Wow, that was a long and worthwhile read, packed with data. Wasn't quite sure where you were going, but a very powerful synthesis. Thank you as always. This info needs to be shared more widely.
Thank you for this excellent piece. I had reached similar conclusions already, but it's great to have the argument laid out in such detail.
One aspect of the situation you didn't mention is the demographics. The median age in Gaza, I have read, is 18 — meaning that fully half the population are children or teenagers. It is widely observed that teenage boys and young men, especially, are easy to radicalize; to the point that any large community with such a low median age is likely to have some kind of war going on, whether that be turf wars between gangs, or a larger-scale conflict. Gaza has a massive supply of them. This is deeply concerning.
I do agree with you that culture has to be fair game for criticism. I have some thoughts about Israeli culture to offer, in the spirit of even-handedness.
From what I have read, since the Zionist project began in the mid-19th century, there has been a significant minority of Zionists (I don't use the term pejoratively) who acted in a destructive, sometimes violent, manner towards the local Arabs. As far back as the 1880s, I have read, Zionists sometimes bulldozed Arab villages. In the present day, there are reports of Israeli settlers in the West Bank accosting and even shooting Palestinians, unprovoked. I'm sure I needn't fill in all the examples in between; we've all heard about them. But what I would draw attention to is that the bulk of Zionist/Israeli society, while not necessarily participating in these crimes, has rarely if ever made serious attempts to prevent their fellow Jews from committing them — at least, not as far as I know. The IDF in the West Bank today, from what I read, considers its mission to be the protection of settlers, not, as I would strongly recommend, the protection of each side from the other.
Of course, it's entirely understandable, and very human, to consider one's in-group as worth of protection, and one's out-group as unworthy of it. But: the Zionist project undertook to re-establish an ancestral homeland for an ethnic group that had largely abandoned the area centuries ago, in a place where the local population, though apparently quite few in number c. 1860, had an ancient and religion-encrusted animosity toward them. This was never going to be easy. And it doesn't appear that the Zionists asked themselves up front what they were going to need to do to maintain good relations with the people already living there. Instead, they felt entitled to the land — God had promised it to them, they believed, and especially after the Holocaust, the world owed it to them.
My point is, there are aspects of Zionist/Israeli culture, and perhaps of Jewish culture more broadly, that have also contributed to the terrible situation to which we have come. As problematic as Arab culture is, it's not the only problem.
Oct 25, 2023·edited Oct 25, 2023Liked by David Josef Volodzko
Your reply is very thoughtful and I understand what you are saying. The problem is that laying it out as you do removes a layer of guilt from one side that is not justified, as many thoughtful people are doing these days.
To not confuse rhetoric with reality, I will say that Hamas, PLO, Jihad, Palestinian fighting men, and surrounding Arab countries are responsible for...I'm going to state... at least 95% of the problem historically, and add Iran and Qatar, including today. Israel has been in a defensive posture for its entirety. Land was purchased, abandoned, won, returned, and is shared with 2 million Arab Israeli citizens. The historical and current goal for the Palestinians is to destroy the Jews in Israel. I am assuming they will not kill the Arab Israelis, though the individual freedoms they are accustomed to will be taken away. And no Muslim country meaningfully shares citizenry with Jews as Israel does with Muslims. Remember, at least half of the Jews in Israel are from the Jews expelled from Muslim countries.
Also, the anti-colonialism reflex is a weak rationale as humanity and history are entirely filled with takeover. Rarely are people offered a country of their own, as the Palestinians have rejected over and over again. In particular, the waste of 25 miles of beachfront Mediterranean Gaza and impoverishing your own people for terrorist purposes, is beyond criminal.
I wish people with our western humanism would be more careful with our magnanimous thinking. The culture killing Jews in Israel hates us, too.
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.
Wow, that was a long and worthwhile read, packed with data. Wasn't quite sure where you were going, but a very powerful synthesis. Thank you as always. This info needs to be shared more widely.
Thank you for your research on this matter.
Would like to say more about how important your work is but have to run to work. This is an amazing piece of work on your part. Thank you,
Thank you for this excellent piece. I had reached similar conclusions already, but it's great to have the argument laid out in such detail.
One aspect of the situation you didn't mention is the demographics. The median age in Gaza, I have read, is 18 — meaning that fully half the population are children or teenagers. It is widely observed that teenage boys and young men, especially, are easy to radicalize; to the point that any large community with such a low median age is likely to have some kind of war going on, whether that be turf wars between gangs, or a larger-scale conflict. Gaza has a massive supply of them. This is deeply concerning.
I do agree with you that culture has to be fair game for criticism. I have some thoughts about Israeli culture to offer, in the spirit of even-handedness.
From what I have read, since the Zionist project began in the mid-19th century, there has been a significant minority of Zionists (I don't use the term pejoratively) who acted in a destructive, sometimes violent, manner towards the local Arabs. As far back as the 1880s, I have read, Zionists sometimes bulldozed Arab villages. In the present day, there are reports of Israeli settlers in the West Bank accosting and even shooting Palestinians, unprovoked. I'm sure I needn't fill in all the examples in between; we've all heard about them. But what I would draw attention to is that the bulk of Zionist/Israeli society, while not necessarily participating in these crimes, has rarely if ever made serious attempts to prevent their fellow Jews from committing them — at least, not as far as I know. The IDF in the West Bank today, from what I read, considers its mission to be the protection of settlers, not, as I would strongly recommend, the protection of each side from the other.
Of course, it's entirely understandable, and very human, to consider one's in-group as worth of protection, and one's out-group as unworthy of it. But: the Zionist project undertook to re-establish an ancestral homeland for an ethnic group that had largely abandoned the area centuries ago, in a place where the local population, though apparently quite few in number c. 1860, had an ancient and religion-encrusted animosity toward them. This was never going to be easy. And it doesn't appear that the Zionists asked themselves up front what they were going to need to do to maintain good relations with the people already living there. Instead, they felt entitled to the land — God had promised it to them, they believed, and especially after the Holocaust, the world owed it to them.
My point is, there are aspects of Zionist/Israeli culture, and perhaps of Jewish culture more broadly, that have also contributed to the terrible situation to which we have come. As problematic as Arab culture is, it's not the only problem.
I agree there is blame to go around, but as I’m sure you will agree, not in remotely equal portions.
Your reply is very thoughtful and I understand what you are saying. The problem is that laying it out as you do removes a layer of guilt from one side that is not justified, as many thoughtful people are doing these days.
To not confuse rhetoric with reality, I will say that Hamas, PLO, Jihad, Palestinian fighting men, and surrounding Arab countries are responsible for...I'm going to state... at least 95% of the problem historically, and add Iran and Qatar, including today. Israel has been in a defensive posture for its entirety. Land was purchased, abandoned, won, returned, and is shared with 2 million Arab Israeli citizens. The historical and current goal for the Palestinians is to destroy the Jews in Israel. I am assuming they will not kill the Arab Israelis, though the individual freedoms they are accustomed to will be taken away. And no Muslim country meaningfully shares citizenry with Jews as Israel does with Muslims. Remember, at least half of the Jews in Israel are from the Jews expelled from Muslim countries.
Also, the anti-colonialism reflex is a weak rationale as humanity and history are entirely filled with takeover. Rarely are people offered a country of their own, as the Palestinians have rejected over and over again. In particular, the waste of 25 miles of beachfront Mediterranean Gaza and impoverishing your own people for terrorist purposes, is beyond criminal.
I wish people with our western humanism would be more careful with our magnanimous thinking. The culture killing Jews in Israel hates us, too.
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.