Bravo. This is, by far, the best and most lucid suggestion on how peace could be attained between both parties. I had imagined the best case scenario to be a kind of North Korea, with a demilitarized zone strictly administered by a multinational coalition force rather than an Israeli occupying force, and then foreign aid to prop up Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
But this, this is much better for it understands that the true issue at stake is not land. Land is just land. It has no feelings, no history, no culture. No, the true issue at stake is the mindsets and mentalities of the people living on the land. Unless that is reformed somewhat, the hostilities will continue. For example, Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza in 2005. If this were an issue of land for peace, Gaza should have been pacified. Instead, merely four months later, they put a genocidal terrorist group in power. It's unlikely that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, an even more difficult proposition, the outcomes would be dissimilar.
However, a few caveats to this cautious optimism. The first of course is the issue of religion. Religion is a curiously under-discussed aspect of this conflict but it's absolutely central. Religion means border disputes are recast as a theatre for total war, it means the actions of a few bad eggs on both sides inspire monomaniacal speeches. The Jews won't stop being Jews. The Arabs won't stop being Muslims. As such, my hope for a permanent solution is diminished. Children who are taught a fairer, more dispassionate history in school will then listen to imams and rabbis who whip up religious sentiment.
Western civilization is a secular civilization. As such, we look today with amusement at the barbarous conflicts between Huguenots and Catholics of medieval France or the epileptic convulsions of violence between Catholics and protestants in medieval England.
But in the rest of the world, religion is alive and well. Indeed, every major international event or conflict that has happened this year is animated by religious principle: Azerbaijan, a majorly Muslim nation, recently ethnically cleansed Armenian christians, the ongoing conflict in Burma between the native Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslims, India and Canada's diplomatic spat over the extrajudicial murder of a prominent Sikh( Sikhism itself is a separatist religion), ongoing herder-farmer conflicts in the Sahel between the farming christians and the Muslim rebels ( one of the several features of the Niger coup) and the proposed war by coastal, often christian African countries and the Muslim desert countries of the Sahel.
And finally, of course, Israel and Palestine, endlessly locked in the newest iteration of who are the rightful heirs to the holy city of Jerusalem.
In Japan and Germany, these dimensions did not exist. These were wars fought for ideologies. Ideologies may summon all of the vehemence of religions but their lifespans are short: the Soviet Union was a flicker of candlelight in Russian history for all of 74 years. Religions, in contrast, seem to keep going a lot longer. So I don't see this proposed future materializing especially as the demographics of Israel( ultraright judaists have the highest reproductive rates) and those of Palestine( birth rates may be falling but half Gaza's population are children growing up in an environment of radical islamism) do not provide much respite.
But if any well-intentioned attempts are to be made at bridging this divide, then this excellent proposal certainly ranks as the very best of them. It's not perfect. But it might be enough. In the affairs of men, that's something of a disappointment. In the affairs of men and their gods, it is nothing short of superb.
And as you point out, it might be more of a problem in Israel over time. But I’m not sure this is true for Palestine. And religion is not always a hindrance for peace. Turkey is part of NATO, Israel has signed peace with a handful of Arab countries, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Malaysia are not very conflictive with their neighbors, etc.
All of this to say that, although you’re right religion is a big obstacle, I want to believe it’s not insurmountable.
I agree as well, it's a massive problem. Germany and Japan situation was a complete submission and then dictate the people what to learn, read etc. as you wrote. Walk of shame to rebirth as humane sort of.
Two points following that imo:
Frist, the approach of people in the center bending down the horseshoe will never reach such an intense situation of complete submission.
Second, who would take the role of the WW2 allies here? Even if the current wipeout of Hamas is successful, it's not what the current Israel gov would see as an opportunity to revamp the society, would they? So it rather must be a third party ... But such a situation only could result after a massively bigger war / escalation.
The big difference is that Israel and Palestine are weak, and will be for a long time, because the land doesn't allow much more. They depend on the US, EU, and neighboring Arab countries. If they agreed, I/P would have to bend.
