish expression "Be a mensch") albeit suggesting your detail is unworkable for the usual reasons, principally because Israel will never enter meaningful negotiations or make concessions it actually will carry out, cf Oslo. And will rather create division to the point of approving funding organisations like Hamas in order to undermine their more secular alternatives as well as sabotaging more legitimate leaders.
There is also room to believe that IDF forces, notably in the West Bank, provoke violent reactions in order to punish people and seize property. In time, we can analyse if, by accident or design, this is the case on a massive scale with Gaza.
There are several thousand prisoners in Israel that have not had due process or have had a rigged version of due process.
Maybe we cannot have equivalence between a hopped-up third generation Gaza refugee on the back of a motorbike with a Kalashnikov committing war crimes against civilians and an IAF pilot, with advanced university degrees, operating state of the art missile technology, in a million dollar fighter jet who pushes a button that obliterates a refugee space he knows is harbouring many civilians, half of whom are children. Yet the latter is considered a war hero and, unlike the Gaza guy has not taken any risk to his own life. Haaretz's Gideon Levy needed bodyguards for suggesting how preposterous it was to treat IAF pilots as heroes.
Other heroes of Israeli independence, like Begin and Shamir fought with units like Irgun and Stern Gang committing war crimes and later each becoming prime minister.
As for atrocities on the Israeli side, the "New Historians" (see wiki) could document the full extent of the ethnic cleansing and the "exemplary" situations used to ensure people moved out of their villages and lands when "encouraged".
A recent film documents one such example including the persecution of Israelis who spoke up. The trailer even suffices TANTURA (2022): trailer
I agree with your description of Israel's behavior. But now what? How do we end this oppression of the Palestinians? How do we end Israel's violence on civilians? How do we actually stop Hamas' terrorism?
I am encouraged that the world is rising up to loudly protest what Israel does. Even in the US, which Netanyahu long ago bragged he could always deal with, it looks like the hasbara machine has at least been damaged.
What Israel is doing in Gaza doesn't look to me like a calculated response to stop further actions by Hamas. It looks like pure revenge. Israel is outraged that it was caught unawares and now Hamas and all Gazans will be punished. It is so caught up in its own rage that it can barely pay lip service to caring about the safety or freeing of the Israeli hostages, let alone the safety of civilians in Gaza.
Seeking revenge is both immoral and impractical because once Gaza has been been reduced to rubble the only sure result is that thousands of new Hamas recruits will spring from the debris. That is what Israel is creating with this round of horror.
My hope is that the outcry from the world for a ceasefire will cause Israel to agree to stop, at least for a moment, at least for public appearances.
But they will have to be given an acceptable reason to do the right thing, even for a moment. What would that be? That's what I've been trying to think about.
After the ceasefire the near term goal would be to give the Palestinian people a voice as soon as possible. I'm convinced that when the Palestinian elections were cancelled a couple of years ago that Netanyahu and Abbas and Biden all conspired to make that happen. The election was probably going to be messy, they couldn't control the outcome and that wasn't convenient for any of them, as if that should have mattered. This must have been deeply discouraging to the Palestinians who seemed ready to participate in good faith. After too many years this right to be heard must no longer be deferred.
My piece is meant to be a plea to the Israelis to do the right thing in this moment. Israel must releases all the political prisoners and Hamas must release all of the hostages. There is precedent for this in an earlier Israel/Hamas transaction. Both sides could gain some goodwill from doing this again.
Marwan Barghouti must be among those released by Israel He needs to join the table with Israel, Hamas and Fatah to discuss holding an immediate Palestinian election so that a more legitimate leader can be appointed. Presumably, Barghouti will introduce some legitimacy to the process from the Palestinian side even before an election since he will be untainted by Israeli "management". I am not a religious person but we can only pray that he rises up to meet the occasion.
You seemed to suggest that Hamas is not a legitimate leader of Palestine. It is not a good leader, not a democratic leader but it leads by virtue of the power it controls. Abbas is no better. Both "leaders" were to some extent created by Netanyahu and he thought he could "manage" both. And, in any case, it's rare that you get to choose your enemy. You have to deal with what's before you.
Of course, in the longer term the really hard work must be done. As you say, Israel has always been willing to engage in some process as long as it results in something they can work around while continuing to build settlements, walls and separate roads. In fact, they always find a way, by stalling, to ignore what it has seemed to promise.
That is why the pressure of the world will need to be maintained because if a peace is not both just in word and sincere in effort it too will be doomed.
But right now if we can just stop the bombing and release all the hostages, both in Gaza and Israel, and start the talking, it will be a good beginning.
Thanks for your considered response. Rather than reply in any detail, I'll say, given the escalating trend to dispossess Palestinians of land and rights in Gaza and the West bank that this may really be a convenient way to complete the Nakba. Netanyahou is willing to sacrifice Israeli lives for this while his son avoids miltary service in Florida.
Afterwards, once this is achieved in all its messiness and tragedy, facts on the ground become the new status quo. Arab citizens of Israel wiil possibly then be threatened with stripping them of their Israeli nationality for contrived reasons. River to the Sea figures in the Likud charter, yet no one seems to identify this as threatening.
If there is a core solution, it lies with the US promptly withdrawing support if Israel puts nothing fair on the table. That's not going to happen tomorrow. Though the growing numbers of Jews who correctly abhor this plundering of the Jewish soul offer some possibility of future redress. Long live Peter, his brain wracking to propose procedures and processes, and his varied allies in this cause. And to you.
The Arab Peace Initiative is vague. It doesn’t say if Israel must absorb 100,000 or 1 million refugees. It doesn’t say what percentage of the West Bank can be swapped. There are other grey zones in this peace plan (that both sides must approve, but it remains a vague framework that cannot full solve the conflict).
Only the Clinton Parameters (that the Palestinians and the Israeli right reject, can break the stalemate).
Beinart knows that the revisionist understanding of the failure of peace talks is flawed. In 2001, Israel expressed its reservations to Clinton’s parameters in the conditional tense (there was no outright rejection). On top of this, on December 29, 2000, Shlomo Ben called Arafat to tell him that he dropped all of Israel’s reservations. During the Taba summit, he went further by offering the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank (not 97%), and without his government’s approval, he went so far as to offer exclusive Palestinian sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount provided that it would also be recognized as a Jewish holy site. The truth is that at Taba, Israel went BEYOND the Clinton Parameters.
The Palestinians said no to Clinton’s franework before turning this no into a yes with reservations, once they realized that saying no outright would isolate them (Ahmed Qurei).
However, they rejected three major provisions of the Clinton parameters (and things haven’t changed ever since): they reject the idea of a land swap encompassing 4-6% of the West Bank allowing 80% of the settlers to remain home (they want a 2% swap uprooting more than 40% of the settlers); they want exclusive sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary without having this area recognized as a Jewish holy site as well (Clinton called for a vertical sovereignty); they insist on Israel’s exclusive responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem (Clinton talked about a partial responsibility), and the PA wants Israel to grant all refugees an individual right of return to Israel proper. Revisionists stress that the PA is willing to demand the return of only dozens or hundreds of thousands of refugees in exchange for this "symbolic gesture", but they fail to understand that once an individual (not a collective) right of return is recognized, refugees can demand to exercise it without the support of the PA. They can take Israel to the International Court of Justice or go to the UN General Assembly, which would open a Pandora’s box.
The Palestinians rejected Olmert’s peace plan in 2008 and the Kerry-Obama principles in 2014, for the same reasons. Even Hussein Agha acknowledged to the Fathom magazine that the Clinton Parameters can only serve as a basis for a partial agreement.
Up until October 7th, I thought that a confederal solution with open borders (pretty much like in the EU), could reconcile Israel’s existence with the right of return. Hamas killed this idea for at least two additional decades (if not more).
Hamas’ massacre has also turned Beinart’s one-state solution into a naive and dangerous dogmatic slogan no less ridiculous than "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh".
The only solution now is a full-fledged divorce. If the Palestinians are still unable to sign a final-status agreement, Israel can create a de facto Palestinian state in the West Bank by transferring all civil powers to the PA and uprooting the settlers (it wouldn’t be so difficult to uproot 100,000 settlers; Israel has just displaced 200,000 of its own citizens and most military experts agree that if the IDF leaves the West Bank, the settlers who will fear retribution from the Palestinians will run faster than the army). The IDF can then redeploy to the border between Jordan and the West Bank (Israel cannot fully withdraw from the West Bank until a final-status agreement is signed, but it can relinquish 90% of this area).
The two-state solution with hard borders and walls (not a confederal) is the only solution. Raymond Aron wrote many years ago that intellectuals have a hard time dealing with facts. Beinart should heed his words.
I think the significance of the Arab Peace Initiative wasn’t in the level of resolution of the proposals—as you say much of that was sussed-out in Camp David, Clinton Parameters, and/or Taba.
But rather it was that it put the prize of normalization with the entire Arab World—plus Iran, at least nominally—on the table to incentivize an agreement and address the security concerns of Israel regarding accepting a Palestinian state.
I think that put a lot of pressure on Israel and ultimately led directly to the fateful Sharon plan of unilateral Gaza disengagement to freeze-out the peace process to avoid such compromises.
Agreed. But in 2005, Sharon presented a map to Sephen Hadley (George W. Bush’s National Security advisor). It showed a Palestinian state within provisional borders encompassing 85% of the West Bank (he was willing to make additional concession later on). I don’t think Sharon was a con artist. At the end of his like, he was really committed to a state solution.
I don't think I understand the history here, is this the same Shlomo Ben who said that, were he a Palestinian, he wouldn't have accepted the terms of Camp David?
I’m not talking about Camp David, I’m talking about the Clinton Parameters. At Camp David, Israel offered only 92% of the WB but Arafat refused to make a counteroffer. Both sides blundered…
Essentially the entire world correctly concluded back in the 1980’s that endless rounds of war and tit-for-tats were not going to resolve the crisis. A political solution is the only path forward, all else are paths.backwards and therefore are acts of inter-generational injustice committed. The ground invasion is mostly driven by short-term emotive domestic politics, not long-term clear-eyed rational strategy.
Hamas is an Islamist resistance front for Palestinian liberation. Five more organizations could pop-up in their absence with a lot of the same personnel. All Israel is likely to accomplish strategically is to force them to exchange for new business cards at horrendous moral and political cost. First in Gaza, then it will spread to the West Bank, then to Lebanon and Syria—there’s no end.
