Damn it, Maurer, can we go a single week here without you getting up on your high horse about the Pazzi Conspiracy? Every week, it’s Sixtus, Sixtus, Sixtus. Readers want something new!
There are still reasonable people in Israel (maybe not the majority any more) who support a two state solution "in theory" (meaning if the Arab state were actually willing to accept Israel's sovereignty). There is no such significant faction on the pro-Palestine side. They all want Israel to vanish.
People often talk about how Israel needs to be careful because they will radicalise the Palestinians. Israelis are not inherently better than Palestinians, and 7 October radicalised Israelis.
I think it will take many years of Palestinians working to prove to Israelis that they actually want peace and to live side by side before any popular support for a 2 state solution exists in Israel.
Touches on an upsetting part of the Palestine discourse.
I'm very comfortable with calls for "ceasefire AND ..." because then we can compare the status quo to a new proposal and evaluate the costs and benefits.
Just calling for ceasefire alone is essentially calling for status quo antebellum (ie. Continued attacks targeted at Israeli citizens)- which would be bad enough if Pro-Palestine advocates actually wanted that. But since they obviously don't, it's impossible to compare their vision of a just settlement to the existing one.
The entire movement seems like a Motte and Bailey - seemingly no one is willing to propose an alternative to the status quo.
Acoording to my intense and rigorous research consisting of 20 seconds of Google searching, the West Bank has a population of 3M, Gaza Strip of 2M, and Israel 9.5M. why would the combined state have an Arab majority. Is that including Arab citizens of Israel? Do they tend to side with Palestine in the conflict?
I’m going to stick my head out of the Subscribers VIP Champagne room (you’ve really outdone yourself there, Jeff) to point out that Barry Bonds never failed a drug test, so at least on that one I don’t agree with your “it’s *so* obvious!” take.
There are serious, earnest pundits who argue for a one-state solution, in which the one state is not Israel or Palestine. Peter Beinart is the most prominent, I believe. His arguments seem unrealistic to me, but he's got the credentials.
I agree that Beinart is the most prominent person making this case, though IMHO, his case is very bad. This state would functionally be Palestine because Arabs are presently a narrow majority in the region and their population is growing faster, and importantly both Jews and Arabs in the region emphatically reject Beinart’s idea.
Peter Beinart wants the destruction of Israel as a democratic Jewish-majority state, but he’s far too queasy with how his Pals interpret “Palestinian liberation”. Unfortunately for Beinart, whether he’s earnest or not, there is no way a single state isn’t an instant bloodier civil war. There already was a single state - the British Mandate of Palestine, and neither side wanted to be a part of it. Demanding a future neither Israelis nor Palestinians want is patronizing, delusional at best, and at worst a propaganda attempt like the one being discussed here.
It's true that there is a fuzzy bi-national idea to allow both Palestine and Israel to govern the state, and that this is kinda half-baked. It doesn't mean it's impossible - that's pretty strong language.
As a nominally/ethnically Jewish guy (I think I'm not, but most folks make the wrong judgment), I don't have an answer, but I do have an observation. When Israel came in to being in 1948, the soi-disant Israelis took up the occupying role the British had had. Their claim seems to have been, and continues to be, that a very, very long time ago, their arguable ancestors were given the land by a god that not everyone recognizes. The Palestinians in 1948 were upset about being told that their long occupancy now was untenable, that they were simply long-term squatters, and that they should shut up and do what they were told by their new landlords and/or get to hell out. "Upset" is clearly and understatement. I'm no qualified historian, but that appears to me objectively to typify colonialism in general and more or less mirrors the sociopolitical history of the Republic of South Africa under the Dutch and then British. Kinda like if a bunch of Samoans, with a good chunk of the (Western) world's political backing, showed up in, say, Maryland. Or the British, like the Conquistadores, in the Americas. Et cetera.
