I apologize for not sending out a newsletter again this Monday. I’ll be back on schedule from now on. I was off for Shavuot, the holiday on which Jews read the Book of Ruth. The Book of Ruth tells the story of an unskilled immigrant from an enemy nation, the Moabites, who moves to the land of Israel, lives off charity, and then becomes the great-grandmother of King David and the progenitor of the Messiah. Stephen Miller should be required to read it every day for the rest of his life.
Peter, you are a mensch. I especially like the way you connect the Palestinian liberation struggle with the history of other such struggles. As you correctly said, "The only way to stop oppressed people from responding to the violence of oppression with violence of their own is to end their oppression." It's so damn obvious.
Excellent article , very informative. I also get frustrated by Israel's framing of this as 'Israel v Hamas'. It takes over the narrative which then gets taken up the media and then the watching public is more likely to accept Israel's attacks on Gaza. Thatcher did this in the 80s when talking about the IRA 'terrorists' who did commit some terrible acts of violence, but was often in response to oppression and violence meted out to nationalists in Northern Ireland, i.e they were defending their people from the dominant force in the land. The old adage, 'one man's terrorist, is another's man's freedom fighter', springs to mind.
Hamas I feel (and your piece suggests they may be on this path already) needs to take the same route followed by Sinn Fein and commit to removing the armalite/rockets and demand equal rights for all those living in Israel/Palestine. Bottom line: there will never be peace until borders are drawn and Palestine is given 'statehood', which has been snatched away by western powers desperate for a strong ally or 'fifth column' in the middle east.
Thank you for this piece. I have been frustrated by the framing by the media (not just Jews) of this latest unpleasantness as a fight between Israel and "Hamas", as if non-Hamas Palestinians were simply being caught in the crossfire between the two. Do you think that in the media, this framing might actually come from some measure of sympathy for the Palestinian people? The idea would be that since anyone can see that Hamas's firing of rockets is both evil (because they are indiscriminate and hit civilian areas) and stupid (because they do little damage and invite massive retaliation from the much more powerful IDF), liberal-minded media people are reluctant to talk about how the rocket attacks have some measure of support among the broader Palestinian public. They don't really have time to go into the underlying grievances that lead to this support, because those grievances are decades-old and hence not "news". However, I have to say that I'm hearing far more Palestinian voices now than I did in previous IDF "lawn-mowings" of this scale in Gaza. I was listening to NPR's Here & Now the other day and was impressed that they had Khaled Elgindy on as a guest, but then I was shocked that the first question he was asked was "How did it come to be that millions of Palestinians are living in the Gaza Strip?" That's the question that I never heard being asked of expert guests during Operation Protective Edge and similar events that put Gaza into the spotlight.
Quote: "It’s the Israel-Palestine version of the way American segregationists used to talk about “outside agitators.” If not for those radicals, who rile everyone up, Palestinians would quiet down and accept things as they are."
I remember when the South African Apartheid government used to say the same thing about Communists, but it didn't really work. Now right-wing media are telling us that Hamas is firing rockets at Israel because they're acting on behalf of Iran.
Hi Peter, I am reading your newsletter from Australia. I am not of Jewish descent, and have long been trying to gain a relatively unbiased perspective of the historical and contemporary Israel/Palestine situation. I read your article which was published in The Guardian Australia "We Are what We Remember". I thank you for writing this, it resonated with me for it's parallels to the historical dispossession of our First Nation People here in Australia, and a seemingly incomprehensible need for so many white Australians to deny our true history, along with the Aboriginal collective shared history of culture and connection to country. I am looking forward reading more of your work, thank you.
Peter, thank you for your work during this time. I have found it to be extremely important, and so great that it is being shared widely! I wanted to ask how you think about past "peace deals" and this current moment (specifically referring to 2000 and 2007)? On one side you have Israeli (and American) conservatives saying they have been rejected by Palestinians and therefore there is "no real partner for peace," and the other side stating the deals were not in fact real deals (i.e. not real offers/concessions) and could not be taken seriously. How do you factor these in when thinking about the current moment and what comes next? Again, thank you so much for your writing/talks during this moment.