The support for Islamist resistance isn’t just intrinsic to the Palestinians, but part of a low simmering civil war throughout the Arab world. The deeper and longer this war is sustained, the more it will empower the extremists like Iran and weaken the moderates.
And unless there’s credible promise of a grand Marshall Plan by the international community to invest in and rebuild Gaza at the conclusion, there’s no way to make a futile eradication campaign morally justifiable at the onset. Meanwhile Israel’s intelligence ministry has already produced a proposal for mass expulsion in Gaza which, if enacted, would complete Israel’s trajectory into international pariah.
There's no political solution, Paul, as long as Palestine, yes Palestine, maintains this narrative that Israel must be destroyed, exists on stolen Arab land, is a colonial entity that they are justified in destroying, is an apartheid state, etc. etc. There's no compromise with this belief, no negotiation, and no solution. Hamas just butchered 1400+ Israelis and people around the world are cheering and celebrating it. That's how entrenched the belief is.
Palestine needs to undergo denazification. It, as a society, needs to change their narrative and genuinely accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state alongside them. No, Abbas the unelected dictator saying he accepts it isn't the same thing as the society itself accepting it. Anti-Zionism needs to be removed from Palestinian society. Then and only then can the crisis be resolved.
The characterization of Palestinians as comparable to Nazis doesn't hold water for anybody outside of the Hasbara echo chamber. How many Nazis were being held up at checkpoints, unable to get to their schools, workplaces, or hospitals, having their homes demolished by bulldozers, being rounded up and imprisoned preemptively, having their kids shot for throwing stones at occupying soldiers, etc? This kind of deranged hyperbole only further reinforces extremism on both sides.
Germany after WWI was economically devastated. Poverty was widespread, inflation was extreme, and living conditions were poor.
And the Nazis told the German people exactly what they wanted to hear. That their situation was not their fault, nor was it their government's fault. It's not that the proud German people lost WWI fair and square. No. It was the Jews! The Jews betrayed Germany, caused them to lose WWI, and are responsible for the horrible living conditions the Germans now were in.
And now, the Palestinians are playing from the same playbook. The situation they are in isn't their fault. They're not being held up at checkpoints because of the Second Intifada, which they lost. They're not getting their homes demolished because that's what happens when terrorists murder people. They're not under blockade because of the constant rocket attacks and the refusal to make peace. No. It's the Jews! The Jews are doing all of those things to them for no reason other than Jews are evil and this is what Jews do.
The characterization of Hamas and their supporters as Nazis is apt. If the jackboot fits, wear it.
At the end of WWI the winners decided to tightly turn the screws on Germany in retaliation. Not only did Germany lose the war decisively but it was expected to pay impossible reparations thus crushing any chance of recovery. The Jews, recently freed of restrictions keeping them in the ghettos, emerged and quickly became successful. They were a much easier target for the revenge of Germany's post-war pain than were those nations who won the war and imposed the reparations. The point is one cycle of violence feeds the next. It has to stop. As thinking, and not simply vengefully reactive humans, it can be stopped.
Actually, Gazans are a lot more simpleminded than the Nazis were. The former look up in the sky and see planes bombing them, and naively assume that all the blame for their suffering is attributable to the state whose insignias adorn those aircraft, and not with the approximately 2% of their own number hiding out in tunnels below them (ie, the approximately 40k out of 2.4 million Gazans estimated by Israeli and other intelligence services to comprise Hamas militants). Whereas Nazis came up with much more elaborate theories about having been "stabbed in the back" by subversive elements in their midst, and attributing Germany's loss of WWI and its suffering from hyperinflation and crippling indemnification burdens to be attributable to "the Jews". But other than the (effectively largely coincidental) fact that, in both cases, the confessional identities of the parties being blamed happen ro match, there's literally no similarity whatsoever between the two groups being compared.
Put down the white man's burden and get rid of the racism of low expectations. Gazans aren't "simple minded." They're perfectly able to understand the cause and effect of Hamas firing a rocket for example and getting bombed in response.
No similarity between Hamas and Nazis other than blaming all their problems on Jews? Have you educated yourself as to what happened on 10/7?
Why are you suggesting that Gazans should be so much more sophisticated than North Americans were, on September 11, 2001, when the latter saw Middle Eastern hijackers fly planes into buildings killing thousands of civilians, and then readily went along with the assumption that their suffering was all down to "Islamofascism", like their elected leaders claimed, and not some longer historical timeline that their own leaders were implicated in? Most ordinary people ARE pretty simpleminded, wherever they happen to live, and accept generally the simplest explanations, especially when those explanations comport with what the most powerful people in their own midst are telling them. Whereas for them to come up with other, more elaborate theories about their predicament requires a lot of other, extraordinary conditions to obtain.
More like a random US style mass shooting. There has yet to be any thorough investigation, and there is no evidence yet that Hamas militants were under any orders to methodically kill their victims. Not all hideous atrocities ever committed in the world are automatically "einsatzgruppen style". This is just more ahistorical, dangerous and deranged hyperbole.
So what your saying is they had a different plan but got sidetracked into raping woman and burning babies?
I think their actions are pretty consitent with their own charter:
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
That's not an "operational plan". That's a theocratic justification for indiscriminate violence. Congratulations, we agree, they are a reprehensible group. Just like Netanyahu is reprehensible for invoking "Amalek" to justify his approach to Gaza. But nobody would mistake his statements for an operational plan.
Certainly there’s no domestically-viable political solution available within Israel other than full invasion without compromise and the resultant disaster to come from it, but it doesn’t negate the cold objective reality of the only exit strategy from the conflict is to move in nearly the opposite direction. That’s the tragic multigenerational trap that Israelis are in.
Meanwhile, in the face of the Israeli onslaught, Palestinians have no choice but to support Hamas who has shown themselves to be the only partisans willing and capable of extracting a cost on the Israelis. Is some moderating body going to come along and hold Israel in check and attend to their needs? All have seen the apparent dead-end of accommodationism of the PA, Arab govts, and the international community. What choices do the Palestinians really have?
In my mind, Palestinian support for Hamas is borne of the same basic human need for security that motivates the Israeli public to support its hardline policies. It’s almost the very definition of banality to say it, but it’s nonetheless true that Israelis and Palestinians are stuck in the same—or at least analogous—tragic trap.
Palestinians "have no choice"? Just like Peter, Paul, you show the racism of low expectations. Of course the Palestinians have a choice, and they've always had one. They can give up their mad quest to wipe out Israel and live alongside it in peace. I'm amazed how for you, Peter, and apparently the Palestinians in general, such an idea can't even be considered as an option. It's like an entire movement and society has a gigantic blind spot.
It's completely insane to think that Palestinian support for Hamas is borne of security. The Gazans knew exactly what was going to happen after 10/7. A large part of them cheered it anyway because they prefer to die as martyrs for the Palestinian cause than live in peace.
Winters, when you kiss your mother and tell her you love her, is that offered in bad-faith and insincerity too? It seems to be the only manner in which you are capable of expressing yourself.
I and others been arguing with Winters in here for over a year now. When I find myself writing a response to him that I’ve written 3 times before, I usually stop myself and go with snark, sarcasm, or levity instead.
You are shocked that the Lebanese might be overwhelmingly sympathetic to those under Israel’s falling bombs? Have you no acquaintance with a history book?
I’m not making excuses for anyone—I think cheering the barbarous acts of Hamas are ugly, inhumane, vile,and reprehensible—but objectively it’s been the nature of ethnic-tribal conflicts since the dawn of the species. I’m not sure wagging my finger in internet comments section at human nature in disapproval helps much.
You tell me why you—or at least many others like you—are so callously indifferent to Palestinian suffering and injustice long endured and I’ll tell you why the majority of the Arab world is so callously indifferent to Jewish suffering and injustice endured on Oct. 7. It’s two sides of the same coin, in my view, where the style varies but not so much the substance.
Perhaps—and I’m speaking generally, obviously I don’t know you—because you have no genuine sympathy for innocent Palestinians you cannot understand how expressed sympathy for Palestinians by others could possibly be genuine. It can only be 100% rooted in something darker and more nefarious, in this view.
There are a mix of point here which I will try and adress.
Firstly I resent you implying that overwhelming sympathy for Palestinians should result in overwhelming support for the rape of Jewish woman and burning of babies. The equivalent on the Israeli side would be an overwhelming support for Baruch Goldstein, something which is not even the tiniest bit close to being true.
Lets get this straight. The Arab world are not indiferent to Jewish death. They are elated by it. There is literally no comparison between the vast majority of Jews position on Arabs and the vast majority of Arabs position on Jews. This idea that Israel is responsible for prevalent Arab anti-semitism is absurd given that their has been virulent anti-semitism ever since Mohamed. They have always participated in pogroms and blood libels against the Jewish population.
I'm sure there is a level of indiference to be found amongst Jews towards Palistinian suffering. This is wrong, but not remotely comparable in numbers or nature to the Arab world. They are definitely NOT two sides of the same coin.
There is definitely alot of genuine sympathy out there for Palistinians. And that is more than justified. But the explosion of anti-semitism in the last few weeks has been directly driven by pro palistinian groups. The weeks from Oct 7 on have been terrifying. Free Palistine has been grafitied over where I live in London, a restuarant has been smashed in and anti semitism is up by over 1000%. Many of the rallies are seething with Jew hate explicit and implicit. Jews unfortunately are very aware of what anti semitism looks like, and what it means for us. I promise you its bad out there.
(Just for the record I think people like Ben Gvir ect are disgusting and that their should be a two state solution. I have empathy for the Palistinians as much as any human beings.)
“There are a mix of point here which I will try and adress. Firstly I resent you implying that overwhelming sympathy for Palestinians should result in overwhelming support for the rape of Jewish woman and burning of babies. The equivalent on the Israeli side would be an overwhelming support for Baruch Goldstein, something which is not even the tiniest bit close to being true.”