There's no doubt that "the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." L. P. Hartley was right: We judge historical actions by current standards at our peril, and we must understand all the social and political atmospheres of the time. Yes, the incoming Jews were refugees from an almost unimaginable situation, and, as well, they weren't welcomed nor invited to settle in the other polities that supported their, well, occupation of the land. Including the United States. Yes, they desperately needed somewhere to go. And yes, Zionism was ascendent, driving a lot of their decisionmaking. And yes, I'm simplifying a complex, complicated situation. But: Those things didn't and don't mitigate what happened on the ground...at least in the largely ignored Palestinian worldview.
So, that history and that worldview are, at least as I can see it, what drove the Arab nations to oppose Israel's statehood and fuels the fire of the justifiably resentful Palestinians. Now, much like South Africa, settled history means that, like it or don't, the Israelis can't and ain't goin' nowhere. And by contemporary moral standards, the Palestinians shouldn't have to settle for the status quo. They've been wronged, and badly. And remember that the Israelis have and long have had conventional military superiority. They run the show. Because they can. How can the Palestinians and their allies fight back if they don't deploy asymmetric warfare? What happened last October was inexcusable and violates the laws of war (in an undeclared, variously named, but very real war). That notwithstanding, what's going on now is no better and violates the same laws.
I said I don't have the answer. I still don't. But I can say that until the initial wrongs--and the wrongs they continue to generate--are acknowledged and assuaged, Hamas and its buddies aren't going away permanently. Because they do, ab initio (showing off my erudition here), absolutely have a point. And, it seems to me, that includes Hamas, minus the hyperreligious philosophy and the resultant antisemitism. The Israelis have become the folks their grandparents fled.
Maybe Mr. Mauer's notion is a good one. Maybe it's workable, though it's a fraught one. But any solution that doesn't countenance the historicity of the situation and obviously do something concrete about it is gonna be DOA. I'm not just pro-Palestinian, despite what I've written, I'm pro-Israeli. As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"
I viscerally hated this piece in the Times as well. He even said at the end, literally, "a single state from the river to the sea" -- the ultimate ideological and unpragmatic tell.
One thing I'd like to add to the discourse here because we all know that Jeff attracts the decision-makers in country border design: There can be a different solution than one- or two-state solution.
Jordan can absorb the West Bank and Egypt can absorb Gaza.
Oh, I know this would "split up" the Palestinians. But, please, tell me they're not split up now anyway?
Perhaps the term "Palestinians" is part of the issue here - it creates a semiotic unity that may very well be moot given the past 50 years. There are plenty of ethnic Hungarians in surrounding countries (who Orban has determined can vote in Hungarian elections, no less!), yet Hungary isn't at war with its neighbors.
If Jordan and Egypt both created "Palestinian Provinces" respectively, and offered secure transit between the two, this would allow both countries to provide security for their new borders. My take is that Jordan and Egypt have earned their street cred in maintaining their borders and keeping their security promises.
Egypt has affirmatively disclaimed any interest in Gaza despite Israeli offers to give it back, and Jordan has effectively said they will never allow West Bank residents to become citizens after one too many attempts by Palestinian nationalists to assassinate the royal family.
I have 2 children that are close to the same age. They seemed to like to fight. There were times I grabbed them both by the nape of the neck and pulled them apart. Then I imposed a 2 state solution upon them, with a promise of great wrath for whoever breaks the peace.
It seems like that would be a good solution for the toddlers at war here. The world would be such a better place if I were in charge.
Might not work so well if one of your children is successful and likes to code, while the other is a psychopathic fratricidal maniac, but "I love my children equally".
Damn it, Maurer, can we go a single week here without you getting up on your high horse about the Pazzi Conspiracy? Every week, it’s Sixtus, Sixtus, Sixtus. Readers want something new!
It's clickbait and I've got a family to feed.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
(Somebody had to say it.)
Crass and deplorable. Bottom feeding of the worst kind.
Was just talking to a neighbor who spent spring break in Germany with her kids. Kids are half Jewish. Yeah, unimaginable things are possible.
There are still reasonable people in Israel (maybe not the majority any more) who support a two state solution "in theory" (meaning if the Arab state were actually willing to accept Israel's sovereignty). There is no such significant faction on the pro-Palestine side. They all want Israel to vanish.