Israel has continuously demonized whomever the "terrorist du Jour" is/was. Similar to the US, when they do/did not have one, they create/d one. in my opinion, they needed to keep a perpetual enemy to justify their aggression and subsequent actions.
In other words, in the case of Israel, how can they keep expanding the settlements if they have "no reason" to, or if they could not distract the population and world opinion. So, it goes something like "do not bother us with a two-state solution for NOW. We are too busy staying alive..."
You are wrong when you say that removing Hamas would change nothing. If you would take the time to look into the work that peace activists on both sides have been doing for many years you'd realize that removing Hamas would open lines of communication that have been shut down making the possibility for a movement for equality to take hold on the ground. You are an Ivory Tower journalist who needs to check in with people who are seeking peace. https://unwatch.org/success-gaza-peace-activist-rami-aman-freed-after-un-watch-campaign/ I edited initiatives for Rami Aman's Youth Committee for 3 years and watched as he was incarcerated and tortured multiple times before his case came up in front of the UN. During the period of time before his last arrest he had been establishing cross border connections with Israeli activists that to a large extent were sabotaged. Change needs to come from the ground up!
I went to the senior military prosecutor in the IDF before the May 2021 escalation demanding that he allow the civilians to flee across a border before retaliating. If I show you the screenshots of our conversation you will understand that Israel does not want to remove Hamas from power. It serves Israel's interests to leave Hamas in Gaza while limiting Hamas' military capabilities. We have to remove Hamas who use a civilian population as cannon fodder to gain legitimacy on the international stage. I have people ready to testify but they need to be granted political asylum to do so.
You are wrong. First of all Israel is not interested in eliminating Hamas. That needs to be done by the civilized nations who want to see this resolved. I can bring multiple witnesses to testify against Hamas concerning the crimes that Hamas committed against the people of Gaza through 4 wars. Why dont you help me get them political asylum since if they publish their testimony they'll be murdered? Rami Aman was incarcerated and tortured by Hamas for as much as speaking to a group of Israelis. If Hamas were to be removed it would open up communication between Gazan and Israeli activists who support solutions that meet the needs of both peoples. That is what you fail to understand. If you really want to see a movement for equality developing on the ground you will follow up with me. Thanks.
Your article is correct, but misses the point. From a tactical point of view, Hamas's intentional attacks on civilians (commonly known as terrorism) are a disaster. The IRA and ANC avoided attacks on civilians; Hamas does not. Hamas's entry into recent events turned the discussion into one of "Israel's right to defend itself." Hamas acts in its own interest while it actively undermines the fight for Palestinian justice.
You articulated pretty well your analysis, but you are coming from a wrong premise: that Palestinian violence is a response to Israeli oppression.
That is simply not true. Palestinian violence is a response to Israel existence. The mere existence of a Jewish State in “Arab land” is unacceptable for Palestinians. There are many proofs of this and I think it’s beyond debate, but maybe a couple of datapoints:
(1) Arab violence against Israel existed before Hamas, as you rightly point out. It also existed well before 1967 and what in Occident is understood as “Israeli occupation”.
(2) Palestinian leaders and generally Palestinian population continues to refer to Israeli cities like Haifa or Tel Aviv (Jaffo) as “Occupied Palestine”
(3) Probably you heard people chanting “From the river to the sea...”
(4) Most surveys show that the majority of Palestinians reject a two-state solution and recognition of Israel.
This conflict will end the day Palestinians decide to end it. Dropping the armed struggle and the terrorist attacks is a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace. Accepting Israel’s right to exist and start seeking “peace” instead of seeking “justice” is the only way. Because as you know, justice is a nice word but if Palestinians consider the existence of Israel as an injustice, then there will never be peace
Peter, you are a mensch. I especially like the way you connect the Palestinian liberation struggle with the history of other such struggles. As you correctly said, "The only way to stop oppressed people from responding to the violence of oppression with violence of their own is to end their oppression." It's so damn obvious.