Well, I agree with you on that. A caveat about the polls: In the TOI article you cited it described how it wasn’t clear from the polling questions if the subjects were approving specifically of the (barbaric) nature of the attack—the rapes, beheadings, torching of entire families, etc—or approved of the Hamas attack in general. It wouldn’t surprise me if the gory details, snuff films, and images of the 10/7 attack in the Arab world were largely dismissed as Israeli propaganda and manipulation and what people are being exposed to or are absorbing—and being polled on—is a sanitized version. I’ve seen those claims and talking points on the pro-Palestinian side kicking around. Not clear how the polls captured that.
Obviously anyone with any sense would prefer peace over war but this exercise in Pollyanna futility is not very well thought out:
First let's stop with the comparisons with US response to 9/11. The Taliban was on the ropes several times early on in Afghanistan but the US decided to push their luck and start another war in Iraq and ended up losing both wars.
"Israel should say that it will hunt down the people who masterminded and committed these attacks to the end of their days" I suspect you are sadly mistaken if you think this empty threat provides any deterrent effect. And makes even less sense while at the same time "tell Hamas that if it will respect the will of the Palestinian people if they vote on a referendum on any agreement, and they respect a ceasefire during the course of this process, then they can begin to be integrated back into Palestinian politics". Hamas and the immense firepower they have amassed are not going to go away quietly. And will Israel "respect the will of the Palestinian people" in the event that it turns out to be Hamas just as it was in 2006?
Then there is your oblique reference to "a just solution to the refugee question". This is hardly a minor detail. This is the heart of the matter for those who question Israel's right to exist going back to before the formation of the Israeli State in which terrorism played a large part and Palestinians were forced to vacate their homes. For those of this persuasion a "just solution" would be nothing less than every inch of Palestine. And if as you suggest a Palestinian Authority in Gaza would be immediately overthrown that in turn would suggest this persuasion is a critical mass of Palestinians.
Unfortunately the reality is this: How it looks no longer matters. Hamas has forced a showdown. Hamas is a cancer. Either you kill the cancer or it will kill you.
By the way, Peter, to go back to the topic of how we should all listen to Palestinians, one of the speakers at the Penn Palestine writing festival you advocated for responded to a tweet about the IDF finding a baby burned in an oven by Hamas on 10/7 with "With or without baking powder?". https://twitter.com/itranslate123/status/1718743186393223398
And Mariam Barghouti, a Palestinian journalist with over 100k followers on Twitter, tweeted on 10/7 that "Gaza just broke out of prison" and that "This is all Palestine fighting, to live. To breathe. The attempt to hijack Palestinian defiance and label it as "Khamas!" is sinister, out of touch, and false. It's a strategic trap."
Just so you know, Peter. We're listening to the Palestinians.
Funny how none of Peter's many bootlickers, who never fail to deliver a snarky rejoinder to any criticism of Palestine, have anything to say in response to your point.
I think like Peter, they claim to be in support of the Palestinians, but really are far more comfortable attacking Israel and criticizing the Israeli government than facing the reality in Palestine of what Palestinians think, want, and believe. How many 10/7 deniers do you think read this Substack? Quite a few I would guess.
Absolutely. By the way, did you ever find out what Peter's red line is?
Still waiting.
Peter is an embarrassment. Mainly to himself.
Peter, once again you fall into the same old trap you always do, which is you place all of the responsibility for the situation on Israel and none on the Palestinians. Stop with the racism of low expectations. The Gazans are capable of recognizing that Hamas has put them into the situation they're now in and leaving Hamas in power will result in similar situations. The Gazans are capable for deciding for themselves if they want that. They're not children.
Any Palestinian election overseen by Israel automatically will not have legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian people. Not "allowing" Hamas to run automatically invalidates the results. Anyone elected will just be seen, as Abbas is now, as the lap dog of the evil Zionists.
As for what should happen to Gaza once Hamas is eliminated, we can look to history. It's quite clear. Hamas are Nazis, so Gaza needs to undergo denazification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
Instead of spending your energy criticizing and insulting Peter, why don’t you make an argument why you believe that Israel will be better off in the long run if it destroys thousands more lives in Gaza and commits what the international community will undoubtedly consider serious war crimes? Do you actually believe that that show of “strength” on the part of the Israeli government will ultimately lead to a stable, safe State of Israel? Will it decrease the escalation of anti-Semitism happening right now across the globe? I realize that Israel is making some attempts to minimize civilian casualties, but the evidence indicates that those attempts have been highly inadequate and are simply serving to appease the collective conscience of Jews—many of whom believe, on some level, that all Palestinians are terrorists by choice and are thus deserving of being exterminated. And do you believe that an ideology can be destroyed with violence or that greater oppression and destabilization of the Palestinian people will solve this crisis in the long-term? Those are the issues that Peter is grappling with. What you appear to misunderstand is that Peter’s concern for Palestinian human rights is not only rooted in his belief that all people deserve to be free, but also his deep desire for the long-term safety and security of the Israeli people.
In addition, why don’t you offer reasons why you believe that Israel is essentially blameless in this crisis. And don’t claim that you don’t believe Israel is blameless because it is the responsibility that Peter places on the Israeli government’s policies that consistently triggers your vitriol—so much so that you can’t even allow your brain to fully process Peter’s unwavering acknowledgment that Hamas’s action on October 7th were evil and unacceptable. In fact, the progressive Jewish community’s efforts over the past decades have been to warn everyone involved that occupying an entire group of people is not sustainable and will ultimately trigger a catastrophe like the one that happened on October 7th. Sadly, that warning was not heeded.
And why don’t you explain further why you believe that the power dynamic between Hamas and Israel is equivalent to that of Nazis and Jews in the 1930’s? I don’t recall learning that Jews in Germany at that time were the ones denying people of their basic human rights. Is it simply too emotionally painful for you to acknowledge that this conflict is not a clear case of Good vs. Evil, that the dynamics are far more complicated—and that BOTH sides are made up of generationally traumatized people who are too overwhelmed with fear and hate to make the kind of sound decisions that will prevent this nightmare from re-occurring? Or do you believe that Netanyahu’s authoritarian tactics and his systematic efforts to make a two-state solution an impossibility are the right direction forward? In essence, do you believe that an indefinite occupation of the Palestinian people is either sustainable or morally sound? These are the issues that Peter grapples with—issues that you clearly see as illegitimate enough to justify accusing Peter of being disloyal to the Israeli people and to Jewish interests, in general. The only substantive difference between your loyalty to Israel and Peter’s is that he believes that it’s critical to consider how to acquire peace in the long-term rather than continue with the ineffective, shortsighted approach that you appear to support.
Ooh, ooh I can answer the first question posed.
"why you believe that Israel will be better off in the long run if it destroys thousands more lives in Gaza and commits what the international community will undoubtedly consider serious war crimes?"
Answer: It will be able to return the thousands of citizens it had to clear out for their safety in case the Jihadist maniacs infiltrate again trying to perpetuate another massacre. That seems better off, no?
No. After the slaughter of thousands of terrorists and innocent civilians, the rage of the remaining Palestinians will be even more impossible to control; they will feel even more compelled to slaughter Jews in Israel. The more hopeless and demoralized they become, the less they will have to lose. That’s when people are the most dangerous and most inhumane.
Is that what happened after WWII in Germany? After the slaughter of thousands of civilians, were the Germans even more enraged and compelled to slaughter Jews? No, they admitted defeat and surrendered. Palestinians are capable of doing the same, if they don't have people like you to enable and encourage their intransigence.
Maybe after tens of millions of people die like in WWII, there would be a halt to the violence. I just don’t happen to think that a conflict where the fight is not between good and evil is the time to wage WWIII.
I hope not. I'd prefer Hamas surrenders and no one else dies. Of course, that would mean Palestine gives up the fight to destroy Israel. Hopefully that day will come soon.
Well, I guess we will see. Just know that the more Israelis feel insecure or suffer attacks, the more the Palestinians will suffer. Convince everyone you know and demand in the streets for Hamas to give up the hostages and surrender.
Well, I can agree with that.
My my, Joanne. Quite the rant. I see I must have touched a nerve.
I'm not going to address a rant full of strawmen and full of statements that begin with "you believe." You would not appreciate it if I declared that you believe Hamas' actions on 10/7 were completely justified and deserved, so I would appreciate it if you did not preach to me what I believe.
If you have an actual genuine question that comes from a place of intellectual honesty and not a place of whining baseless strawmen, feel free to pose it. I'd be happy to answer any question that you like.
Your defensive, non-substantive response makes it clear that I touched a nerve in you! For someone claiming that I’ve misinterpreted your words, it’s interesting how quick you are to put words into Peter’s mouth and repeatedly ignore the words that contradict the reasons for your vitriol towards Peter’s extraordinarily humane perspective. You wrote above that Peter is putting all the responsibility for the situation on Israel and none on the Palestinians—even though he never neglects to acknowledge the savagery and inhumanity of Hamas’s horrific attack and NEVER justifies it regardless of the years of oppression they have experienced. Peter does not condone the inhumane treatment of anyone. If that doesn’t bother you, then why do you consistently misinterpret what Peter believes, and why are your responses so nasty? Your own responses are what makes it appear that you are uncomfortable with characterizing this conflict as one without a good side and an evil side. And claiming that Hamas is equivalent to Nazi’s underscores that discomfort. So if I misinterpreted that, does that mean you do acknowledge that this isn’t a battle between good and evil? If you were being intellectually honest, you would respond by clarifying what I’ve gotten wrong about your reasons for trashing Peter.
And If my questions are so intellectually dishonest, then why are they the same questions being asked by millions of Jews who are concerned that the consequences of an all out war in Gaza will do nothing to make Israel safe? Instead of being so defensive, why don’t you just clarify the what I haven’t understood about your perspective?
" You wrote above that Peter is putting all the responsibility for the situation on Israel and none on the Palestinians"
Where in the piece above does Peter lay out anything for the Palestinians to do? You read the essay, right, about an alternative to a ground invasion, and Peter lays out multiple things for Israel to do. Hunt down the people who did 10/7, let out "political prisoners,", set up elections in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, stop settlement growth, reaffirm the status quo on the Temple Mount, and negotiate with the PA in the West Bank. All of those are things for Israel to do. So where does he say anything in there for the Palestinians to do? Please quote the relevant section, because I'm afraid I must have missed it.
"even though he never neglects to acknowledge the savagery and inhumanity of Hamas’s horrific attack and NEVER justifies it regardless of the years of oppression they have experienced."