People often talk about how Israel needs to be careful because they will radicalise the Palestinians. Israelis are not inherently better than Palestinians, and 7 October radicalised Israelis.
I think it will take many years of Palestinians working to prove to Israelis that they actually want peace and to live side by side before any popular support for a 2 state solution exists in Israel.
Touches on an upsetting part of the Palestine discourse.
I'm very comfortable with calls for "ceasefire AND ..." because then we can compare the status quo to a new proposal and evaluate the costs and benefits.
Just calling for ceasefire alone is essentially calling for status quo antebellum (ie. Continued attacks targeted at Israeli citizens)- which would be bad enough if Pro-Palestine advocates actually wanted that. But since they obviously don't, it's impossible to compare their vision of a just settlement to the existing one.
The entire movement seems like a Motte and Bailey - seemingly no one is willing to propose an alternative to the status quo.
Acoording to my intense and rigorous research consisting of 20 seconds of Google searching, the West Bank has a population of 3M, Gaza Strip of 2M, and Israel 9.5M. why would the combined state have an Arab majority. Is that including Arab citizens of Israel? Do they tend to side with Palestine in the conflict?
About 2 million Arab Israelis
Yes and yes.
I’m going to stick my head out of the Subscribers VIP Champagne room (you’ve really outdone yourself there, Jeff) to point out that Barry Bonds never failed a drug test, so at least on that one I don’t agree with your “it’s *so* obvious!” take.
I like to encourage dissenting and unorthodox views on this blog but you may have gone too far.
Show me the failed drug test from Bonds and I’ll happily retract :-)
Anyone with eyes didn't need one.
There are serious, earnest pundits who argue for a one-state solution, in which the one state is not Israel or Palestine. Peter Beinart is the most prominent, I believe. His arguments seem unrealistic to me, but he's got the credentials.
I agree that Beinart is the most prominent person making this case, though IMHO, his case is very bad. This state would functionally be Palestine because Arabs are presently a narrow majority in the region and their population is growing faster, and importantly both Jews and Arabs in the region emphatically reject Beinart’s idea.
Not to mention the fantasy that violent civil war wouldn’t break out immediately, given the populations are so evenly matched.
Yes; I think this is one of about 50 reasons why nobody in the region wants it.
Peter Beinart wants the destruction of Israel as a democratic Jewish-majority state, but he’s far too queasy with how his Pals interpret “Palestinian liberation”. Unfortunately for Beinart, whether he’s earnest or not, there is no way a single state isn’t an instant bloodier civil war. There already was a single state - the British Mandate of Palestine, and neither side wanted to be a part of it. Demanding a future neither Israelis nor Palestinians want is patronizing, delusional at best, and at worst a propaganda attempt like the one being discussed here.
It's true that there is a fuzzy bi-national idea to allow both Palestine and Israel to govern the state, and that this is kinda half-baked. It doesn't mean it's impossible - that's pretty strong language.
But it is fuzzy.
As a nominally/ethnically Jewish guy (I think I'm not, but most folks make the wrong judgment), I don't have an answer, but I do have an observation. When Israel came in to being in 1948, the soi-disant Israelis took up the occupying role the British had had. Their claim seems to have been, and continues to be, that a very, very long time ago, their arguable ancestors were given the land by a god that not everyone recognizes. The Palestinians in 1948 were upset about being told that their long occupancy now was untenable, that they were simply long-term squatters, and that they should shut up and do what they were told by their new landlords and/or get to hell out. "Upset" is clearly and understatement. I'm no qualified historian, but that appears to me objectively to typify colonialism in general and more or less mirrors the sociopolitical history of the Republic of South Africa under the Dutch and then British. Kinda like if a bunch of Samoans, with a good chunk of the (Western) world's political backing, showed up in, say, Maryland. Or the British, like the Conquistadores, in the Americas. Et cetera.
