once again a thoughtful and cogent take on the situation. I have come to look forward to your ability to cut through the clutter and help me sort my thoughts. I am so glad to have “found “ you on substack and am pleased to be a paid subscriber
This is neither strained and artificial “two sides-ism”, nor the more typical (these days) “cheer your side and denigrate the other” form of journalism, which has become so common, these days, and seems to be unhappily prevalent in academia.
Things that are simple to say can be hard to do. Everybody taking opioids for non-medical reasons should just stop, so should everybody building nuclear weapons <dusts hands>.
Simple fact: the Israelis want neither the 1 or 2 state solutions; certainly not handing 2 million votes to Arabs, and not carving out land they want to keep. (Anybody about to hand South Dakota back to the Blackfoot? Then shut up.)
The Palestinians, lacking power to force them to any solution, 1-or-2 state, are attempting to use "The Horror, The Horror" as a force amplifier, see Col. Kurtz' argument in "Apocalypse Now" for how that works. Moral shaming for it is inevitable and correct, but nobody should pretend their ethnic group wouldn't do the same. See Adam Serwer's "The Cruelty is the Point". The "unholy glee" on the faces of White lynch mobs that burned a man slowly to death and posed for thumbs-up photos in front.
Another simple fact: "In 2002, during the second Intifada, Moshe (“Boogie”) Ya’alon, the Israeli Chief of Staff (and today the Minister of Defense) declared: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.” (Another simple fact is that Egyptians tried that on Israel for 400 years, and it didn't work.)
So, the simple facts decree decades and generations of conflict to come, because this certainly isn't making the Israelis make any concessions, and the Palestinians will still be here in another generation.
Since I'm always quoting Gwynne Dyer, here's his "simple fact": He noted that everybody eventually rises to industrial development, and Arab countries are slowly getting there. With development will come money, with money will come military power. Israel will eventually be surrounded by very powerful Arabs that even the USA can't protect them from. The change is already coming, see this article on "drones rewriting the Middle East": https://www.mei.edu/publications/drones-are-re-engineering-geopolitics-middle-east
When Israel sees an existential threat, they will make concessions needed to alleviate the threat. Not before. Even that is simple.
I liked your comment because it is the kind of rational analysis and weighing of alternatives that ought to animate behaviour. Basically it is that states will weigh and bow to the balance of power, recognizing competitive advantage and disadvantage. Which is a version of Thucydides' observation that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (or something like that). My only reservation is that after decades spent in hearing rooms listening to accounts of irrational and dysfunctional and self destructive behaviour, I am perhaps less sanguine that you are about the inevitable triumph of such rational calculation. Especially if the protagonists are nuclear-armed and the time for analysis is compressed. I ponder the alternative scenarios in the Cuban missile crisis, for example.
I'm not so confident a solution will ever be found. Sure, people will be asked to sit at a table and negotiate and maybe a "government" of Palestine will be tasked with suppressing its own people, but ethnic animosities can last for generations. Is Hamas composed of conscripts or volunteers?
For real peace, either Palestinians have to accept that they have been relegated to living in the basement after squatters invaded their home, or Israelis will have to abandon their desire for a Jewish homeland.
Speaking of degrees of intractability I'm surprised that no one pans out enough to get to the heart of the conflict. Oddly it's also what the Israelis and Palestinians have in common, i.e. religious belief/delusion.
The historical fact that the two religions in question are also actually derived from the same book is likely never mentioned because they have ended up in such different places. Arguably Judaism has evolved far more than Islam; the litmus test being that secular versions of the original creed are now common, making it less of a full-blown cult and more of a benign culture as in sharing of traditions and rituals. But their uniquely persecuted history also appeals to enough far-flung relatives to entice many to the biblically designated "Jewish homeland," joining extended family who not only share the centuries long history of persecution, but also the ultimate historical human horror that was the holocaust. Unfortunately and intractably, the Palestinian people already lived there, also for centuries.
Ta-Nehisis Coates makes the common mistake of conflating religion with race which isn't true because only one is immutable. But it does serve as an example of why this post-truth world has bred so much chaos; in fact widespread religious delusion can rightly be seen as both the first, worst "big lie" AND a proper platform for the current plethora of misinformation/disinformation. Arguably the truth IS all we really have and can indeed set us free.