You don't need to white knight for Peter. We can all read his essay in which he wrote, "Because people are going to resist oppression. You can’t blame them. That’s just what human beings do." He literally wrote you can't blame Hamas for 10/7. He wrote it. And he'll never be able to unwrite it.
https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/what-i-still-believe-even-after-october
" So if I misinterpreted that, does that mean you do acknowledge that this isn’t a battle between good and evil?"
You're the one using the language of good and evil, not me.
Do you disagree that humans have an inherent drive to resist oppression? Do you disagree that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians? Do you disagree that the Palestinians are the powerless ones in this conflict? Because it sure seems like you disagree with those objective truths. Otherwise you would not get so worked up whenever Peter expresses a need for Israel to stop oppressing the Palestinian people if they want to live in safety. You wouldn’t be so obsessed with feeling how unfair it is that Israel needs to be the ones to take charge of a peace process. I want my own people to be the righteous ones. I grew up believing that, after centuries of oppression, Jews cared deeply about social justice for all. That’s what being Jewish has always meant to me. That’s what was written in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. It says: The State of Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” That’s the Israel I long for. And that’s the Israel that Peter is fighting for!
Answer my question and I'd be ever so happy to answer yours. Where in the piece above does Peter lay out anything for the Palestinians to do?
Edit: No answer, Joanne? How disappointing.
Joanne, Winters and a few more anonymous commentators on this blog, I believe are hasbara merchants working for Israel.
"Among early Zionists it was common to label communicative efforts propaganda. Theodor Herzl used the term at the 3rd Zionist Congress in 1899, where he asked fellow Zionists in the audience "to engage in propaganda". At the time the term "propaganda" was considered neutral. The term is now pejorative. Propaganda is now typically used for official government statements or by critics of pro-Israeli advocacy groups to portray the communication as misleading and manipulative."
You are an imbecile…Hasbara “ merchants” like the Merchant of Venice you Anti Semitic piece of garbage…you and the “ professor” deserve each other…what slime pit did you crawl out of 😡
When pro-Israel people are losing the argument, they resort to insulting and calling people vile names.
Pseudonym?
A fictitious name used especially by commentators to conceal their name.
I don't debate anonymous commentators, sorry
It's quite common for supporters of Palestine to dehumanize and degrade people who disagree with them. Whether it's "bots" or in Sean's case "hasbara merchants" (a reference to the "Happy Merchant" anti-Semitic trope), it's difficult if not impossible for Palestine supporters to see people who don't share their views as human beings.
You are such a hypocrite. You are the one incapable of treating someone you disagree with i.e., Peter Beinart, with the understanding that he is a decent human being that you happen to disagree with! You are too emotionally unhinged to see that you accuse others of doing what you, yourself, do!
You do realize that Hamas came to Israel to kill everyone that they could?
You do realize that even IF Israel stopped...RIGHT NOW, and declared a cease fire...Hamas will NOT stop till their mission is complete?
You do realize that Hamas children are raised to HATE JEWS from that day that they are born?
You do realize that Hamas even hates Palestine (They use them as shields)?
Maybe it is time to allow the MEN to take the reigns here? Not in a sexist way...but unless YOU are willing to strap on a 50cal to protect innocent lives...
Do you realize that Netanyahu supported Hamas over the Palestinian Authority because of his own desire to kill any possibility of a two-state solution? Do you realize that Netanyahu has policies that promote terrorizing Palestinians in the West Bank because he has no intention of stopping settlement growth or the occupation? Do you realize that Netanyahu’s government will do virtually nothing to minimize killing thousands of civilians in their attempt to destroy Hamas—despite his rhetoric claiming otherwise? Do you realize that all those issues I stated above will make it impossible to destroy Hamas’s ideology of wanting to kill all Israelis and take the land—and will instead breed even more terrorism and anti-Semitism!
I never suggested that Israel have a ceasefire and sit back while Hamas continues to barbarically kill more Israelis. I would like to see an humanitarian pause and a greater effort to bring back Israeli hostages. I would like a strategic military approach to destabilizing Hamas, not indiscriminate killing. And I would like Israelis to get rid of their incompetent authoritarian leader who is responsible for exposing the Israeli people to this horribly tragic, inhumane attack. Netanyahu put Israel in this devastating LOSE-LOSE situation by replacing competent people with incompetent authoritarian sycophants—just to maintain power and keep himself out of jail!
Finally, I see this conflict not as one involving good vs. evil—but one in which two groups of people, both generationally traumatized by oppression, are unable to see the humanity in each other—or accept the fact that both have rights to the land in question. Activists who find themselves energized by the ideological purity that comes with good vs. evil scenarios make grave mistakes when their trauma blinds them from seeing the humanity of their enemy. The far right is calling Palestinians “animals” who should be exterminated—as if every Palestinian is to blame for the horrifying nature of Hamas’s 10/7 attack on Israelis. The far left is cheering Hamas and acting as if their barbaric slaughter was morally justified. The bottom line is that both those dehumanizing reactions are incredibly harmful to the overriding goal of peace and safety for all.
Men, their macho egos and their refusal to find compromise and compassion for all of humanity are responsible for this and every other war that humanity has waged.
Humanitarian Action??!!
EXAMPLE: They put a baby...in an oven, cranked it up to high! Ate their food, made the husband watch them while they raped and killed his wife, then killed him, then burned the place to the ground!
You want what?
So you believe that Gaza should be flattened and all Palestinians deserve to die for Hamas’s horrific, inhumane actions!
Pretty sure I blocked this troll. But, what she fails to understand is...Israel is NOT gunning for the Palestinians. Hamas is using the Palestinian's as human shields while STILL killing the Israelis. What are they supposed to do? Allow Hamas to continue to the killing?
The peeps on the left are so busy genuflecting to the people of Islam...they have become useless. If Hamas left...the bombing would stop. Point. Blank. Period!
You said, "Netanyahu supported Hamas over the Palestinian Authority because of his own desire to kill any possibility of a two-state solution?"
I say, "Where is your proof?"
Please...drop the link...right here. Prove It.
Since you had no idea that Netanyahu was supporting Hamas over the P.A., maybe you should have the humility to accept that you don’t know enough about this conflict to have an informed opinion!
Sure. Here’s one of many link:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
“For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.”
WOW...good choice. A left leaning publication started by David Horovitz...also a left leaning activist. SMH
Father God...PLEASE OPEN THESE PEOPLE EYES!!!
Mr. Winters - you appear to be what they call a "troll". You have lost your own humanity sadly and can only proceed by demonising and dehumanising the Other, as to do otherwise is too difficult for you.
Indeed, Winters is a longstanding troll here. Don't waste your time.
I'm not a troll, I just disagree with Peter. If you're going to whine about dehumanization and demonising, you might not want to dehumanize me first. Very hypocritical.
If you have a counter to this point, you really should bring it. There are many of us wondering what alternative there is to Jewish suicide which I am sure you are not advocating.
Jason, if the past month has taught us anything, it should be that these people want us dead just as much as Hamas does.
Well, I don't know about that but the net result of the progressive left has always been more bodies.
Funny the very same can and should be said about you Fidelis.
SO much disinformation flying around right now ( most of it seemingly picked up by groups on college campuses). From what I have heard, the Hamas members managed to both indoctrinate young Palestinia men ( not hard to do if you have no job or future), while at the same time terrorizing and even murdering those among its own who disagreed with them. It is quite easy to believe that Hamas held many of the citizens of Gaza in a grip of fear. Anyone with knowledge of the mechanisms of the Third Reich and other authoritarian governments will be able to understand that.
"A Winters Tale" via Richard III
Now is the Winters of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew’d up,
About a prophecy, which says that ‘G’
Of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here
Clarence comes.
Nice. Perhaps we should insist that all Substack comments in the King’s English be written in iambic pentameter.
I'm also hoping for biblical verses. Seeing as Bibi is going all m(essi)anic
In the day it was a Queen and it was her English, non? A whole new can of worms. Oh, dear! What schisms when we delve into ancient historical claims.
The argument needs to start that there is a majority Jewish state called Israel. It will not be wiped out, it is a legitimate member of the UN and is recognized and supported by the West. Even if that support is not there, Israelis will fight to the death to keep their state. After we have established that this will not change, we can ask What can we do to realize the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians and respecting that reality.
This was essentially the ultimatum given to Yassir Arafat and the PLO in the late-80’s. The PLO accepted the premise—however tentatively—and Hamas famously did not.
From a moderate-inclined Palestinian perspective to whom you make your appeal, how has it worked out for the PLO and its Oslo-borne offshoot, the PA, to end the occupation in the West Bank?
Doesn't matter what the PLO said or signed. The buses started exploding and the wave in terrorism convinced Israelis that they were not safe and the Palestinians suffered from the crackdown. I don't think Arafat convinced the Israeli public that he could be trusted. It is on the Palestinians to convince them or nothing will change. It's a good question who are the Palestinian moderates that can move the ball forward. I don't really see any moderates having much power. Maybe Peter and his ilk can give them some sort of legitimacy and support? For all the screaming and shouting it doesn't seem like the left has much sway in moderating the Palestinians, it seems like they are making them more extreme.
The bride died having coffee with her dad the night before her wedding when Ararat’s people blew up a coffee shop in Jerusalem. The high school kids celebrating died in a disco in Tel Aviv.
Terror towards Israeli civilians has been systemic in Palestinian actions.
"The PLO accepted the premise—however tentatively"
Did they, though?
The Fatah-run PA made material concessions to that effect and was a reliable security partner with Israel in the West Bank for 15 years until that very reliability undermined its own credibility and popular support. That reliability succeeded only in allowing the Israeli public to believe that the Palestinian matter had been suitably set to rest and could be safely ignored.
It didn’t advance long-term Palestinian interests an iota. When Abbas went or threatened to go to the international community—the ICJ, ICC, or UNGA—to gain leverage on the Israelis by nonviolent means, he was blocked at ever turn by the US and had a harsh retaliation waiting for him from the Israelis upon his return.
You can simply assert unfalsifiably that in the beating heart of every Mahmoud Abbas is Josef Goebbels or a Hamas Islamist Jihadi lying in wait. Therefore complete refusal to have worked for a peaceful solution with the Palestinians and to allow continued dispossession in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for the last 15 years is justified.
Awfully convenient, if your goal is permanently ensure the status quo and endless cycles of violence until the end of time.
