Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and journalist Nicholas Kristof have credibility to say things that some other people cannot.
Kristof is telling Israel to stop the killing in Gaza.
Schumer is calling for both Israeli and Palestinian leadership to leave.
 |
| Click here: "Gifted" New York Times article. No paywall. |
Hamas doubled down on its malicious cruelty by using their own people as human shields, positioning military equipment inside hospitals and schools. Israel must do something to protect itself, but everything they do inevitably kills Palestinian civilians. It has created a humanitarian crisis and a public relations nightmare. There is no way to sugarcoat images of Gazan toddlers killed.
This blog is about messages and messengers. In a theoretical world of logic, the identity of a person who advances an idea is irrelevant. The idea is the idea, and it rises or falls on its own merit. In the real world of politics, the message and messenger are intertwined. Some people have credibility to express disapproval and others do not.
Nicholas Kristof is an American Jew who has spent decades in and out of the Middle East observing and writing. He writes that Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza and it needs to stop blocking American humanitarian aid. I link to his article above. No one who urges restraint on Israel is exempt from charges of being unrealistic, and maybe antisemitic, even observant Jews. There is a term for Jewish critics of Israel and fellow-Jews: "self-hating Jews." Moreover, Kristof is an outsider, an American, able to return to New York and a farm in Oregon, thousands of miles from Hamas. His critics note that it is easy for him to call for restraint. He isn't living it, bearing the risk. Still, he has an argument, urging Biden to put pressure on Israel to stop the killing.
Chuck Schumer made a consequential speech this week with a message parallel to Kristof's. He said the status quo is intolerable. He urged changes within Israel that angered Israeli leaders and their supporters, plus right-wing supporters of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu here in the U.S.
Chuck Schumer, by coincidence a college classmate though not a reader of this blog, is an observant Jew, a U.S. senator from New York, and the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. He made a tough-love speech. His speech begins with paragraphs attempting to qualify himself as a friend of Israel. He said how he rejoiced at Israel's founding as a boy. He says he continues to believe Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. He said he has friends in Israel and has met with families of hostages. He knows Bibi. But then he says the hard part. The status quo must end. He outlined four obstacles to peace.
 |
| Click here: Times of Israel transcript |
1. "Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways" must go. The people of Gaza, with the cooperation of Arab states, need to remove them from power.
2. "Radical right-wing Israelis in government and society" must go. Schumer names names, Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. He adds the extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Schumer said Israeli voters need to elect a new coalition.
3. President Mahmoud Abbas must go. He is the current president of the State of Palestine and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Schumer called him corrupt and a poor role model and spiritual leader.
4. Netanyahu must go. Schumer said he leads an extremist party. Schumer acknowledged that Israel is a democracy and the current coalition needs to be removed by Israelis, not Americans, but he said it must happen if there is to be peace.
Schumer said these changes will require pressure from two sides. The Arab countries surrounding Israel must push out Hamas and encourage new leadership for Palestinians. And the United States must leverage its power to push change within Israel.
Both Schumer and Kristof say there is no one-state solution that brings stable peace. Circumstances have made a two-state solution all there is, however difficult and currently unpopular it is on both sides. There is no good solution. Mass death or forced exile -- the solutions of earlier eras of conquest -- are neither good nor possible. Both peoples will continue to share that land. There is no solution other than a two-state solution, however difficult and however seemingly impossible.
22 comments:
Gaza is in ruins, millions are displaced, tens of thousands – mainly women and children – have been slaughtered, people are literally starving to death and the Israeli Defense Forces have bombed and are poised to attack the Rafah refugee camp they’ve herded the Gazans into. Some blame the ongoing atrocity on Hamas, but it’s the IDF that’s doing it. Some claim it’s justified by the Hamas attack that killed 1200 Israelis, but that’s only true if you think each Israeli life is worth 30 Palestinians. Some try to equate criticism of Israel’s policy with antisemitism, but that’s just a lame attempt to change the subject.
Schumer has a good point: Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace. There has to be a better way, but he isn’t even interested in seeking one. He seems to think that if he kills enough Gazans, some of them are bound to be Hamas. The wanton cruelty of Israel's response to 10/7 may leave Gaza in ruins, but it isn't likely to leave Israel any safer.
Some problems don’t have a solution; all you can do is manage the situation.
A “two state solution” is impractical for the foreseeable future. The Israelis want security for the Jewish homeland. The Palestinians want all the land “from the river to the sea.”
You cannot square that circle.
Anyone who has studied ancient near eastern history, or worked, lived or done business in honor-shame cultures understands why this is happening. Peter sees this through the lens of messages and messengers. But there is much more to it.
The West generally sees conflict in terms of “guilt and innocence”. In this worldview, anyone or group that is found guilty of an offense can be punished or made to pay reparations, after which, the offense has been technically removed. That’s the basis for our legal system – as imperfect as it is. In this system, there’s room for negotiation, compromise, settlement, and a path to closure.