Since religion is ultimately a set of ideas though it can't be destroyed by war; only deeply inflamed fellow believers would gloss over a reality so obvious to the rest of us.
But objective fellow atheist Sam Harris has a good piece on this that can be summed up with: "there's no living with jihadists."
Blowing themselves up is only one atrocity that sets Islam apart; (the conservatives weren't wrong to talk about "barbaric cultural practices"), there's also the appalling and persistent gender apartheid. While everyone puzzles about what to do about "Islamophobia" I'd say it's entirely understandable to have an aversion to this religion apart from its indoctrinated adherents; it's rightly the absolute worst in a bad field. But anti-Semitism is something else entirely.
Furthermore, I think the political left's early embrace of Muslims after 9-11 and then the coining of the term "Islamophobia" was one of our first missteps, an affectation and a posturing that still weakens our credibility.
You've written, twice, that this 'is not a genocide', once making your own claim, the other referencing the Israeli publication Haaretz . You make or cite that assertion , and leave it aside as though you've dealt with it, as though it's not a tenuous claim... given the absolute mayhem Israel's been wreaking in Gaza for 40 days, leaving aside the blockade! Some exceptionally qualified people have said that it is in fact genocide, or at minimum it is ethnic cleansing, that Israel is very aggressively pursuing. ... Chris Hedges certainly asserts this, and to my view he has more skin in the game than you, Mr. Ling, in his own decades-long deep commitment to lucid coverage of political circumstances in the Middle East, and his deep perspective on the very willful interference of America/Britain and other states in Palestine/Israel's dynamics and development. The onus would appear to be on you, in the name of rigour and (I believe) moral honesty, to flesh out your position. Because there aren't going to be any negotiations, there will be no peace planning, if the residents of Gaza are made to flee Gaza, which is already largely decimated. And things are absolutely bending that way.
All I can do in this instance is turn to the language adopted by the UN itself: That genocide requires the *intent* to destroy a people based on their identity. I look back at decades of Israeli military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon and have to conclude that they tolerate an intolerable amount of 'collateral damage' when it comes to Arab lives. But those actions, which often include prior warning of strikes and evidence of restraint when civilians are clearly present, as evidence that intent isn't there. I don't hold that position dogmatically: If evidence emerges to the contrary, or investigations find Israel purposefully tried to eliminate the Palestinian people, I'll change how I use that language. But I also reject the idea that we must make that conclusion in order to fully criticize Israel.
Thanks for your fulsome response. And you responded in a manner which did in fact 'flesh out your position'. This is much appreciated. I need to acknowledge that I found your analysis in the Substack piece in question very insightful. It raised the bar of my thoughts, and has given me a different horizon. I'm grateful for your depth and for your insights.
I'm going to place an addendum. Here's a 2-day-old piece on lobbying in the U.S. , specifically by the armaments industry there , as well as by the Israel lobby in Washington, and by lobbies conducted by very conservative-evangelical Christian groups ... all tilting the scales in the Oval Office, State Department and Congress-Senate away from any sympathy toward demanding ceasefire (though American public opinion is clearly in favor of ceasefire, especially among Democrats), and tilting the scales in favor of funding the continued saturation bombing and effacement of Gaza, in favor of minimizing or ignoring the continued bombing, destruction, obstruction and shooting up of hospitals, in favor of downplaying the massive civilian carnage, in favor of giving blessing to the hellish food-water-fuel-electricity blockade (which is clearly jeopardizing the entire population of Gaza)... This is an on-line piece by American journalist Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning author, one time Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times. He also does much-followed Substack segments. He's in conversation in this YouTube interview with Jewish-American anti-war activist Medea Benjamin. The conversation touches on Israeli impunity in the face of clearly evident war crimes, and in the face of actions which in any other context would be called out as 'genocide in progress'.
Thanks for this. with very limited bandwidth, in time, knowledge and energy, this is one of the few outlets of thought I do take in with regards to this conflict.
from my local cbc morning show is an interesting interview on what exactly is genocide
once again a thoughtful and cogent take on the situation. I have come to look forward to your ability to cut through the clutter and help me sort my thoughts. I am so glad to have “found “ you on substack and am pleased to be a paid subscriber
Thanks for the kind words, Ken! I really appreciate it
This is neither strained and artificial “two sides-ism”, nor the more typical (these days) “cheer your side and denigrate the other” form of journalism, which has become so common, these days, and seems to be unhappily prevalent in academia.