For somone who you claim isn't like Josef Goebbels, Abbas sounds shockingly similar to... Joseph Goebels
Abbas said: “They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews.
“No. It was clearly explained that they fought them because of their social role and not their religion.” Abbas later clarified that he was referring to “usury, money and so on”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/07/palestinian-president-condemned-mahmoud-abbas-holocaust-remarks
And what more enlightened views on Jews, anti-semitism, and the Holocaust do you think the average Jordanian, Egyptian, Turkish, Moroccan, Saudi, or Emirati politician holds and shares with receptive private crowds? Should that have derailed peace talks or paths to normalization with those countries? Merely saying ignorant, ahistorical things about Jews in public is not why Goebbels is notorious in history.
From the Palestinian perspective make an appeal to the Israeli public and Israeli leaders. It worked for Sadat, it worked for King Hussein, it worked for the UAE. If it is accompanied by violence no amount of words, gestures, signatures etc. makes a difference.
It seems to me that moderate Palestinians had been appealing to the Israeli public and the international community to stop the expansion of settlement units in the West Bank, dispossession in East Jerusalem, and to end the blockade in Gaza for 15 years since the end of second intifada.
Israel’s response was to keep electing increasingly right wing governments increasingly hostile to Palestinian interests. The response from the international community was to herald the arrival of the Abraham Accords that completely ignored them.
No Palestinian moderate has a leg to stand on in beseeching the polity against returning to wide-scale acceptance of armed violence.
You don't get it. To Israelis, this sounds like stop protecting yourselves first and then maybe we can talk. The Israelis need to hear "We will not threaten you anymore if you negotiate borders and give use self determination". No Palestinian leader ever states that clearly. You know why?
The Palestinian movement has never internalized that they will never ever be able to return to "Palestine". The fact that a Palestinian moderate doesn't have a leg to stand on is not the fault of Israel. It is the fault of the Palestinian movement that holds on the hope that they will one day return to their villages that are long gone that existed in 1948. This will NEVER HAPPEN unless there is a real Jewish genocide which is highly unlikely and is not something anyone with any power really wants.
Believe it or not, I get the fear and reluctance, especially after 10/7. I suspect for at least a plurality(if not more) of the Israel public, your assertions ring true.
But no political solution until “Jews feel safe” is an untenable emotive position for a people with enough collective historical trauma to last for a millennium, independent of anything Palestinians could do or not do now. And it is inherently unjust in that it unequally weights the security and desire to feel “safe” of Israeli Jews over the same for Palestinians. You can say “tough shit” to all that, but that comes at a cost to world opinion, sympathy, and prestige for Israel. Even I was shocked at how quickly sympathy for Israelis evaporated after 10/7 when the intense bombing of Gaza began.
Analogously to your mention of Palestinian rejectionism, it’s also a bit too glib to suggest that the Israeli public is so monolithic in its willingness to give up Judea and Samaria if only for the security concerns. As if it were a matter of Mahmoud Abbas whispering enough sweet-nothings into the ear of Bezelel Smotrich to be granted a sovereign state of Palestine. You just can’t say that with a straight face.
The increasingly powerful segment of the Israeli polity that opposes concessions to the Palestinians opposed them on principles dating back before the 1948 founding. The maximalist settlement franchise is a core aspect of Zionism itself and has been entrenched since the founding to 1967 and beyond, it’s not some fringe extracurricular movement. Where are the Israeli moderates holding it in check? Nowhere, because they either fully support it, tacitly support it, or are otherwise powerless to curb it.
So what hope then does a moderate Palestinian politician have to do so to gain a base of political support among his own constituents?
I believe Israel has made concessions in the past and will in the future. and the majority support it. Smotrich and Ben Gvir are anomalies and the result of the messed up Israeli parliamentary setup. We can debate how far the Israeli public will go, but we do know they proposed peace deals that included considerable concessions. The exact parameters of those deals is always debated but it is universally accepted that concessions were made.
The position is not emotive, it is very realistic and I am not putting forth my position I am explaining what I think the reality is, the Israelis will have to make and live with their decisions. I just don't believe there will be any movement until the Palestinians give up there hope of returning. Until then the resulting reality will be much worse for the Palestinians. For that reason it is on them (the Palestinians), Israelis can live with the occupation and when it flares up they respond and the Palestinians suffer even more. It just seems that the Palestinians don't act in their best interest.
So Beinart, after all the war crimes and massacres and atrocities Hamas has committed, which you have not bothered to discuss in detail but anyone who claims to be informed should know about already...your big plan is to just give Hamas everything they want? And you don't think that will send a message to the entire world that mass murder and unspeakable crimes is a good idea, thereby encouraging other terrorist groups to do exactly the same thing if not worse? Or would that involve thinking too far ahead?
As for why this happened in the first place, one of the main reasons was that Israel was getting close to making a real peace with Saudi Arabia. And yet you encourage Israel to resume doing it? Why would that prevent future terrorist massacres like this one?
Oh, and if you listen to Palestinians, they might talk about "oppression", sometimes. We usually hear that more from propagandist "mansplainers" on the Internet, not so much Palestinians themselves. What we hear more often are chants like "there is only one solution" and "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". No reason to talk about that, though, as it violates the narrative.
Here's an idea, Beinart? Why don't you just stop talking for a while and let the Palestinians speak for themselves? Then we could all know exactly what is going on with no need for spin.
He thinks we’re all gonna live nicely together. That’s after all the Jews are massacred
Professor Beinart--so Israel will be able to hunt down Hamas leaders and kill them because of the "evil" of their attack. Will Palestinians be able to hunt down and kill the entire Israeli cabinet because of the evil of their terror-assaults on Gaza? And will there be any justice for the series of Zionist massacres in Gaza, going all the way back to Rafah and Khan Yunis back in 1956? And Hamas will have to make some promises before it can be reintegrated into the Palestinian polity? Same thing for Likud and Israel, Professor Beinart? Or is there some profound ethical difference between Hamas soldiers shooting an Israeli child, and Israeli soldiers crushing a Palestinian child under tons of debris?
I much prefer the solution of Peter Beinart from two weeks ago: set the captives free. The 220+ Israeli captives, the 10,000 Palestinian captive political prisoners in Israel, languishing without charges or trials. The 2.4 million captives in the Gaza Concentration Camp. And the many semi-captives in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Then, a truth and reconciliation commission. But if you begin by insisting that Hamas is metaphysically evil and exterminable, then the Israeli analogies will not be slow in coming.
The Nazis made the same argument as you during the Nuremberg trials, James. They felt that their actions were morally equivalent to the Allied bombing raids against the German war machine. And unfortunately for you and them, the judges at Nuremberg had none of it.
"A city is bombed for tactical purposes… it inevitably happens that nonmilitary persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls, it is aimed at the railroad yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to these same railroad tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them."
So, yes, there is a profound ethical difference between Hamas soldiers shooting an Israeli child and Israel soldiers striking Hamas an a Palestinian child gets crushed as a result.
Your faith in the virtue of the Israeli artillerymen and pilots ("Ooops! an apartment building! Oops! a hospital!") is bracing. So the solution is obvious: give Hamas an air force and field artillery, and all of the ensuing civilian deaths ("Ooops! a kibbutz!") will also be collateral damage, which you will find sad but acceptable. Problem solved!
We know for a fact that Hamas uses mosques and hospitals for military purposes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/31/why-hamas-stores-its-weapons-inside-hospitals-mosques-and-schools/
If you actually cared about Palestinian deaths, rather than rejoicing in them so you can use them in your crusade against Israel, you would agree with me that Hamas should surrender immediately so no one dies. Do you?
Lol, I love it! Your comments are by far my favourite on this substack, lol.
Peter aligns with Hamas on goals, he’s just a bit squeamish on their methods. Sure, he’s into victim blaming Israel for a massacre carried out by Palestinian death squads - JewishCurrents carried that antisemitic “Jews killed themselves” message. He’s also fine with pro Hamas protests calling for the genocide of Jews “from the river to the sea” and “by any means”. He also supports assaults on Jewish students on campus by his pro Hamas friends, if they’re Zionists. Peter Beinart is a professor, and his idea of safe spaces are ones where the only approved hate speech and assault is by SJP and similar antisemitic organizations.
Cassif is exactly like Beinart - accuses Israel for a Hamas massacre, lying that Israel is targeting civilians in Gaza rather than going after Hamas, acting as if a single bomb would have dropped on Gaza if it wasn’t for the Palestinians carrying out their dream of genocide... er liberation, yes liberation - that’s what it was.
Instead Peter could be asking his Pals and his pro Hamas friends to demand that Hamas surrender to the UN for a trial at the ICC. Gaza will be free of a totalitarian regime worse than North Korea, trapping Gazans in an open air prison against their will, and more genocidal than ISIS. But apparently Peter is eager to help Hamas survive. He wants Jews out of Israel one way or another, and further massacres are a small price to pay for a highly ethical propagandist living in the US.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/decolonization-narrative-dangerous-and-false/675799/
Just to be clear -
1. Your explanation of what Israel should do does not address the hostages, do you think the hostages should be ignored? You don't even think releasing the hostages should be pre-condition for any of your suggested good-faith actions on the part of the Israelis?
2. And when you talk about hunting down the members of Hamas who committed this atrocity - how is Israel supposed to do that without ground troops or air strikes?
It sounds like you're suggesting that Israel basically do nothing to hold the Hamas murderers to account or to rescue the hostages.
Peter, like most progressive critics of Israel, feels that Hamas/Palestine is incapable of doing anything for itself and only reacts to whatever Israel does. Thus, he does not even bother paying lip service to the idea that Hamas should release the hostages. He cannot comprehend a world where Hamas does anything that isn't a reaction to something Israel did.
Israel is well experienced in hunting down perpetrators of atrocities (see MUNICH).
This was an option I suggested on day 2 after the slaughter.
That's very different than killing terrorists living in tunnels under a civilian population.
Poor Peter he lost the narrative october 7. It’s over Peter whatever it was.