There's no doubt that "the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." L. P. Hartley was right: We judge historical actions by current standards at our peril, and we must understand all the social and political atmospheres of the time. Yes, the incoming Jews were refugees from an almost unimaginable situation, and, as well, they weren't welcomed nor invited to settle in the other polities that supported their, well, occupation of the land. Including the United States. Yes, they desperately needed somewhere to go. And yes, Zionism was ascendent, driving a lot of their decisionmaking. And yes, I'm simplifying a complex, complicated situation. But: Those things didn't and don't mitigate what happened on the ground...at least in the largely ignored Palestinian worldview.
So, that history and that worldview are, at least as I can see it, what drove the Arab nations to oppose Israel's statehood and fuels the fire of the justifiably resentful Palestinians. Now, much like South Africa, settled history means that, like it or don't, the Israelis can't and ain't goin' nowhere. And by contemporary moral standards, the Palestinians shouldn't have to settle for the status quo. They've been wronged, and badly. And remember that the Israelis have and long have had conventional military superiority. They run the show. Because they can. How can the Palestinians and their allies fight back if they don't deploy asymmetric warfare? What happened last October was inexcusable and violates the laws of war (in an undeclared, variously named, but very real war). That notwithstanding, what's going on now is no better and violates the same laws.
I said I don't have the answer. I still don't. But I can say that until the initial wrongs--and the wrongs they continue to generate--are acknowledged and assuaged, Hamas and its buddies aren't going away permanently. Because they do, ab initio (showing off my erudition here), absolutely have a point. And, it seems to me, that includes Hamas, minus the hyperreligious philosophy and the resultant antisemitism. The Israelis have become the folks their grandparents fled.
Maybe Mr. Mauer's notion is a good one. Maybe it's workable, though it's a fraught one. But any solution that doesn't countenance the historicity of the situation and obviously do something concrete about it is gonna be DOA. I'm not just pro-Palestinian, despite what I've written, I'm pro-Israeli. As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"
Apparently not.
I viscerally hated this piece in the Times as well. He even said at the end, literally, "a single state from the river to the sea" -- the ultimate ideological and unpragmatic tell.
One thing I'd like to add to the discourse here because we all know that Jeff attracts the decision-makers in country border design: There can be a different solution than one- or two-state solution.
Jordan can absorb the West Bank and Egypt can absorb Gaza.
Oh, I know this would "split up" the Palestinians. But, please, tell me they're not split up now anyway?
Perhaps the term "Palestinians" is part of the issue here - it creates a semiotic unity that may very well be moot given the past 50 years. There are plenty of ethnic Hungarians in surrounding countries (who Orban has determined can vote in Hungarian elections, no less!), yet Hungary isn't at war with its neighbors.
If Jordan and Egypt both created "Palestinian Provinces" respectively, and offered secure transit between the two, this would allow both countries to provide security for their new borders. My take is that Jordan and Egypt have earned their street cred in maintaining their borders and keeping their security promises.
Why not consider a 3-state solution?
Egypt has affirmatively disclaimed any interest in Gaza despite Israeli offers to give it back, and Jordan has effectively said they will never allow West Bank residents to become citizens after one too many attempts by Palestinian nationalists to assassinate the royal family.
Nothing money can't solve.
but what if it’s the Yamnaya culture and THE HORSE DRAWN CART WE SHOULD BLAME
I have 2 children that are close to the same age. They seemed to like to fight. There were times I grabbed them both by the nape of the neck and pulled them apart. Then I imposed a 2 state solution upon them, with a promise of great wrath for whoever breaks the peace.
It seems like that would be a good solution for the toddlers at war here. The world would be such a better place if I were in charge.
Might not work so well if one of your children is successful and likes to code, while the other is a psychopathic fratricidal maniac, but "I love my children equally".
You are correct. My approach especially struggles when a vocal part of the adult parental country thinks the fratricidal maniac is the better child.
Anyway, I am just having a little fun with satire, and it appears some folks don't get it.
OMG, please tell me which adult country you’re from. I’m sure it has no such toddlerhood in its own history.