Last night my daughter texted me, asking me if I was pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. I replied telling her that that was the wrong question to ask - that I was anti-terrorism and that means I'm anti-Hamas, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine because eradicating Hamas is also good for Palestine. There is a false dichotomy that plagues most of the activism and the public discussion - it's not Israel vs. Palestine. The core question is what are we willing to allow terrorists to do? And what sacrifices are we willing to make to stop terrorists? Israel is sadly the one being forced to make those sacrifices, while us here in the West are debating the wrong question and people are busy pretending that "Israel = Jewish" (it doesn't!) or that there is an acceptable place where terrorists should be able to do what they want without consequences (there isn't!) OR that Palestine hasn't suffered as a result of Hamas as well (they have!)
I don't know how to change the public discussion at this juncture though, when it's been so shaped and molded into an Israel vs. Palestine discussion - I truly believe that's not the conversation that is applicable at all here.
One point of disagreement. I think that Hamas knew very well the psychological impact on Israeli society of taking as large a number of hostages as possible. If, as I believe, Hamas' objectives were to sabotage the peace process and to gain the world's sympathy by having as many civilians in Gaza as possible killed, then their tactics make perfect sense.
Trying their best to outrage Israeli public opinion also explains why Hamas targeted only civilians, not military, and why rape figured so high on their list. Finally, it explains why Hamas does not want a cease-fire, and changes its position each time the possibility of a cease-fire comes into view. The more civilians killed -- on both sides -- the better.
Jen, of your questions, the key one is the likely conflicting goals of the war, does eliminating Hamas get the hostages back or does getting the hostages back mean continued existence of Hamas. On October 8th, that conflict in those goals was not as clear as it is today.
As for Gaza, unfortunately the answer is some international body set up to administer the territory for the good of ordinary Palestinians and the protection of Israel. It cannot be the UN as Israel, for good reason, does not trust the UN. This is a job for countries like Australia, Japan and similar countries. It is not for European, North American, other mid-East,or African countries, in other words countries that have played a part in the ME or are too incapable of carrying out such a momentous task.
I'm struggling to imagine what the motivation would be be for countries like Australia or Japan to get involved in this quagmire. With China looming large in their sphere, it's not like they're short on potential uses for their militaries in the near future.
My gut tells me that any solution needs to come from Israel's Arab neighbors (with American and Western backing). Normalizing relationships with Israel (for those who haven't already), cutting off the monetary and material supply lines to Hamas et al, and providing the boots on the ground to police and rebuild Gaza. Problem is, all of these authoritarian regimes have such tenuous holds on power though, that the reaction on the "Arab Street" would ultimately destabilize them no matter how big a cheque the West cut to fund the adventure.
Reading about Kfir Bibas brought this conflict home for me in a way none other has. My daughter is the same age he would be, seeing her hit those milestones, and picturing him trying to do the same in a tunnel was heartbreaking.
Intellectually I can understand more babies have been killed in Gaza than on October 7th. But the fact that someone looked at that baby, and not even as acceptable collateral damage but as a high-value, deliberate target for violence and leveraging Hamas' goals... Emotionally that exponentially raised the cost I see as acceptable for the elimination of Hamas. I feel for the innocents in Gaza, but that kind of evil can't go on.
Thanks for this. Do you think the two-state solution is still viable? Or would Israelis see a Palestinian state as a fortress plotting their destruction? Would they be right? Perhaps Egypt could absorb Gaza and Jordan the West Bank, with reconstruction paid for by Israel and the West. I wouldn’t count on American largesse at this point. What a mess.
You know a lot more than anyone else I know. A solution that isn’t just, or at least sort of just, to the Palestinians is no solution at all. The dilemma is that, left on their own, they are a serious threat to the Israelis, but no one wants to deal with them because they are poor and angry—nightmare immigrants. That leaves some responsible Arab government administering Palestine. Sure they aren’t keen, but could they be induced? Or is this simply a question of which side kills off the other? Susan says below Palestine can’t be a state. Then what can it be?
Cowing Iran may be job no. 1 but from my perspective (US Democrat) cowing Israel runs a close second. How is it the US could freeze Suez in its tracks but we can’t enforce a ceasefire in Gaza? In my fantasies the US threatens to bring its own draconian anti-Israel proposal before the UN unless Israel is out of Gaza in 72 hours, with sanctions and a no fly zone to follow, if they think they can tough it out. File this under “impotent rage” given the circus in Washington.