Which is why I am a subscriber. Great work!
Things that are simple to say can be hard to do. Everybody taking opioids for non-medical reasons should just stop, so should everybody building nuclear weapons <dusts hands>.
Simple fact: the Israelis want neither the 1 or 2 state solutions; certainly not handing 2 million votes to Arabs, and not carving out land they want to keep. (Anybody about to hand South Dakota back to the Blackfoot? Then shut up.)
The Palestinians, lacking power to force them to any solution, 1-or-2 state, are attempting to use "The Horror, The Horror" as a force amplifier, see Col. Kurtz' argument in "Apocalypse Now" for how that works. Moral shaming for it is inevitable and correct, but nobody should pretend their ethnic group wouldn't do the same. See Adam Serwer's "The Cruelty is the Point". The "unholy glee" on the faces of White lynch mobs that burned a man slowly to death and posed for thumbs-up photos in front.
Another simple fact: "In 2002, during the second Intifada, Moshe (“Boogie”) Ya’alon, the Israeli Chief of Staff (and today the Minister of Defense) declared: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.” (Another simple fact is that Egyptians tried that on Israel for 400 years, and it didn't work.)
So, the simple facts decree decades and generations of conflict to come, because this certainly isn't making the Israelis make any concessions, and the Palestinians will still be here in another generation.
Since I'm always quoting Gwynne Dyer, here's his "simple fact": He noted that everybody eventually rises to industrial development, and Arab countries are slowly getting there. With development will come money, with money will come military power. Israel will eventually be surrounded by very powerful Arabs that even the USA can't protect them from. The change is already coming, see this article on "drones rewriting the Middle East": https://www.mei.edu/publications/drones-are-re-engineering-geopolitics-middle-east
When Israel sees an existential threat, they will make concessions needed to alleviate the threat. Not before. Even that is simple.
I liked your comment because it is the kind of rational analysis and weighing of alternatives that ought to animate behaviour. Basically it is that states will weigh and bow to the balance of power, recognizing competitive advantage and disadvantage. Which is a version of Thucydides' observation that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (or something like that). My only reservation is that after decades spent in hearing rooms listening to accounts of irrational and dysfunctional and self destructive behaviour, I am perhaps less sanguine that you are about the inevitable triumph of such rational calculation. Especially if the protagonists are nuclear-armed and the time for analysis is compressed. I ponder the alternative scenarios in the Cuban missile crisis, for example.
I'm not so confident a solution will ever be found. Sure, people will be asked to sit at a table and negotiate and maybe a "government" of Palestine will be tasked with suppressing its own people, but ethnic animosities can last for generations. Is Hamas composed of conscripts or volunteers?
For real peace, either Palestinians have to accept that they have been relegated to living in the basement after squatters invaded their home, or Israelis will have to abandon their desire for a Jewish homeland.
Speaking of degrees of intractability I'm surprised that no one pans out enough to get to the heart of the conflict. Oddly it's also what the Israelis and Palestinians have in common, i.e. religious belief/delusion.
The historical fact that the two religions in question are also actually derived from the same book is likely never mentioned because they have ended up in such different places. Arguably Judaism has evolved far more than Islam; the litmus test being that secular versions of the original creed are now common, making it less of a full-blown cult and more of a benign culture as in sharing of traditions and rituals. But their uniquely persecuted history also appeals to enough far-flung relatives to entice many to the biblically designated "Jewish homeland," joining extended family who not only share the centuries long history of persecution, but also the ultimate historical human horror that was the holocaust. Unfortunately and intractably, the Palestinian people already lived there, also for centuries.
Ta-Nehisis Coates makes the common mistake of conflating religion with race which isn't true because only one is immutable. But it does serve as an example of why this post-truth world has bred so much chaos; in fact widespread religious delusion can rightly be seen as both the first, worst "big lie" AND a proper platform for the current plethora of misinformation/disinformation. Arguably the truth IS all we really have and can indeed set us free.
Since religion is ultimately a set of ideas though it can't be destroyed by war; only deeply inflamed fellow believers would gloss over a reality so obvious to the rest of us.
But objective fellow atheist Sam Harris has a good piece on this that can be summed up with: "there's no living with jihadists."