Reality check:
There will be endless fighting if the Israeli population looks over there borders and see people talking about erasing their Jewish majority state and killing them. Unless that changes, nothing will change and the Palestinians will always be victims. It doesn't matter how much they cry victimhood, or how much their supporters march and scream. Israel is a nuclear power with a powerful army, no Israeli government will give up sovereignty. You can pontificate, make up solutions, scream injustice, apartheid or whatever. The only way forward is to make Israelis feel safe. Right now and everything Beinart proposes will do the opposite. The left holds out unrealistic scenarios to Palestinians which I think is really cruel. Many Palestinians really believe that they will one day be able to come back to Israel and the Jews will either be expelled or killed. Beinart and the left should be working to strengthen Palestinian moderates to take charge and change their narrative. If not, both Palestinians and Israelis will suffer. The Palestinians being the weaker side will always suffer more.
I like the Bennett plan. Hamas's infrastructure is in northern Gaza. 500 miles of tunnels, weapons caches, operations, headquarters, and 40,000 fighters waiting underground (imagine if all of this money had been used over the years to help civilians and build a Singapore-like country instead of channeling into a war machine).
To avoid potentially large IDF casualities as well as civilian casualities caused by Hamas using cititizens as human shields (their headquarters, for example, are located under a hospital!), Israel should lay seige to the north. The country will have a firm border across the middle of the country with a crossing that allows civilians to move south. Israel has been sending these messages to civilians with greater urgency ahead of a ground invasion.
Then...wait it out. Surround the northern part of the country and let Hamas run out of its fuel, food and water. Force them out of their bunkers. Kill Hamas and destroy their underground war machine.
This idea was floated in the Bret Stephens piece last week in the NYT as well.
And what will Israel do when rockets start hitting the reoccupation forces from the south?
And what about when Israel is called to answer for the optics of the policy as mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing?
How will the Israeli government deal with far-right settler demands to move back into the southern Gush Katif, demands that are much more politically potent than decades ago?
My critique is that the logical end of it is that Israel ends back up in 2001 with complete reoccuption in Gaza and bloody Intifada on all fronts with no alternatives or resolution on the horizon. It moves everything backwards a generation.
There will not be "mass expulsions" and "ethnic cleansing". You might be right about a return to 2001, but the Israelis will put down the Intifada like they did before. Everything that you call "brutal occupation". More dead bodies and definitely more Palestinian dead bodies than Israelis. Convince the Israelis that the Palestinians are not a threat and you will get movement. More violence will just make things worse on the Palestinians.
Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh has said that his terror group needs the "blood of the women, children and elderly" of Gaza in order to "awaken... resolve".
Appearing on on Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen television, he called on the "free people of the world" to stop the bombing of Gaza, which he referred to as the "new Holocaust"
In the footage, originally published by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Hamas leader went on: "The blood of the women, children and elderly […] we are the ones who need this blood, so it awakens within us the revolutionary spirit, so it awakens with us resolve."
Israel's demise is "inevitable," said Haniyeh, adding that preparations must be made for the "post-occupation" phase.
https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/hamas-terror-chief-openly-supports-civilian-deaths-in-gaza-6tT8D7x7VDUyvWBDEvVuT2
Hamas needs blood, the blood of women, children, and the elderly.
I have been thinking about a similar alternative which I briefly outlined below:
1. Hamas' Oct 7 attack was cruel and barbaric and there must be a response.
2. Reducing Gaza to rubble will kill thousands more while completely turning the world against Israel, will not stop Hamas and may cause a regional or world war.
3. Instead, call on Hamas to release all hostages now. In return Israel will release all Palestinian political prisoners , especially the children, and including Marwan Barghouti. I recognize that the definition of "political prisoner" is open to some debate. Certainly, all people being held by administrative detention, all minors, all people like Barghouti who are known to be politically active should be released. I would in fact say anyone other than those convicted of property or human injury charges against civilians should be let out.
4. Israel will request a dialogue with Hamas, Abbas and Barghouti to begin to outline a peace plan , the implementation of which will be proceeded by a Palestinian election.
5. Yes, Hamas are terrorists, including to their own people, but they must be at the table. Yes, Abbas is totally discredited as ineffective and corrupt and the stooge of Israel, head of its outsourced security agent in the West Bank, but they must be at the table too. And Marwan Barghouti must be there. As you note while in prison he has made statements to suggest that he sees value in making peace with Jewish Israelis.
6. This group, with Israel, will begin discussions of what a peace might look like. I too favor one state. At the least, it must be sincere and just, or it won't last, but otherwise it must be shaped by those who will live it.
7. This group will also make plans for an election by a date certain which must not be postponed by Fatah, Hamas, Israel or the US. All Palestinians can vote in the election including those in Jerusalem. I would say even those in the diaspora but that would take too long under the circumstances.
8. On the ballot will be the choosing of new leadership for Palestinians. Also on the ballot should be some broad outline of possible alternatives of Palestinian existence with Israel.
9. In this interim, Israelis must control its right-wing, in the West Bank in particular. The harm and harassment and extrajudicial killings must be, if not eliminated, at least turned back to the level of a couple of years ago before this Israeli government took office.
10. Perhaps there can be some international peacekeeping to help with this in the West Bank, as well as to administer the elections.
11. As you noted, this Israeli administration will not be inclined to any of this but hopefully, for a variety of reasons, the citizens of Israel will see fit to quickly replace them.
12. All through the process, Hamas, Fatah, Barghouti and Israel must meet regularly to discuss sincere and just alternatives for peace and the administration of a fair and prompt election for new Palestinian leadership.
Like Peter's this is well thought through, even better because you put Hamas at the table, and equally unlikely, but a great starting point.
I would amend 5. thus: 5. Yes, Hamas are terrorists, including to their own people, as are the Israeli government state terrorists including to its own citizens. Otherwise Just scrap the first words.
Moral equivalence is a bad look here. You are an antiSemite.
My heroes in this are people like Peter, Gideon Levy, Avi Schlaim, Gabor Maté, Ilan Pappé, Norman Finkelstein, Rachel Shabi, Shlomo Sand, Bet'selem, Not in Our Name, Breaking the Silence, the list is thankfully long and growing ..in short, the true Menches, Jewish and/or Israeli. Zionism is racism. Is that your label?
Maxwell - Thanks for reading and commenting. Fully fleshed out my thoughts are a plea to Israel in its response, a plea to be courageous. As such, calling out wrong for wrong wouldn't be helpful. More importantly, I don't think Israel is equivalent to Hamas. For Israel's actual citizens there are still traditions of democracy including due process. Even for Palestinians, Israel's cruelty and physical harm is not like the medieval horror that Hamas perpetrated Oct. 7th on Jewish Israelis (and others who happened to be near them at the time). I know a woman who works in Gaza providing humanitarian aide. A few years ago she told me the story of a young Gazan entrepreneur who was working to establish a solar power business. Hamas flat out told them that if they continued Hamas would kill them. I guess this effort risked competing with Hamas in the area of energy which they prefer, for strategic reasons of oppression and war, to control. In other words, even those whom Hamas says it represents and fights for are subject to its terror.
Thank you. The thing that is good about Peter's debate philosophy is to listen to (reasonable) people whose opinion you don't share or vary even just a little with. Because I respect your analysis, your call for Israel to be courageous (I love the yiddish expression "Be a mensch") albeit suggesting your detail is unworkable for the usual reasons, principally because Israel will never enter meaningful negotiations or make concessions it actually will carry out, cf Oslo. And will rather create division to the point of approving funding organisations like Hamas in order to undermine their more secular alternatives as well as sabotaging more legitimate leaders.
There is also room to believe that IDF forces, notably in the West Bank, provoke violent reactions in order to punish people and seize property. In time, we can analyse if, by accident or design, this is the case on a massive scale with Gaza.
There are several thousand prisoners in Israel that have not had due process or have had a rigged version of due process.
Maybe we cannot have equivalence between a hopped-up third generation Gaza refugee on the back of a motorbike with a Kalashnikov committing war crimes against civilians and an IAF pilot, with advanced university degrees, operating state of the art missile technology, in a million dollar fighter jet who pushes a button that obliterates a refugee space he knows is harbouring many civilians, half of whom are children. Yet the latter is considered a war hero and, unlike the Gaza guy has not taken any risk to his own life. Haaretz's Gideon Levy needed bodyguards for suggesting how preposterous it was to treat IAF pilots as heroes.
Other heroes of Israeli independence, like Begin and Shamir fought with units like Irgun and Stern Gang committing war crimes and later each becoming prime minister.
As for atrocities on the Israeli side, the "New Historians" (see wiki) could document the full extent of the ethnic cleansing and the "exemplary" situations used to ensure people moved out of their villages and lands when "encouraged".
A recent film documents one such example including the persecution of Israelis who spoke up. The trailer even suffices TANTURA (2022): trailer
https://youtu.be/clLffM4SqzQ?si=OUZ5P_G65A-XbbYO
So, I agree that creating equivalences is not a good idea, but identifying each individual crime for what it is, in itself, is and will be necessary.
Dear Maxwell:
I agree with your description of Israel's behavior. But now what? How do we end this oppression of the Palestinians? How do we end Israel's violence on civilians? How do we actually stop Hamas' terrorism?
I am encouraged that the world is rising up to loudly protest what Israel does. Even in the US, which Netanyahu long ago bragged he could always deal with, it looks like the hasbara machine has at least been damaged.
What Israel is doing in Gaza doesn't look to me like a calculated response to stop further actions by Hamas. It looks like pure revenge. Israel is outraged that it was caught unawares and now Hamas and all Gazans will be punished. It is so caught up in its own rage that it can barely pay lip service to caring about the safety or freeing of the Israeli hostages, let alone the safety of civilians in Gaza.
Seeking revenge is both immoral and impractical because once Gaza has been been reduced to rubble the only sure result is that thousands of new Hamas recruits will spring from the debris. That is what Israel is creating with this round of horror.
My hope is that the outcry from the world for a ceasefire will cause Israel to agree to stop, at least for a moment, at least for public appearances.
But they will have to be given an acceptable reason to do the right thing, even for a moment. What would that be? That's what I've been trying to think about.
After the ceasefire the near term goal would be to give the Palestinian people a voice as soon as possible. I'm convinced that when the Palestinian elections were cancelled a couple of years ago that Netanyahu and Abbas and Biden all conspired to make that happen. The election was probably going to be messy, they couldn't control the outcome and that wasn't convenient for any of them, as if that should have mattered. This must have been deeply discouraging to the Palestinians who seemed ready to participate in good faith. After too many years this right to be heard must no longer be deferred.