My only marginally informed view is that we probably need to treat the West Bank as a very different kettle of fish than Gaza. After 18 years of rule under Hamas, and all the horror and violence that implies, it's not realistic to expect self governance on a short time frame. I think you're going to need to establish some kind of Protectorate, administered by several different states or international bodies, to provide food, infrastructure, economic development and, most importantly, education to Gaza. Probably for a generation or two. I don't see very many people stepping for that one. JG
> Cowing Iran may be job no. 1 but from my perspective (US Democrat) cowing Israel runs a close second.
Your problem here is that Israel & Iran view the threats agains them differently.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Iranians believe that if they stop fighting Israel that they will all die... that eventually if they are vulnerable and Israel is strong then they will all be hunted down and killed and it would only be matter of time until that happened. I don't think Iranians believe that at all.
By contrast, I think that it's clear that Israeli Jews DO believe that if they stop fighting Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran that the WILL all die. That if they are vulnerable and the Islamists are strong, then they WILL all be hunted down and killed and it would only be a matter of time until that happened. Israelis believe this.
This means that the kind of inducements or pressures you can apply to "cow" each side are different. I don't mean that pressuring Iran is easy. It's not. But it's a LOT easier than pressuring someone to agree to let their children be murdered.
It's basically impossible to pressure someone into just accepting that they and their children will be murdered. This is why the US could freeze the Suez crisis in its tracks. The British didn't believe that if they lost Suez that every English man, woman and child would eventually be murdered.
Israel needs the United States... but they need to stay alive even more. And whether nor *you* believe everything I just wrote, I think you should at least consider what it means if THEY believe it.
That was an outstanding column, Jen. I can’t make fresh comments with this old iPad, only replies, so this is my chance to tell you that.
Edit: your contact made a good point that victory is subjective *from the other side*. Only the other side can decide when they are defeated and conquered and can promise believably to lay down their arms. That’s why Palestine can’t be a state. There will never be a state authority that Israel can conclude a peace treaty with that it can trust will be honoured. The assassin’s veto will always be in the background.
Egypt would want to absorb Gaza only if the Palestinians therein were already in coffins. Jordan long ago abandoned claim to Judaea and Samaria and doesn’t want them back, because there are Palestinians therein. The land isn’t worth the trouble the people would cause to Jordan. Besides, Israel took that land back in 1967 by right of conquest. It was within the 1948 borders. It’s not Jordan’s land to take.
I pity the poor Palestinians in a way. Chronic troublemakers but it’s kind of sad to be an “oppressed” group that nobody but nobody wants to lift a finger to help. The NGO aid they get is just to foment dysfunctional terror. No one wants to take them in because wherever they go they destabilize the host government. Everyone is glad to keep them Israel’s problem.
No way is Israel going to pay to reconstruct Gaza. They should elect a better government next time, not start foolish ruinous wars.
The role of ordinary Gazans in the occurrence of the war is arguably more nuanced than you portray. There certainly are surveys and anecdotes suggesting that the October 7th attacks had major or mainstream support among the population, but the fact also is that Gazans have gone longer without democratic elections than the German population had gone in 1945. By that metric they are equally or even more deserving of a Marshall Plan than the Germans were (and I say that as someone with a still-living German grandmother who can still remember experiencing Allied bombings first hand).
Egypt already abandoned Gaza. The West Bank once belonged to Jordan. Neither country wants the problem back. The PLO largely became significant after Jordan expelled Palestinian Arabs. The fact remains Palestinians are a problem that Israel has been left to deal with. They were offered a two-state solution and rejected it because they are totally focused on the eradication of Israel. The analogy of Nazis in Germany is good as far as it goes; however, Germans never believed that France, Poland, Russia etc were where their true home was. Their ‘fatherland’ remained Germany. They only identified with Germany so largely with the help of the US they worked to rebuild a new Germany. That type of vision does not exist among the Palistinians.
"They were offered a two-state solution and rejected it because they are totally focused on the eradication of Israel."
In every population there are political elites who want political control over their fellow citizens, and that would-be control more or less requires sovereignty.