Blowing themselves up is only one atrocity that sets Islam apart; (the conservatives weren't wrong to talk about "barbaric cultural practices"), there's also the appalling and persistent gender apartheid. While everyone puzzles about what to do about "Islamophobia" I'd say it's entirely understandable to have an aversion to this religion apart from its indoctrinated adherents; it's rightly the absolute worst in a bad field. But anti-Semitism is something else entirely.
Furthermore, I think the political left's early embrace of Muslims after 9-11 and then the coining of the term "Islamophobia" was one of our first missteps, an affectation and a posturing that still weakens our credibility.
The National linky no worky, seems like the video was removed.
Huh. That's so weird. I swear the link worked when I added it. But here's a working link to the video https://youtu.be/eUBaV_55jdo?si=0Edbn2dL21tHBVzY
You've written, twice, that this 'is not a genocide', once making your own claim, the other referencing the Israeli publication Haaretz . You make or cite that assertion , and leave it aside as though you've dealt with it, as though it's not a tenuous claim... given the absolute mayhem Israel's been wreaking in Gaza for 40 days, leaving aside the blockade! Some exceptionally qualified people have said that it is in fact genocide, or at minimum it is ethnic cleansing, that Israel is very aggressively pursuing. ... Chris Hedges certainly asserts this, and to my view he has more skin in the game than you, Mr. Ling, in his own decades-long deep commitment to lucid coverage of political circumstances in the Middle East, and his deep perspective on the very willful interference of America/Britain and other states in Palestine/Israel's dynamics and development. The onus would appear to be on you, in the name of rigour and (I believe) moral honesty, to flesh out your position. Because there aren't going to be any negotiations, there will be no peace planning, if the residents of Gaza are made to flee Gaza, which is already largely decimated. And things are absolutely bending that way.
All I can do in this instance is turn to the language adopted by the UN itself: That genocide requires the *intent* to destroy a people based on their identity. I look back at decades of Israeli military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon and have to conclude that they tolerate an intolerable amount of 'collateral damage' when it comes to Arab lives. But those actions, which often include prior warning of strikes and evidence of restraint when civilians are clearly present, as evidence that intent isn't there. I don't hold that position dogmatically: If evidence emerges to the contrary, or investigations find Israel purposefully tried to eliminate the Palestinian people, I'll change how I use that language. But I also reject the idea that we must make that conclusion in order to fully criticize Israel.
Thanks for your fulsome response. And you responded in a manner which did in fact 'flesh out your position'. This is much appreciated. I need to acknowledge that I found your analysis in the Substack piece in question very insightful. It raised the bar of my thoughts, and has given me a different horizon. I'm grateful for your depth and for your insights.
I'm going to place an addendum. Here's a 2-day-old piece on lobbying in the U.S. , specifically by the armaments industry there , as well as by the Israel lobby in Washington, and by lobbies conducted by very conservative-evangelical Christian groups ... all tilting the scales in the Oval Office, State Department and Congress-Senate away from any sympathy toward demanding ceasefire (though American public opinion is clearly in favor of ceasefire, especially among Democrats), and tilting the scales in favor of funding the continued saturation bombing and effacement of Gaza, in favor of minimizing or ignoring the continued bombing, destruction, obstruction and shooting up of hospitals, in favor of downplaying the massive civilian carnage, in favor of giving blessing to the hellish food-water-fuel-electricity blockade (which is clearly jeopardizing the entire population of Gaza)... This is an on-line piece by American journalist Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning author, one time Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times. He also does much-followed Substack segments. He's in conversation in this YouTube interview with Jewish-American anti-war activist Medea Benjamin. The conversation touches on Israeli impunity in the face of clearly evident war crimes, and in the face of actions which in any other context would be called out as 'genocide in progress'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN5FgiwYGp0
Thanks for this. with very limited bandwidth, in time, knowledge and energy, this is one of the few outlets of thought I do take in with regards to this conflict.
from my local cbc morning show is an interesting interview on what exactly is genocide
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-110-daybreak-south/clip/16021108-adam-jones-leading-expert-genocide-joins-chris-walker
and here is a terrifying look at the potential of a nuclear conflict and how it ties to israel!
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/97-chuck-watson
good times! Thanks for the sober thoughts.