In ancient honor-shame societies the rules are different. The collective is more important than individual rights. That’s why horrific attacks on the innocent do not bother either side. They aren’t harming “people”; they are showing retribution to a collective. The only way to restore honor is aggression – with the ultimate goal of domination, humiliation or eradication. In this mindset, there can be truces, but rarely are there lasting peace treaties. Contempt has no boundaries.
Oh wait…..
the GOP presidential front-runner exhibits these. But I digress.
100 years from now they’ll still be at each other’s throats. Different people, same result. The only thing the US can do is pressure Isreal to stand down. Enough already. They made their point.
For a definitive look at what the Palestinians really want, which is all of the land and no more Israel, read this book, which comes complete with footnotes and a bibliography:
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250252760/thewarofreturn
Two prominent Israeli liberals argue that for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to end with peace, Palestinians must come to terms with the fact that there will be no "right of return."
In 1948, seven hundred thousand Palestinians were forced out of their homes by the first Arab-Israeli War. More than seventy years later, most of their houses are long gone, but millions of their descendants are still registered as refugees, with many living in refugee camps. This group—unlike countless others that were displaced in the aftermath of World War II and other conflicts—has remained unsettled, demanding to settle in the state of Israel. Their belief in a "right of return" is one of the largest obstacles to successful diplomacy and lasting peace in the region.
In The War of Return, Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf—both liberal Israelis supportive of a two-state solution—reveal the origins of the idea of a right of return, and explain how UNRWA - the very agency charged with finding a solution for the refugees - gave in to Palestinian, Arab and international political pressure to create a permanent “refugee” problem. They argue that this Palestinian demand for a “right of return” has no legal or moral basis and make an impassioned plea for the US, the UN, and the EU to recognize this fact, for the good of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
A runaway bestseller in Israel, the first English translation of The War of Return is certain to spark lively debate throughout America and abroad.
Israel is not fighting this war to “make a point“. They are fighting this war to eradicate Hamas, because only in that way will they be able to live safely in Israel.
If Hamas stopped fighting, returned the Israeli hostages, and surrendered, the war would stop immediately. I wonder why “world public opinion“ isn’t pressuring Hamas to do that. It seems like the world’s only Jewish state is the only target for that kind of pressure.
Same fighting different century.
I wish the US would stop getting involved in religious wars. And get religion out of public policy.
BY HERB ROTHSCHILD
You write at the start of today's blog, "The U.S. has been trying for decades to influence how Israel deals with its Palestinian problem. The dilemma is that both Jews and Muslims consider the same land a sacred homeland. Given bitter history, neither side wants to share the land or co-exist." This last statement isn't entirely true. Yes, Hamas never acknowledged Israel's right to exist, but Hamas has never represented a majority of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority, which has for most of the time since Israel was founded, was open to a two-state solution. Likud never was. When it first assumed power in 1977 under Menachim Begin, it began to build settlements on the West Bank with the aim of "changing the facts on the ground" so that a two-state solution would be impossible. It succeeded. Netanyahu, long-time leader of Likud, even encoded the settlement policy into law in 2018. But it hasn't only be Likud. From the start of Zionism, its leaders wanted to possess all the land of "Eretz Israel," which includes all of present-day Israel and Palestine. What follows is documentation of an unbroken intention of ethnic cleansing. "[We Zionists will] spirit the penniless population across the border [of the Jewish state] by denying it employment . . . Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Diary of Theodore Herzl, entry dated June 12, 1895. Herzl was the co-founder of Zionism. “The Islamic soul must be broomed [ethnically cleansed] out of Eretz-Yisrael.” Also, "There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs.” Ze'ev Jabotinsky, spiritual father of the Likud Party, in a letter dated November 1939 to a Revisionist colleague in the U.S. "There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries, all of them." Also, "Not one village, not one [Arab] tribe should be left.” Diary entries of Yosef Weitz, director of the Transfer Committee Israel created in 1948, the year of its founding. "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs . . . could give us something which we never had [even in Biblical times].” Also, "With compulsory transfer we will have a vast area . . . I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister of Israel, quoted in Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999.” "It is not as though there was a Palestinian people . . . and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them . . . they did not exist." Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel 1969-1974, quoted in The Washington Post, June 16, 1969. "There is no Zionism, colonization, or Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Ariel Sharon, prime minister of Israel 2001-2006, quoted in the New York Times, 1998.
Set aside for the moment the prospect of prominent Democrats suddenly in favor of interference in foreign elections—Schumer has it wrong anyway. Notice though he stays out of calling for Palestinian elections, a nonstarter since the mid-2000s.