Palestine has never been in a situation where all its governing elites wanted absolutely no sovereignty or state at all. Rather, what has happened is that Palestinians have often rejected *specific* two-state proposals, in anticipation of preferred alternative one-state or two-state conclusions that they could gamble to achieve instead. That all these gambles all failed is an argument for Israeli military superiority being crucial to the Israeli national interest, but it is not evidence that a two-state solution is impossible.
A two-state solution will inevitably happen if Israel and its allies make a strong enough show of force to forever resolve the question that a non-Israeli unitary state containing all of historic Palestine is impossible (they have not fully done this yet if anyone is still hopeful of Iran beating Israel), and if the discussion of a potential Palestinian state is taken seriously even as this prior question is firmly settled (Israel has indicated reluctance to let this happen).
Arafat rejected a 2 state solution even though Barak removed Israeli settlements from contested lands. Arafat was revered by Palestinians, he was not one speaking for himself while ignoring ‘his people’s’ true wants. The Palestinians want the Jews gone - period. Until some common sense enters their collective thought, by whatever means, this conflict will continue. Taking Iran out of the picture may temporarily reduce funding support, but one must not forget that the US incursion into Iraq removed a Sunni regime and established a Shia regime fully in support of the Palestinians and able to fund ongoing trouble.
The only solution is some Palestinian taking a leadership role that says enough is enough. Maybe, hopefully a greatly reduced Hamas and allow that to happen. However, the ME is where hope goes to die.
I don't believe that the facts that you cite contradict what I said. Sure, Jew-hatred can be argued to be widespread among Palestinians, but even many Jew-haters want a peaceful personal life and there's always going to be a non-violent constituency within the population. If given the space there will still be political elites in Palestine who want to maximize their personal control by finding the sweet spot between not crossing Israel's red lines and achieving a real political representation breakthrough. Arafat rejected offers in hope of getting one closer to maximalist objectives, and said gamble failed - not every potential replacement will make the exact same decisions.
"The only solution is some Palestinian taking a leadership role that says enough is enough. Maybe, hopefully a greatly reduced Hamas and allow that to happen."
Indeed, the destruction of Hamas fighters is or was an opportunity for strong Israeli bargaining leverage over the shaping of a Palestinian state. But because Israeli leadership is fundamentally giving no thought to the post-war future, that would-be leverage is being squandered in favour of an unsustainable de facto apartheid regime.
We generally agree except I am not sure one way or the other on your last statement.Israelis are very pragmatic. It is because of Netanyahu’s personality that most don’t think,he has a post-war plan, but we don’t really know. Post-war Netanyahu could easy be removed from the PM’s chair and a more future looking leader could emerge for I believe individual Israelis are thinking post war.
Looking at the lead picture and your opening words....terribly moving. I realize we have nothing to compare to those horrors here in Canada. We all weep for the innocents.. It becomes harder daily with the ridiculous protests and infantile chants for revolution. I will continue to suggest that these cretins go there and practice what they preach. I for one dont want them here bringing there garbage to our streets.
No doubt, I’m not qualified to opine really it just seems like they’re the toughest one in the region who the rest fear and would bow to. But SA may have no interest in ruling the Palestinians
With Egypt being the destination/source for Hamas tunnels & supply lines surely their now overt bias compromises any managing role they could have held.
Rotman's answer, like all that come from the right wing ideologues, is deliberately vague. It's sophistry, a delaying tactic they use to handle you when you ask.
Ask him, using the Nazi reference, from whom they will accept surrender, and under what conditions.
Wars fought in urbanized areas are always brutal. Biden and Trudeau should have acknowledged that in the response to the Hamas attacks and possibly implored Hamas to surrender for the good of the population as a whole. Hind sight is 20/20 however and it would not have made a great deal of difference to the out come other than being able to say "I told you".
Thanks for doing this. I suspect it's another "adventure" where "critical incident stress management" may be required. I don't know how you view a situation like that without your imagination placing yourself there when it happened. It's why I don't deal with social injustice very well.
War is stupid and it makes you angry; because it isn't needed, and accomplishes little. Israel has been a warzone since before 1948. While a two-state solution is the only solution, neither side is willing to accept anything but total victory so the carnage will go on.....and it's largely because of who you pray to which makes it even stupider. As Darwin confirmed, evolution is an incredibly slow process.