My piece is meant to be a plea to the Israelis to do the right thing in this moment. Israel must releases all the political prisoners and Hamas must release all of the hostages. There is precedent for this in an earlier Israel/Hamas transaction. Both sides could gain some goodwill from doing this again.
Marwan Barghouti must be among those released by Israel He needs to join the table with Israel, Hamas and Fatah to discuss holding an immediate Palestinian election so that a more legitimate leader can be appointed. Presumably, Barghouti will introduce some legitimacy to the process from the Palestinian side even before an election since he will be untainted by Israeli "management". I am not a religious person but we can only pray that he rises up to meet the occasion.
You seemed to suggest that Hamas is not a legitimate leader of Palestine. It is not a good leader, not a democratic leader but it leads by virtue of the power it controls. Abbas is no better. Both "leaders" were to some extent created by Netanyahu and he thought he could "manage" both. And, in any case, it's rare that you get to choose your enemy. You have to deal with what's before you.
Of course, in the longer term the really hard work must be done. As you say, Israel has always been willing to engage in some process as long as it results in something they can work around while continuing to build settlements, walls and separate roads. In fact, they always find a way, by stalling, to ignore what it has seemed to promise.
That is why the pressure of the world will need to be maintained because if a peace is not both just in word and sincere in effort it too will be doomed.
But right now if we can just stop the bombing and release all the hostages, both in Gaza and Israel, and start the talking, it will be a good beginning.
Paula
Hello Paula,
Thanks for your considered response. Rather than reply in any detail, I'll say, given the escalating trend to dispossess Palestinians of land and rights in Gaza and the West bank that this may really be a convenient way to complete the Nakba. Netanyahou is willing to sacrifice Israeli lives for this while his son avoids miltary service in Florida.
Afterwards, once this is achieved in all its messiness and tragedy, facts on the ground become the new status quo. Arab citizens of Israel wiil possibly then be threatened with stripping them of their Israeli nationality for contrived reasons. River to the Sea figures in the Likud charter, yet no one seems to identify this as threatening.
If there is a core solution, it lies with the US promptly withdrawing support if Israel puts nothing fair on the table. That's not going to happen tomorrow. Though the growing numbers of Jews who correctly abhor this plundering of the Jewish soul offer some possibility of future redress. Long live Peter, his brain wracking to propose procedures and processes, and his varied allies in this cause. And to you.
Max
Dream on. Hamas won’t be at any ‘table’.
The Arab Peace Initiative is vague. It doesn’t say if Israel must absorb 100,000 or 1 million refugees. It doesn’t say what percentage of the West Bank can be swapped. There are other grey zones in this peace plan (that both sides must approve, but it remains a vague framework that cannot full solve the conflict).
Only the Clinton Parameters (that the Palestinians and the Israeli right reject, can break the stalemate).
Beinart knows that the revisionist understanding of the failure of peace talks is flawed. In 2001, Israel expressed its reservations to Clinton’s parameters in the conditional tense (there was no outright rejection). On top of this, on December 29, 2000, Shlomo Ben called Arafat to tell him that he dropped all of Israel’s reservations. During the Taba summit, he went further by offering the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank (not 97%), and without his government’s approval, he went so far as to offer exclusive Palestinian sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount provided that it would also be recognized as a Jewish holy site. The truth is that at Taba, Israel went BEYOND the Clinton Parameters.
The Palestinians said no to Clinton’s franework before turning this no into a yes with reservations, once they realized that saying no outright would isolate them (Ahmed Qurei).
However, they rejected three major provisions of the Clinton parameters (and things haven’t changed ever since): they reject the idea of a land swap encompassing 4-6% of the West Bank allowing 80% of the settlers to remain home (they want a 2% swap uprooting more than 40% of the settlers); they want exclusive sovereignty over the Noble Sanctuary without having this area recognized as a Jewish holy site as well (Clinton called for a vertical sovereignty); they insist on Israel’s exclusive responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem (Clinton talked about a partial responsibility), and the PA wants Israel to grant all refugees an individual right of return to Israel proper. Revisionists stress that the PA is willing to demand the return of only dozens or hundreds of thousands of refugees in exchange for this "symbolic gesture", but they fail to understand that once an individual (not a collective) right of return is recognized, refugees can demand to exercise it without the support of the PA. They can take Israel to the International Court of Justice or go to the UN General Assembly, which would open a Pandora’s box.
The Palestinians rejected Olmert’s peace plan in 2008 and the Kerry-Obama principles in 2014, for the same reasons. Even Hussein Agha acknowledged to the Fathom magazine that the Clinton Parameters can only serve as a basis for a partial agreement.
Up until October 7th, I thought that a confederal solution with open borders (pretty much like in the EU), could reconcile Israel’s existence with the right of return. Hamas killed this idea for at least two additional decades (if not more).
Hamas’ massacre has also turned Beinart’s one-state solution into a naive and dangerous dogmatic slogan no less ridiculous than "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh".
The only solution now is a full-fledged divorce. If the Palestinians are still unable to sign a final-status agreement, Israel can create a de facto Palestinian state in the West Bank by transferring all civil powers to the PA and uprooting the settlers (it wouldn’t be so difficult to uproot 100,000 settlers; Israel has just displaced 200,000 of its own citizens and most military experts agree that if the IDF leaves the West Bank, the settlers who will fear retribution from the Palestinians will run faster than the army). The IDF can then redeploy to the border between Jordan and the West Bank (Israel cannot fully withdraw from the West Bank until a final-status agreement is signed, but it can relinquish 90% of this area).
The two-state solution with hard borders and walls (not a confederal) is the only solution. Raymond Aron wrote many years ago that intellectuals have a hard time dealing with facts. Beinart should heed his words.
I think the significance of the Arab Peace Initiative wasn’t in the level of resolution of the proposals—as you say much of that was sussed-out in Camp David, Clinton Parameters, and/or Taba.
But rather it was that it put the prize of normalization with the entire Arab World—plus Iran, at least nominally—on the table to incentivize an agreement and address the security concerns of Israel regarding accepting a Palestinian state.
I think that put a lot of pressure on Israel and ultimately led directly to the fateful Sharon plan of unilateral Gaza disengagement to freeze-out the peace process to avoid such compromises.
Agreed. But in 2005, Sharon presented a map to Sephen Hadley (George W. Bush’s National Security advisor). It showed a Palestinian state within provisional borders encompassing 85% of the West Bank (he was willing to make additional concession later on). I don’t think Sharon was a con artist. At the end of his like, he was really committed to a state solution.
https://fathomjournal.org/israel-without-sharons-coma-a-counterfactual-history/
I don't think I understand the history here, is this the same Shlomo Ben who said that, were he a Palestinian, he wouldn't have accepted the terms of Camp David?
I’m not talking about Camp David, I’m talking about the Clinton Parameters. At Camp David, Israel offered only 92% of the WB but Arafat refused to make a counteroffer. Both sides blundered…
Read Ben Ami’s book on the subject “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace”. His take is much more nuanced and insightful than that one quote.
Essentially the entire world correctly concluded back in the 1980’s that endless rounds of war and tit-for-tats were not going to resolve the crisis. A political solution is the only path forward, all else are paths.backwards and therefore are acts of inter-generational injustice committed. The ground invasion is mostly driven by short-term emotive domestic politics, not long-term clear-eyed rational strategy.
Hamas is an Islamist resistance front for Palestinian liberation. Five more organizations could pop-up in their absence with a lot of the same personnel. All Israel is likely to accomplish strategically is to force them to exchange for new business cards at horrendous moral and political cost. First in Gaza, then it will spread to the West Bank, then to Lebanon and Syria—there’s no end.
The support for Islamist resistance isn’t just intrinsic to the Palestinians, but part of a low simmering civil war throughout the Arab world. The deeper and longer this war is sustained, the more it will empower the extremists like Iran and weaken the moderates.
And unless there’s credible promise of a grand Marshall Plan by the international community to invest in and rebuild Gaza at the conclusion, there’s no way to make a futile eradication campaign morally justifiable at the onset. Meanwhile Israel’s intelligence ministry has already produced a proposal for mass expulsion in Gaza which, if enacted, would complete Israel’s trajectory into international pariah.
There's no political solution, Paul, as long as Palestine, yes Palestine, maintains this narrative that Israel must be destroyed, exists on stolen Arab land, is a colonial entity that they are justified in destroying, is an apartheid state, etc. etc. There's no compromise with this belief, no negotiation, and no solution. Hamas just butchered 1400+ Israelis and people around the world are cheering and celebrating it. That's how entrenched the belief is.
Palestine needs to undergo denazification. It, as a society, needs to change their narrative and genuinely accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state alongside them. No, Abbas the unelected dictator saying he accepts it isn't the same thing as the society itself accepting it. Anti-Zionism needs to be removed from Palestinian society. Then and only then can the crisis be resolved.
The characterization of Palestinians as comparable to Nazis doesn't hold water for anybody outside of the Hasbara echo chamber. How many Nazis were being held up at checkpoints, unable to get to their schools, workplaces, or hospitals, having their homes demolished by bulldozers, being rounded up and imprisoned preemptively, having their kids shot for throwing stones at occupying soldiers, etc? This kind of deranged hyperbole only further reinforces extremism on both sides.
Germany after WWI was economically devastated. Poverty was widespread, inflation was extreme, and living conditions were poor.
And the Nazis told the German people exactly what they wanted to hear. That their situation was not their fault, nor was it their government's fault. It's not that the proud German people lost WWI fair and square. No. It was the Jews! The Jews betrayed Germany, caused them to lose WWI, and are responsible for the horrible living conditions the Germans now were in.
And now, the Palestinians are playing from the same playbook. The situation they are in isn't their fault. They're not being held up at checkpoints because of the Second Intifada, which they lost. They're not getting their homes demolished because that's what happens when terrorists murder people. They're not under blockade because of the constant rocket attacks and the refusal to make peace. No. It's the Jews! The Jews are doing all of those things to them for no reason other than Jews are evil and this is what Jews do.
The characterization of Hamas and their supporters as Nazis is apt. If the jackboot fits, wear it.