But as for Israel, he’s projecting an emphasis on Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s top political opponent, Benny Gantz, called Schumer’s speech misguided. Gantz would not alter Israel’s goals, tactics, or strategy. Neither would a solid majority of Israelis.
A two-state solution? Gee, what a fresh notion. From Arafat to date, it’s been bad-faith Palestinian leadership blocking that option. With the Hamas charter calling for Israel’s extirpation, it’s best to let Israel, not U.S. gadflies, look to its own defense.
As Herb has pointed out, the Palestinian Authority, which represents most Palestinians, has been open to a two-state solution. But since 1977, Israel under Likud has been making that impossible. As with so many wars, this one has no good guys, just partisans.
It's way past time for the pointless slaughter to end, and Israel certainly doesn't need our aid in carrying it out.
If that's so, then get Biden to stop the ever growing shipment of ever more lethal weapons to Tel Aviv, while our would be Allies the Ukrainians, are suffering more casualties than the Palestinians corralled in Gaza like cattle waiting for slaughter.
“As Herb has pointed out, the Palestinian Authority, which represents most Palestinians, has been open to a two-state solution.“
When the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat (I.e. the Palestinian Authority) were offered a two-state solution in 2000 under Clinton, they responded not even with a counter-offer, but with a series of 140 terrorist suicide bombings known as the Second Intifada.
Responding to that offer with a wave of terrorist bombings does not qualify as “open to a two-state solution“.
Israel made that offer. It was the Palestinians who rejected it.
The history of this conflict is so long, tortuous and nauseating that no side can claim the other started it or is the worse violator of human rights. At this point, what matters is now and the crisis in Gaza is an atrocity of epic proportions with Israel inflicting death and misery out of all proportion to anything that's been done to it.
Hamas committed a vicious act of terrorist war against Israel on October 7. The question is not one of “proportion“. The question is whether Israel is conducting its war of self-defense against Hamas while killing or hurting as few of Hamas’ human shields consistent with achieving its completely justified war gains.
Hamas purposely configured the battlespace so that Israel could not go after Hamas without harming those human shields. Demanding that Israel not fight this vicious enemy because of those human shields would hand Hamas a victory and reinforce the use of that strategy to conduct further attacked against Israel..
Demands that Israel value the lives of Palestinian civilians over the lives of its own civilians will not be hooked upon with favor by Israelis or their supporters.
"Hamas committed a vicious act of terrorist war against Israel on October 7."
Israel's response is about 30 times worse, and counting.
Hatred on this level makes no allowances for proportionality. If the Zionists think killing every Palestinian in Gaza and the West Bank will kill the idea of a Palestinian homeland, they aren't nearly as smart as people seem to think they are. And Israel will become an International Pariah.
Israel is doing what it can to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties, consistent with its totally justified military goal of eliminating the ability of Hamas to ever attack Israel again.
Israel is doing a better job of minimizing civilian casualties than the United States did eradicating ISIS from Mosul. They are doing a better job of minimizing those casualties than any military has ever done in the history of the world.
Counting and comparing the number of casualties and talking about “proportion“ is the wrong way to think about this.
Partisanship may dull the conscience, but it doesn’t change the facts. About 10,000 civilians were killed in the battle to liberate Mosul, and it’s estimated that the U.S.-led coalition forces killed about a third of them: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/liberating-mosul-isis-left-more-9-000-civilians-dead-report-n831431
Amnesty International described the death toll in Mosul as horrifying and the coalition attacks disproportionate and indiscriminate. Israel’s disproportionate, indiscriminate attacks have killed ten times as many civilians in Gaza as coalition forces did in Mosul. You can't kill that many people accidentally,
The question is not the absolute number. The question is the ratio of civilians killed to valid military targets killed. Israel’s actions in Gaza have a significantly lower ratio than the United States’ action in Mosul.
NGOs like Amnesty can append whatever adjectives they choose to a military action. The staff of Amnesty are not the ones whose lives are on the line if terrorists are not defeated. They are “beautiful souls“ criticizing those who have to fight to survive from the safety of their first world offices.
Israeli bombing has destroyed 70% of the homes in Gaza. Those aren't "valid military targets" and mass murder isn't a valid military strategy - it's terrorism.
A final comment from the WSJ:
"More than a million people in the Gaza Strip, around half of the enclave's population, are experiencing famine-like conditions, according to new estimates by food insecurity experts who found evidence of widespread starvation and a sharp increase in child mortality in the war-ravaged enclave."
As I said, this isn't military engagement - it's terrorism.
Israel is allowing levels of aid into Gaza consistent with preventing a flow of weapons to enter. Destroying Hamas’ ability to wage terrorist war against Israel is the first priority. The fate of Hamas’ human shields is important, but secondary to this primary goal.
Hamas put its own people into that position, not Israel. Expecting Israel to value the lives of Palestinian civilians higher than its own is a non-starter.
Post a Comment