Do you really think that war is stupid and isn’t needed, ever? What if a fascist regime invaded Canada, I dunno, from the south and wanted to impose Christianity and outlaw abortion and DEI and trans rights and bilingualism and free medical care (and free dentistry for old people), and land acknowledgements, all the values we hold dear? Would you not fight to resist them, if you could? Sure, *we* wouldn’t win and would have make a rational decision that it was better to submit without bloodshed and hope for mercy if we collaborated. But if a country with actual national values and actual ability to fight decided it both could resist and had to in order to avoid extermination and, even better, could take the fight to the enemy to destroy his ability to make war on it, how is that stupid and unnecessary? Is capitulation always right?
Yes, if you’re in Canada, any kind of a shooting war is folly. But not every country is Canada.
Exactly, and Ukraine could have just welcomed the Russian soldiers and peacefully submitted to Putin. Far too many native born Canadians have a Pollyanna view of the world.
I was at a lunch gathering of old friends that happened to be few days after the U.S. election. Being Canadians they were bellyaching about Trump (as always) and how badly it reflected on the U.S. electorate. I jokingly suggested that Canada needs to put some missionary teams together to visit foreign countries to vet their political candidates and tell their voters whom to vote for, because it’s obvious to us they made a mistake this time. Nobody laughed. I’m not sure if they thought I was serious or if I was making fun of them. Thing is, though, that’s pretty much what our foreign policy is: lecturing foreigners to be more like Canadians.
Travelling, and not to vacation resorts, is a big learning experience that more should do. As a national we have been ‘woke’ for some time as we think we are the best and more should be like us. I did time in Iraq while Sadam was in power. I travelled extensively in the country and i am not sure it is better today than it was then, but the US was intent on bringing democracy to a country where few understood anything beyond powerful autocrats. We don’t go to war to make other countries like Canada, but we do everything short of war.
The US can accomplish all of those things; and likely will without firing a shot. We have no military, but they can accomplish all of that economically. Not to mention, half the west will welcome them as liberators.
World War 2 is the only war in history that needed to be fought, and it only happened because of the stupidity of the victors of World War 1. The rest of them have occurred because of idiot egos; Ukraine, outright lies; Iraq, or idiotic paranoia; Vietnam. War in the end is settled around a table; maybe skip the killing and go right to that. And yes, I know that's remarkably naïve and impossible, but that's only because absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you can buy everything, the next desire is control. Humans are still really stupid.
Get rid of the concept of God, and you get rid of a whole lot more reasons to justify slaughter and death.
I'm sure we'll find out about you theory soon enough when one group of billionaires decides it wants what the other group of billionaires want. And for their egos, who knows how many will die. We'll probably know far too soon. North America has effectively been immunes form war. The rest of the world should be smart enough to avoid it having seen the consequences. No chance.
Remarkably astute. The sadness is that Hamas and the PFLP have done more to undermine the possibility of peace than any other entities. The suicide bombings of the second intifada and Oct 7 have made belief in coexistence non existent. It is has become us or them.
I certainly don't pretend to be an authority on the middle east, but I would recommend reading the Middle East Forum to gain understanding of the peoples involved, their values and their history. I would also recommend looking at Wikpedia for historical fact checking regarding the origins of Islam and its spread over the centuries, and also for facts on the origins of the modern state of Israel and its history into current times. Wikpedia bibliographies are generally long and provide the source material for Wikpedia articles for a closer look. (If you haven't read the above already, pretty sure lots of you have and are way ahead of me!)
Last night my daughter texted me, asking me if I was pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. I replied telling her that that was the wrong question to ask - that I was anti-terrorism and that means I'm anti-Hamas, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine because eradicating Hamas is also good for Palestine. There is a false dichotomy that plagues most of the activism and the public discussion - it's not Israel vs. Palestine. The core question is what are we willing to allow terrorists to do? And what sacrifices are we willing to make to stop terrorists? Israel is sadly the one being forced to make those sacrifices, while us here in the West are debating the wrong question and people are busy pretending that "Israel = Jewish" (it doesn't!) or that there is an acceptable place where terrorists should be able to do what they want without consequences (there isn't!) OR that Palestine hasn't suffered as a result of Hamas as well (they have!)
