Andrew Sullivan — whose recent writings on the subject I also regard highly — turned up this fascinating quote from David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, in 1953:
“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it t…
Andrew Sullivan — whose recent writings on the subject I also regard highly — turned up this fascinating quote from David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, in 1953:
“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.”
Sounds to me like Ben-Gurion's estimate of the Israeli contribution to the conflict would be a lot more than 5%.
I think it is sriking to hear an Israeli leader putting himself in the place of the Palestinians. This is not the kind of talk we hear often, from either side.
But even more striking, perhaps, is the vanity of his hope that the Palestinians would forget their animosity. Even though he has considerable sympathy for their position, it doesn't seem to have crossed his mind that Israel could try to help them forget, by, at the very _very_ least, not continuously reminding them. Israel could have adopted an explicit policy of, on the one hand, protecting itself, and on the other, doing its best not to antagonize the Palestinians. This would have meant actively stifling their own more aggressive members and even protecting the Palestinians from them, for one example, and not continuing to annex land, for another. It would have required almost superhuman forbearance, perhaps, to maintain such policies in the face of the inevitable provocations; but Israel can't continue to do what it has been doing and have any hope of the Palestinians acquiescing.
So I do believe the situation demands some soul-searching of the Israelis (and of course there are many Israelis who agree). Even if their contribution were only 5%, as you suggest, it is still feeding the cycle of violence.
Every military/political figure knows that the land they inhabit has been someone else's home.
Your rhetoric can be applied to Russia's claims to parts of Ukraine to justify its behavior. Borders change. People are displaced or absorbed. Territory is won through war. Forget that Israel and the Palestinians were both assigned land to thrive on. Israel won territory in purely defensive wars. It has been forced to give up land for supposed peace. No other country in the world is held to this standard.
Reality is that Israel legitimately owns the land by both UN treaty and winning (defensive) wars. Reality is that the Palestinians are absolutely, totally responsible for their current predicament. No, the settlers have almost zero to do with the actual "cycle of violence." Reality is that the world still has a "Jewish problem." All the words and actions taking place today are almost exactly the same as the words and actions before a prior "solution."
My rhetoric? I repeat: those were the words of David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister.
In one breath, you claim a UN treaty as justification for Israel's borders (and I agree) but then dismiss the settlements that the same UN has ruled illegitimate (Resolution 2334). In my view, every settlement is an offensive military action. As if to underscore the point, the Israeli government is now giving the settlers guns, even further blurring the important line between soldiers and civilians. I do not see this ending well.
Look, I am not saying that the settlements are the whole problem, by any means. But they are the biggest piece of the problem that Israel has direct control over. I am well aware that they withdrew the Gaza settlements and that that did not, in itself, bring about peace. But I still believe it to have been necessary. Imagine how the recent attacks would have gone if there were still settlers in Gaza!
I have no sympathy for Hamas at all, and think that there is probably no hope for peace until they are killed off. The majority of Gazans are victims of Hamas, a point made well in this article that just came out, which I highly recommend: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/what-palestinians-really-think-hamas
The problem for Israel, of course, is how to kill off Hamas without radicalizing more Gazans; Hamas has been very clever at making this almost impossible. I have no easy answers to suggest, but I'm glad that the Israelis seem to be heeding calls to stop and think about it before commencing their invasion.
Andrew Sullivan — whose recent writings on the subject I also regard highly — turned up this fascinating quote from David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, in 1953:
“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.”
Sounds to me like Ben-Gurion's estimate of the Israeli contribution to the conflict would be a lot more than 5%.
I think it is sriking to hear an Israeli leader putting himself in the place of the Palestinians. This is not the kind of talk we hear often, from either side.
But even more striking, perhaps, is the vanity of his hope that the Palestinians would forget their animosity. Even though he has considerable sympathy for their position, it doesn't seem to have crossed his mind that Israel could try to help them forget, by, at the very _very_ least, not continuously reminding them. Israel could have adopted an explicit policy of, on the one hand, protecting itself, and on the other, doing its best not to antagonize the Palestinians. This would have meant actively stifling their own more aggressive members and even protecting the Palestinians from them, for one example, and not continuing to annex land, for another. It would have required almost superhuman forbearance, perhaps, to maintain such policies in the face of the inevitable provocations; but Israel can't continue to do what it has been doing and have any hope of the Palestinians acquiescing.
So I do believe the situation demands some soul-searching of the Israelis (and of course there are many Israelis who agree). Even if their contribution were only 5%, as you suggest, it is still feeding the cycle of violence.
Every military/political figure knows that the land they inhabit has been someone else's home.
Your rhetoric can be applied to Russia's claims to parts of Ukraine to justify its behavior. Borders change. People are displaced or absorbed. Territory is won through war. Forget that Israel and the Palestinians were both assigned land to thrive on. Israel won territory in purely defensive wars. It has been forced to give up land for supposed peace. No other country in the world is held to this standard.
Reality is that Israel legitimately owns the land by both UN treaty and winning (defensive) wars. Reality is that the Palestinians are absolutely, totally responsible for their current predicament. No, the settlers have almost zero to do with the actual "cycle of violence." Reality is that the world still has a "Jewish problem." All the words and actions taking place today are almost exactly the same as the words and actions before a prior "solution."
My rhetoric? I repeat: those were the words of David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister.
In one breath, you claim a UN treaty as justification for Israel's borders (and I agree) but then dismiss the settlements that the same UN has ruled illegitimate (Resolution 2334). In my view, every settlement is an offensive military action. As if to underscore the point, the Israeli government is now giving the settlers guns, even further blurring the important line between soldiers and civilians. I do not see this ending well.
Look, I am not saying that the settlements are the whole problem, by any means. But they are the biggest piece of the problem that Israel has direct control over. I am well aware that they withdrew the Gaza settlements and that that did not, in itself, bring about peace. But I still believe it to have been necessary. Imagine how the recent attacks would have gone if there were still settlers in Gaza!
I have no sympathy for Hamas at all, and think that there is probably no hope for peace until they are killed off. The majority of Gazans are victims of Hamas, a point made well in this article that just came out, which I highly recommend: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/what-palestinians-really-think-hamas
The problem for Israel, of course, is how to kill off Hamas without radicalizing more Gazans; Hamas has been very clever at making this almost impossible. I have no easy answers to suggest, but I'm glad that the Israelis seem to be heeding calls to stop and think about it before commencing their invasion.