Excellent article , very informative. I also get frustrated by Israel's framing of this as 'Israel v Hamas'. It takes over the narrative which then gets taken up the media and then the watching public is more likely to accept Israel's attacks on Gaza. Thatcher did this in the 80s when talking about the IRA 'terrorists' who did commit some terrible acts of violence, but was often in response to oppression and violence meted out to nationalists in Northern Ireland, i.e they were defending their people from the dominant force in the land. The old adage, 'one man's terrorist, is another's man's freedom fighter', springs to mind.
Hamas I feel (and your piece suggests they may be on this path already) needs to take the same route followed by Sinn Fein and commit to removing the armalite/rockets and demand equal rights for all those living in Israel/Palestine. Bottom line: there will never be peace until borders are drawn and Palestine is given 'statehood', which has been snatched away by western powers desperate for a strong ally or 'fifth column' in the middle east.
Thank you for this piece. I have been frustrated by the framing by the media (not just Jews) of this latest unpleasantness as a fight between Israel and "Hamas", as if non-Hamas Palestinians were simply being caught in the crossfire between the two. Do you think that in the media, this framing might actually come from some measure of sympathy for the Palestinian people? The idea would be that since anyone can see that Hamas's firing of rockets is both evil (because they are indiscriminate and hit civilian areas) and stupid (because they do little damage and invite massive retaliation from the much more powerful IDF), liberal-minded media people are reluctant to talk about how the rocket attacks have some measure of support among the broader Palestinian public. They don't really have time to go into the underlying grievances that lead to this support, because those grievances are decades-old and hence not "news". However, I have to say that I'm hearing far more Palestinian voices now than I did in previous IDF "lawn-mowings" of this scale in Gaza. I was listening to NPR's Here & Now the other day and was impressed that they had Khaled Elgindy on as a guest, but then I was shocked that the first question he was asked was "How did it come to be that millions of Palestinians are living in the Gaza Strip?" That's the question that I never heard being asked of expert guests during Operation Protective Edge and similar events that put Gaza into the spotlight.
Quote: "It’s the Israel-Palestine version of the way American segregationists used to talk about “outside agitators.” If not for those radicals, who rile everyone up, Palestinians would quiet down and accept things as they are."
I remember when the South African Apartheid government used to say the same thing about Communists, but it didn't really work. Now right-wing media are telling us that Hamas is firing rockets at Israel because they're acting on behalf of Iran.
Hi Peter, I am reading your newsletter from Australia. I am not of Jewish descent, and have long been trying to gain a relatively unbiased perspective of the historical and contemporary Israel/Palestine situation. I read your article which was published in The Guardian Australia "We Are what We Remember". I thank you for writing this, it resonated with me for it's parallels to the historical dispossession of our First Nation People here in Australia, and a seemingly incomprehensible need for so many white Australians to deny our true history, along with the Aboriginal collective shared history of culture and connection to country. I am looking forward reading more of your work, thank you.
Hi, I wonder if you would like to comment on the tweet my friend Nimrod Novik said referring to Netanyahu statement that supporting Hamas is part of the strategic policy of Israel https://twitter.com/NimrodNovik/status/1393998744656416772?s=20
Peter, thank you for your work during this time. I have found it to be extremely important, and so great that it is being shared widely! I wanted to ask how you think about past "peace deals" and this current moment (specifically referring to 2000 and 2007)? On one side you have Israeli (and American) conservatives saying they have been rejected by Palestinians and therefore there is "no real partner for peace," and the other side stating the deals were not in fact real deals (i.e. not real offers/concessions) and could not be taken seriously. How do you factor these in when thinking about the current moment and what comes next? Again, thank you so much for your writing/talks during this moment.
Hello? I want to introduce you to the leader of 1/4 of a million Palestinians who dont enjoy the freedom of speech that you make such liberal use of.