I don't know how to change the public discussion at this juncture though, when it's been so shaped and molded into an Israel vs. Palestine discussion - I truly believe that's not the conversation that is applicable at all here.
I 100% agree with your perspective.
Thank you, Jen.
One point of disagreement. I think that Hamas knew very well the psychological impact on Israeli society of taking as large a number of hostages as possible. If, as I believe, Hamas' objectives were to sabotage the peace process and to gain the world's sympathy by having as many civilians in Gaza as possible killed, then their tactics make perfect sense.
Trying their best to outrage Israeli public opinion also explains why Hamas targeted only civilians, not military, and why rape figured so high on their list. Finally, it explains why Hamas does not want a cease-fire, and changes its position each time the possibility of a cease-fire comes into view. The more civilians killed -- on both sides -- the better.
Jen, of your questions, the key one is the likely conflicting goals of the war, does eliminating Hamas get the hostages back or does getting the hostages back mean continued existence of Hamas. On October 8th, that conflict in those goals was not as clear as it is today.
As for Gaza, unfortunately the answer is some international body set up to administer the territory for the good of ordinary Palestinians and the protection of Israel. It cannot be the UN as Israel, for good reason, does not trust the UN. This is a job for countries like Australia, Japan and similar countries. It is not for European, North American, other mid-East,or African countries, in other words countries that have played a part in the ME or are too incapable of carrying out such a momentous task.
I'm struggling to imagine what the motivation would be be for countries like Australia or Japan to get involved in this quagmire. With China looming large in their sphere, it's not like they're short on potential uses for their militaries in the near future.
My gut tells me that any solution needs to come from Israel's Arab neighbors (with American and Western backing). Normalizing relationships with Israel (for those who haven't already), cutting off the monetary and material supply lines to Hamas et al, and providing the boots on the ground to police and rebuild Gaza. Problem is, all of these authoritarian regimes have such tenuous holds on power though, that the reaction on the "Arab Street" would ultimately destabilize them no matter how big a cheque the West cut to fund the adventure.
Reading about Kfir Bibas brought this conflict home for me in a way none other has. My daughter is the same age he would be, seeing her hit those milestones, and picturing him trying to do the same in a tunnel was heartbreaking.
Intellectually I can understand more babies have been killed in Gaza than on October 7th. But the fact that someone looked at that baby, and not even as acceptable collateral damage but as a high-value, deliberate target for violence and leveraging Hamas' goals... Emotionally that exponentially raised the cost I see as acceptable for the elimination of Hamas. I feel for the innocents in Gaza, but that kind of evil can't go on.
Thanks for this. Do you think the two-state solution is still viable? Or would Israelis see a Palestinian state as a fortress plotting their destruction? Would they be right? Perhaps Egypt could absorb Gaza and Jordan the West Bank, with reconstruction paid for by Israel and the West. I wouldn’t count on American largesse at this point. What a mess.
I don't think a two state solution is viable. But, also, what the fuck do I know? JG
You know a lot more than anyone else I know. A solution that isn’t just, or at least sort of just, to the Palestinians is no solution at all. The dilemma is that, left on their own, they are a serious threat to the Israelis, but no one wants to deal with them because they are poor and angry—nightmare immigrants. That leaves some responsible Arab government administering Palestine. Sure they aren’t keen, but could they be induced? Or is this simply a question of which side kills off the other? Susan says below Palestine can’t be a state. Then what can it be?
Cowing Iran may be job no. 1 but from my perspective (US Democrat) cowing Israel runs a close second. How is it the US could freeze Suez in its tracks but we can’t enforce a ceasefire in Gaza? In my fantasies the US threatens to bring its own draconian anti-Israel proposal before the UN unless Israel is out of Gaza in 72 hours, with sanctions and a no fly zone to follow, if they think they can tough it out. File this under “impotent rage” given the circus in Washington.
I think you have a good grasp of the problem.