At the end of WWI the winners decided to tightly turn the screws on Germany in retaliation. Not only did Germany lose the war decisively but it was expected to pay impossible reparations thus crushing any chance of recovery. The Jews, recently freed of restrictions keeping them in the ghettos, emerged and quickly became successful. They were a much easier target for the revenge of Germany's post-war pain than were those nations who won the war and imposed the reparations. The point is one cycle of violence feeds the next. It has to stop. As thinking, and not simply vengefully reactive humans, it can be stopped.
I agree. Denazification can stop it. There's a historical precedent.
But modern day Nazis, aka Hamas, cannot be allowed to continue to exist on the Earth. They proved that on 10/7.
Actually, Gazans are a lot more simpleminded than the Nazis were. The former look up in the sky and see planes bombing them, and naively assume that all the blame for their suffering is attributable to the state whose insignias adorn those aircraft, and not with the approximately 2% of their own number hiding out in tunnels below them (ie, the approximately 40k out of 2.4 million Gazans estimated by Israeli and other intelligence services to comprise Hamas militants). Whereas Nazis came up with much more elaborate theories about having been "stabbed in the back" by subversive elements in their midst, and attributing Germany's loss of WWI and its suffering from hyperinflation and crippling indemnification burdens to be attributable to "the Jews". But other than the (effectively largely coincidental) fact that, in both cases, the confessional identities of the parties being blamed happen ro match, there's literally no similarity whatsoever between the two groups being compared.
Put down the white man's burden and get rid of the racism of low expectations. Gazans aren't "simple minded." They're perfectly able to understand the cause and effect of Hamas firing a rocket for example and getting bombed in response.
No similarity between Hamas and Nazis other than blaming all their problems on Jews? Have you educated yourself as to what happened on 10/7?
Well put Winters. Anti-semites gonna anti-semite. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Why are you suggesting that Gazans should be so much more sophisticated than North Americans were, on September 11, 2001, when the latter saw Middle Eastern hijackers fly planes into buildings killing thousands of civilians, and then readily went along with the assumption that their suffering was all down to "Islamofascism", like their elected leaders claimed, and not some longer historical timeline that their own leaders were implicated in? Most ordinary people ARE pretty simpleminded, wherever they happen to live, and accept generally the simplest explanations, especially when those explanations comport with what the most powerful people in their own midst are telling them. Whereas for them to come up with other, more elaborate theories about their predicament requires a lot of other, extraordinary conditions to obtain.
Given the einsatzgruppen style massacre their elected leadership just carried out I think the Nazi comparison is very apt.
More like a random US style mass shooting. There has yet to be any thorough investigation, and there is no evidence yet that Hamas militants were under any orders to methodically kill their victims. Not all hideous atrocities ever committed in the world are automatically "einsatzgruppen style". This is just more ahistorical, dangerous and deranged hyperbole.
So what your saying is they had a different plan but got sidetracked into raping woman and burning babies?
I think their actions are pretty consitent with their own charter:
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)
That's not an "operational plan". That's a theocratic justification for indiscriminate violence. Congratulations, we agree, they are a reprehensible group. Just like Netanyahu is reprehensible for invoking "Amalek" to justify his approach to Gaza. But nobody would mistake his statements for an operational plan.
https://www.unz.com/runz/pro-israel-propaganda-lies-vs-reality/
Certainly there’s no domestically-viable political solution available within Israel other than full invasion without compromise and the resultant disaster to come from it, but it doesn’t negate the cold objective reality of the only exit strategy from the conflict is to move in nearly the opposite direction. That’s the tragic multigenerational trap that Israelis are in.
Meanwhile, in the face of the Israeli onslaught, Palestinians have no choice but to support Hamas who has shown themselves to be the only partisans willing and capable of extracting a cost on the Israelis. Is some moderating body going to come along and hold Israel in check and attend to their needs? All have seen the apparent dead-end of accommodationism of the PA, Arab govts, and the international community. What choices do the Palestinians really have?
In my mind, Palestinian support for Hamas is borne of the same basic human need for security that motivates the Israeli public to support its hardline policies. It’s almost the very definition of banality to say it, but it’s nonetheless true that Israelis and Palestinians are stuck in the same—or at least analogous—tragic trap.
Palestinians "have no choice"? Just like Peter, Paul, you show the racism of low expectations. Of course the Palestinians have a choice, and they've always had one. They can give up their mad quest to wipe out Israel and live alongside it in peace. I'm amazed how for you, Peter, and apparently the Palestinians in general, such an idea can't even be considered as an option. It's like an entire movement and society has a gigantic blind spot.
It's completely insane to think that Palestinian support for Hamas is borne of security. The Gazans knew exactly what was going to happen after 10/7. A large part of them cheered it anyway because they prefer to die as martyrs for the Palestinian cause than live in peace.
Winters, when you kiss your mother and tell her you love her, is that offered in bad-faith and insincerity too? It seems to be the only manner in which you are capable of expressing yourself.
No bad-faith here. I responded to the exact argument you were making. If you disagree, explain why.
Tell us you make no sense, without telling us you make no sense.
I and others been arguing with Winters in here for over a year now. When I find myself writing a response to him that I’ve written 3 times before, I usually stop myself and go with snark, sarcasm, or levity instead.
Heres a crazy thought maybe the Palistinian support for Hamas is born of the exact same virulent anti semitism found throughout the Arab world. 80% of Lebanon support the October 6 Hamas masscare of Jews. Last time I checked the Lebanese are not under Israeli rule. Whats your excuse for them? https://www.timesofisrael.com/80-of-people-in-lebanon-support-hamass-oct-7-massacres-in-israel-poll-finds/
You are shocked that the Lebanese might be overwhelmingly sympathetic to those under Israel’s falling bombs? Have you no acquaintance with a history book?
I’m not making excuses for anyone—I think cheering the barbarous acts of Hamas are ugly, inhumane, vile,and reprehensible—but objectively it’s been the nature of ethnic-tribal conflicts since the dawn of the species. I’m not sure wagging my finger in internet comments section at human nature in disapproval helps much.
You tell me why you—or at least many others like you—are so callously indifferent to Palestinian suffering and injustice long endured and I’ll tell you why the majority of the Arab world is so callously indifferent to Jewish suffering and injustice endured on Oct. 7. It’s two sides of the same coin, in my view, where the style varies but not so much the substance.
Perhaps—and I’m speaking generally, obviously I don’t know you—because you have no genuine sympathy for innocent Palestinians you cannot understand how expressed sympathy for Palestinians by others could possibly be genuine. It can only be 100% rooted in something darker and more nefarious, in this view.
There are a mix of point here which I will try and adress.
Firstly I resent you implying that overwhelming sympathy for Palestinians should result in overwhelming support for the rape of Jewish woman and burning of babies. The equivalent on the Israeli side would be an overwhelming support for Baruch Goldstein, something which is not even the tiniest bit close to being true.
Lets get this straight. The Arab world are not indiferent to Jewish death. They are elated by it. There is literally no comparison between the vast majority of Jews position on Arabs and the vast majority of Arabs position on Jews. This idea that Israel is responsible for prevalent Arab anti-semitism is absurd given that their has been virulent anti-semitism ever since Mohamed. They have always participated in pogroms and blood libels against the Jewish population.
I'm sure there is a level of indiference to be found amongst Jews towards Palistinian suffering. This is wrong, but not remotely comparable in numbers or nature to the Arab world. They are definitely NOT two sides of the same coin.
There is definitely alot of genuine sympathy out there for Palistinians. And that is more than justified. But the explosion of anti-semitism in the last few weeks has been directly driven by pro palistinian groups. The weeks from Oct 7 on have been terrifying. Free Palistine has been grafitied over where I live in London, a restuarant has been smashed in and anti semitism is up by over 1000%. Many of the rallies are seething with Jew hate explicit and implicit. Jews unfortunately are very aware of what anti semitism looks like, and what it means for us. I promise you its bad out there.
(Just for the record I think people like Ben Gvir ect are disgusting and that their should be a two state solution. I have empathy for the Palistinians as much as any human beings.)
“There are a mix of point here which I will try and adress. Firstly I resent you implying that overwhelming sympathy for Palestinians should result in overwhelming support for the rape of Jewish woman and burning of babies. The equivalent on the Israeli side would be an overwhelming support for Baruch Goldstein, something which is not even the tiniest bit close to being true.”
Well, I agree with you on that. A caveat about the polls: In the TOI article you cited it described how it wasn’t clear from the polling questions if the subjects were approving specifically of the (barbaric) nature of the attack—the rapes, beheadings, torching of entire families, etc—or approved of the Hamas attack in general. It wouldn’t surprise me if the gory details, snuff films, and images of the 10/7 attack in the Arab world were largely dismissed as Israeli propaganda and manipulation and what people are being exposed to or are absorbing—and being polled on—is a sanitized version. I’ve seen those claims and talking points on the pro-Palestinian side kicking around. Not clear how the polls captured that.
If you are for Pasitine and Hamas...YOU ARE A NAZI POS!
Russian bots write shit like this. What's your excuse.
🤨
Obviously anyone with any sense would prefer peace over war but this exercise in Pollyanna futility is not very well thought out:
First let's stop with the comparisons with US response to 9/11. The Taliban was on the ropes several times early on in Afghanistan but the US decided to push their luck and start another war in Iraq and ended up losing both wars.
"Israel should say that it will hunt down the people who masterminded and committed these attacks to the end of their days" I suspect you are sadly mistaken if you think this empty threat provides any deterrent effect. And makes even less sense while at the same time "tell Hamas that if it will respect the will of the Palestinian people if they vote on a referendum on any agreement, and they respect a ceasefire during the course of this process, then they can begin to be integrated back into Palestinian politics". Hamas and the immense firepower they have amassed are not going to go away quietly. And will Israel "respect the will of the Palestinian people" in the event that it turns out to be Hamas just as it was in 2006?
Then there is your oblique reference to "a just solution to the refugee question". This is hardly a minor detail. This is the heart of the matter for those who question Israel's right to exist going back to before the formation of the Israeli State in which terrorism played a large part and Palestinians were forced to vacate their homes. For those of this persuasion a "just solution" would be nothing less than every inch of Palestine. And if as you suggest a Palestinian Authority in Gaza would be immediately overthrown that in turn would suggest this persuasion is a critical mass of Palestinians.
Unfortunately the reality is this: How it looks no longer matters. Hamas has forced a showdown. Hamas is a cancer. Either you kill the cancer or it will kill you.