Well this aged well.
As usual, great article Peter.
Israel has continuously demonized whomever the "terrorist du Jour" is/was. Similar to the US, when they do/did not have one, they create/d one. in my opinion, they needed to keep a perpetual enemy to justify their aggression and subsequent actions.
In other words, in the case of Israel, how can they keep expanding the settlements if they have "no reason" to, or if they could not distract the population and world opinion. So, it goes something like "do not bother us with a two-state solution for NOW. We are too busy staying alive..."
You are wrong when you say that removing Hamas would change nothing. If you would take the time to look into the work that peace activists on both sides have been doing for many years you'd realize that removing Hamas would open lines of communication that have been shut down making the possibility for a movement for equality to take hold on the ground. You are an Ivory Tower journalist who needs to check in with people who are seeking peace. https://unwatch.org/success-gaza-peace-activist-rami-aman-freed-after-un-watch-campaign/ I edited initiatives for Rami Aman's Youth Committee for 3 years and watched as he was incarcerated and tortured multiple times before his case came up in front of the UN. During the period of time before his last arrest he had been establishing cross border connections with Israeli activists that to a large extent were sabotaged. Change needs to come from the ground up!
i dont see a video
Israel doesnt want to eliminate Hamas! Please sir! I'm not crazy. I need you to get in touch with me. Ive been trying to reach you for years.
I went to the senior military prosecutor in the IDF before the May 2021 escalation demanding that he allow the civilians to flee across a border before retaliating. If I show you the screenshots of our conversation you will understand that Israel does not want to remove Hamas from power. It serves Israel's interests to leave Hamas in Gaza while limiting Hamas' military capabilities. We have to remove Hamas who use a civilian population as cannon fodder to gain legitimacy on the international stage. I have people ready to testify but they need to be granted political asylum to do so.
You are wrong. First of all Israel is not interested in eliminating Hamas. That needs to be done by the civilized nations who want to see this resolved. I can bring multiple witnesses to testify against Hamas concerning the crimes that Hamas committed against the people of Gaza through 4 wars. Why dont you help me get them political asylum since if they publish their testimony they'll be murdered? Rami Aman was incarcerated and tortured by Hamas for as much as speaking to a group of Israelis. If Hamas were to be removed it would open up communication between Gazan and Israeli activists who support solutions that meet the needs of both peoples. That is what you fail to understand. If you really want to see a movement for equality developing on the ground you will follow up with me. Thanks.
Your article is correct, but misses the point. From a tactical point of view, Hamas's intentional attacks on civilians (commonly known as terrorism) are a disaster. The IRA and ANC avoided attacks on civilians; Hamas does not. Hamas's entry into recent events turned the discussion into one of "Israel's right to defend itself." Hamas acts in its own interest while it actively undermines the fight for Palestinian justice.
Hi Pieter,
You articulated pretty well your analysis, but you are coming from a wrong premise: that Palestinian violence is a response to Israeli oppression.
That is simply not true. Palestinian violence is a response to Israel existence. The mere existence of a Jewish State in “Arab land” is unacceptable for Palestinians. There are many proofs of this and I think it’s beyond debate, but maybe a couple of datapoints:
(1) Arab violence against Israel existed before Hamas, as you rightly point out. It also existed well before 1967 and what in Occident is understood as “Israeli occupation”.
(2) Palestinian leaders and generally Palestinian population continues to refer to Israeli cities like Haifa or Tel Aviv (Jaffo) as “Occupied Palestine”
(3) Probably you heard people chanting “From the river to the sea...”
(4) Most surveys show that the majority of Palestinians reject a two-state solution and recognition of Israel.
This conflict will end the day Palestinians decide to end it. Dropping the armed struggle and the terrorist attacks is a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace. Accepting Israel’s right to exist and start seeking “peace” instead of seeking “justice” is the only way. Because as you know, justice is a nice word but if Palestinians consider the existence of Israel as an injustice, then there will never be peace