My only marginally informed view is that we probably need to treat the West Bank as a very different kettle of fish than Gaza. After 18 years of rule under Hamas, and all the horror and violence that implies, it's not realistic to expect self governance on a short time frame. I think you're going to need to establish some kind of Protectorate, administered by several different states or international bodies, to provide food, infrastructure, economic development and, most importantly, education to Gaza. Probably for a generation or two. I don't see very many people stepping for that one. JG
> Cowing Iran may be job no. 1 but from my perspective (US Democrat) cowing Israel runs a close second.
Your problem here is that Israel & Iran view the threats agains them differently.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Iranians believe that if they stop fighting Israel that they will all die... that eventually if they are vulnerable and Israel is strong then they will all be hunted down and killed and it would only be matter of time until that happened. I don't think Iranians believe that at all.
By contrast, I think that it's clear that Israeli Jews DO believe that if they stop fighting Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran that the WILL all die. That if they are vulnerable and the Islamists are strong, then they WILL all be hunted down and killed and it would only be a matter of time until that happened. Israelis believe this.
This means that the kind of inducements or pressures you can apply to "cow" each side are different. I don't mean that pressuring Iran is easy. It's not. But it's a LOT easier than pressuring someone to agree to let their children be murdered.
It's basically impossible to pressure someone into just accepting that they and their children will be murdered. This is why the US could freeze the Suez crisis in its tracks. The British didn't believe that if they lost Suez that every English man, woman and child would eventually be murdered.
Israel needs the United States... but they need to stay alive even more. And whether nor *you* believe everything I just wrote, I think you should at least consider what it means if THEY believe it.
That was an outstanding column, Jen. I can’t make fresh comments with this old iPad, only replies, so this is my chance to tell you that.
Edit: your contact made a good point that victory is subjective *from the other side*. Only the other side can decide when they are defeated and conquered and can promise believably to lay down their arms. That’s why Palestine can’t be a state. There will never be a state authority that Israel can conclude a peace treaty with that it can trust will be honoured. The assassin’s veto will always be in the background.
Cowing Iran is Job 1.
Egypt would want to absorb Gaza only if the Palestinians therein were already in coffins. Jordan long ago abandoned claim to Judaea and Samaria and doesn’t want them back, because there are Palestinians therein. The land isn’t worth the trouble the people would cause to Jordan. Besides, Israel took that land back in 1967 by right of conquest. It was within the 1948 borders. It’s not Jordan’s land to take.
I pity the poor Palestinians in a way. Chronic troublemakers but it’s kind of sad to be an “oppressed” group that nobody but nobody wants to lift a finger to help. The NGO aid they get is just to foment dysfunctional terror. No one wants to take them in because wherever they go they destabilize the host government. Everyone is glad to keep them Israel’s problem.
No way is Israel going to pay to reconstruct Gaza. They should elect a better government next time, not start foolish ruinous wars.
Great observations, and our Liberal ding-dongs want to fast track these people into Canada!
The role of ordinary Gazans in the occurrence of the war is arguably more nuanced than you portray. There certainly are surveys and anecdotes suggesting that the October 7th attacks had major or mainstream support among the population, but the fact also is that Gazans have gone longer without democratic elections than the German population had gone in 1945. By that metric they are equally or even more deserving of a Marshall Plan than the Germans were (and I say that as someone with a still-living German grandmother who can still remember experiencing Allied bombings first hand).
Egypt already abandoned Gaza. The West Bank once belonged to Jordan. Neither country wants the problem back. The PLO largely became significant after Jordan expelled Palestinian Arabs. The fact remains Palestinians are a problem that Israel has been left to deal with. They were offered a two-state solution and rejected it because they are totally focused on the eradication of Israel. The analogy of Nazis in Germany is good as far as it goes; however, Germans never believed that France, Poland, Russia etc were where their true home was. Their ‘fatherland’ remained Germany. They only identified with Germany so largely with the help of the US they worked to rebuild a new Germany. That type of vision does not exist among the Palistinians.
"They were offered a two-state solution and rejected it because they are totally focused on the eradication of Israel."
In every population there are political elites who want political control over their fellow citizens, and that would-be control more or less requires sovereignty.
Palestine has never been in a situation where all its governing elites wanted absolutely no sovereignty or state at all. Rather, what has happened is that Palestinians have often rejected *specific* two-state proposals, in anticipation of preferred alternative one-state or two-state conclusions that they could gamble to achieve instead. That all these gambles all failed is an argument for Israeli military superiority being crucial to the Israeli national interest, but it is not evidence that a two-state solution is impossible.
A two-state solution will inevitably happen if Israel and its allies make a strong enough show of force to forever resolve the question that a non-Israeli unitary state containing all of historic Palestine is impossible (they have not fully done this yet if anyone is still hopeful of Iran beating Israel), and if the discussion of a potential Palestinian state is taken seriously even as this prior question is firmly settled (Israel has indicated reluctance to let this happen).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
Arafat rejected a 2 state solution even though Barak removed Israeli settlements from contested lands. Arafat was revered by Palestinians, he was not one speaking for himself while ignoring ‘his people’s’ true wants. The Palestinians want the Jews gone - period. Until some common sense enters their collective thought, by whatever means, this conflict will continue. Taking Iran out of the picture may temporarily reduce funding support, but one must not forget that the US incursion into Iraq removed a Sunni regime and established a Shia regime fully in support of the Palestinians and able to fund ongoing trouble.
The only solution is some Palestinian taking a leadership role that says enough is enough. Maybe, hopefully a greatly reduced Hamas and allow that to happen. However, the ME is where hope goes to die.
I don't believe that the facts that you cite contradict what I said. Sure, Jew-hatred can be argued to be widespread among Palestinians, but even many Jew-haters want a peaceful personal life and there's always going to be a non-violent constituency within the population. If given the space there will still be political elites in Palestine who want to maximize their personal control by finding the sweet spot between not crossing Israel's red lines and achieving a real political representation breakthrough. Arafat rejected offers in hope of getting one closer to maximalist objectives, and said gamble failed - not every potential replacement will make the exact same decisions.
"The only solution is some Palestinian taking a leadership role that says enough is enough. Maybe, hopefully a greatly reduced Hamas and allow that to happen."
Indeed, the destruction of Hamas fighters is or was an opportunity for strong Israeli bargaining leverage over the shaping of a Palestinian state. But because Israeli leadership is fundamentally giving no thought to the post-war future, that would-be leverage is being squandered in favour of an unsustainable de facto apartheid regime.
We generally agree except I am not sure one way or the other on your last statement.Israelis are very pragmatic. It is because of Netanyahu’s personality that most don’t think,he has a post-war plan, but we don’t really know. Post-war Netanyahu could easy be removed from the PM’s chair and a more future looking leader could emerge for I believe individual Israelis are thinking post war.
Looking at the lead picture and your opening words....terribly moving. I realize we have nothing to compare to those horrors here in Canada. We all weep for the innocents.. It becomes harder daily with the ridiculous protests and infantile chants for revolution. I will continue to suggest that these cretins go there and practice what they preach. I for one dont want them here bringing there garbage to our streets.
Is it really possible to distinguish Palestinians from Hamas operatives, activists, supporters?
Western funded, UNWRA managed, Hamas indoctrination ‘schools’ have been flourishing sine 2006.
I no longer see any possibility of a 2 state solution and think the only way forward is Saudi Arabia annexing Gaza .
This is just my humble opinion sitting very comfortably a world away with zero experience in these events
It would be awkward for Saudi Arabia to administer Gaza with Jordan and Israel in between them.
No doubt, I’m not qualified to opine really it just seems like they’re the toughest one in the region who the rest fear and would bow to. But SA may have no interest in ruling the Palestinians
I don't think anyone does. If Egypt took it over, would the residents be Egyptian citizens? I doubt it.
With Egypt being the destination/source for Hamas tunnels & supply lines surely their now overt bias compromises any managing role they could have held.
Wonderful piece.
Rotman's answer, like all that come from the right wing ideologues, is deliberately vague. It's sophistry, a delaying tactic they use to handle you when you ask.
Ask him, using the Nazi reference, from whom they will accept surrender, and under what conditions.
A well-written, insightful piece. Thanks, Jen :-)
Thanks for going there to see it first hand and for this insight.
Wars fought in urbanized areas are always brutal. Biden and Trudeau should have acknowledged that in the response to the Hamas attacks and possibly implored Hamas to surrender for the good of the population as a whole. Hind sight is 20/20 however and it would not have made a great deal of difference to the out come other than being able to say "I told you".
Thanks for doing this. I suspect it's another "adventure" where "critical incident stress management" may be required. I don't know how you view a situation like that without your imagination placing yourself there when it happened. It's why I don't deal with social injustice very well.
War is stupid and it makes you angry; because it isn't needed, and accomplishes little. Israel has been a warzone since before 1948. While a two-state solution is the only solution, neither side is willing to accept anything but total victory so the carnage will go on.....and it's largely because of who you pray to which makes it even stupider. As Darwin confirmed, evolution is an incredibly slow process.
Problems without solutions are exhausting.
Do you really think that war is stupid and isn’t needed, ever? What if a fascist regime invaded Canada, I dunno, from the south and wanted to impose Christianity and outlaw abortion and DEI and trans rights and bilingualism and free medical care (and free dentistry for old people), and land acknowledgements, all the values we hold dear? Would you not fight to resist them, if you could? Sure, *we* wouldn’t win and would have make a rational decision that it was better to submit without bloodshed and hope for mercy if we collaborated. But if a country with actual national values and actual ability to fight decided it both could resist and had to in order to avoid extermination and, even better, could take the fight to the enemy to destroy his ability to make war on it, how is that stupid and unnecessary? Is capitulation always right?
Yes, if you’re in Canada, any kind of a shooting war is folly. But not every country is Canada.
Exactly, and Ukraine could have just welcomed the Russian soldiers and peacefully submitted to Putin. Far too many native born Canadians have a Pollyanna view of the world.
“The world needs more Canada!”
Remember that?
I was at a lunch gathering of old friends that happened to be few days after the U.S. election. Being Canadians they were bellyaching about Trump (as always) and how badly it reflected on the U.S. electorate. I jokingly suggested that Canada needs to put some missionary teams together to visit foreign countries to vet their political candidates and tell their voters whom to vote for, because it’s obvious to us they made a mistake this time. Nobody laughed. I’m not sure if they thought I was serious or if I was making fun of them. Thing is, though, that’s pretty much what our foreign policy is: lecturing foreigners to be more like Canadians.
Travelling, and not to vacation resorts, is a big learning experience that more should do. As a national we have been ‘woke’ for some time as we think we are the best and more should be like us. I did time in Iraq while Sadam was in power. I travelled extensively in the country and i am not sure it is better today than it was then, but the US was intent on bringing democracy to a country where few understood anything beyond powerful autocrats. We don’t go to war to make other countries like Canada, but we do everything short of war.
🎯👍
The US can accomplish all of those things; and likely will without firing a shot. We have no military, but they can accomplish all of that economically. Not to mention, half the west will welcome them as liberators.
World War 2 is the only war in history that needed to be fought, and it only happened because of the stupidity of the victors of World War 1. The rest of them have occurred because of idiot egos; Ukraine, outright lies; Iraq, or idiotic paranoia; Vietnam. War in the end is settled around a table; maybe skip the killing and go right to that. And yes, I know that's remarkably naïve and impossible, but that's only because absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you can buy everything, the next desire is control. Humans are still really stupid.
Get rid of the concept of God, and you get rid of a whole lot more reasons to justify slaughter and death.
I'm sure we'll find out about you theory soon enough when one group of billionaires decides it wants what the other group of billionaires want. And for their egos, who knows how many will die. We'll probably know far too soon. North America has effectively been immunes form war. The rest of the world should be smart enough to avoid it having seen the consequences. No chance.
When both sides feel guilt then a lasting peace is achievable.
Wait until part two. JG
Remarkably astute. The sadness is that Hamas and the PFLP have done more to undermine the possibility of peace than any other entities. The suicide bombings of the second intifada and Oct 7 have made belief in coexistence non existent. It is has become us or them.
A good piece, some excellent journalism exploring the limited options of this intractable conflict. Thank you!
I certainly don't pretend to be an authority on the middle east, but I would recommend reading the Middle East Forum to gain understanding of the peoples involved, their values and their history. I would also recommend looking at Wikpedia for historical fact checking regarding the origins of Islam and its spread over the centuries, and also for facts on the origins of the modern state of Israel and its history into current times. Wikpedia bibliographies are generally long and provide the source material for Wikpedia articles for a closer look. (If you haven't read the above already, pretty sure lots of you have and are way ahead of me!)