Turkey is part of NATO because of secular Ataturk time. I hope I'm wrong but Erdogan's Turkey becomes more and more of an issue there - would he stand by the Umma or serve the NATO.
Why didn’t religion factor more heavily in your explanations of the conflict? This seems consistent across histories I’ve read. Isn’t a huge point of contention who gets to worship, and where?
Because people use it indiscriminately and usually project their biases. An antisemite will say Jews are the root of all evil, Islamophobia that Islam is a religion of conflict…
Religion has a role, but I think it’s less than what ppl think and, more importantly, it’s much more nuanced than ppl claim. I will cover religion, but when I do, I want to make it justice.
Refined Incites: Excellent comment on Tomas's superb article (and 9 part series!). Better than I have seen in NYT or Washington Post or The Economist or any other of the source I read.
It would be much easier if people had a primary and a secondary religion, as is usual in Brasil. Since the objectives of the world's great religions are similar, it would facilitate the empathetic vision of other peoples.
Tomas, congratulations on a wonderful series of articles on this most complex topic. I follow this subject but have learned much from your detailed review of the history. I agree with your hopeful suggestions for moving both Israel and Palestine beyond endless conflict, but I am not optimistic that there is adequate motivation to pursue such an agenda on either side. As you so clearly and depressingly showed, there are powerful elements on both sides that benefit from a continual state of violence and conflict. The examples of post-war Germany and Japan moving beyond their destructive ideologies are possible models for Israel and Palestine, but those two countries were only open to mass re-education because of the catastrophic defeat and destruction that the Allies inflicted on them. To extend your analogy, Israel and Palestine might each have to face total collapse before they became amenable to the type of re-education that you propose. Even if such mutual collapse would result in a better future for both people, it is difficult to contemplate life becoming even more difficult in the interim. After reading your entire series, and learning so much, I have little hope for, and no alternative suggestions on how to achieve, a peaceful future in that region. So sad to say this. Thank you for all the effort you invested in educating us all.
Unlike japan and Germany, Israel and Palestine depend on whomever is the international power du jour. they must ply to their will. If US, EU, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia agree on this, they would be pretty forced to do it.
We don’t need total war and total wins for Thais to happen.
Exactly. Where does Palestinian hope for a better deal than those already offered come from? The power of non-Palestinians supporting their cause. Just as Israel's supporters could put conditions on their support, so could the supporters of the Palestinians.
Good point. Both Israelis and Palestinians depend on the kindness (and money) of friends and neighbors. It would be encouraging if the big donors could work together to pressure both sides into pursuing a better future. It looks like Netanyahu is starting to yield to Biden's pressure with today's agreement to pause military action for a few hours each day to allow civilians to evacuate and tend to life's needs.
Why doesn’t the US lean more heavily on Israel, then? It feels like we are the junior partner in the region.
Also, here is my dumb idea for peace: Israel establishes its current borders, with some withdrawal on the West Bank so it can be a viable Palestinian state. Then, it pays reparations. And says it’s done negotiating. They do what they have to for security.
The benefits here are that it gives Israel even more legitimacy, and it can be done unilaterally. Of course there would be vehement complaints over the amount and that it was insufficient without Right of Return, but from Israel’s perspective, it would be finished.
It does lean on it, but not for your education. It should.
What you say wouldn’t work because the fundamental issue is that Israel wants security, and Palestinians don’t want to give it to them. What Israel needs is a change in Palestinian mindset, and that won’t happen with unilateral moves.
Hi Tomas, great article as always! After 9 articles and a month of research, I’m curious about your perspective on the phenomenon of antisemitism. Is it related to the disproportionate attention and criticism that Israel gets all over the world? The outrage and attention directed towards Israel seems very selective, compared to lack of outrage over almost 400,000 war deaths in Yemen or the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. The AP has more journalists in Israel than the entire continent of Africa and there is a strong media bias against Israel, the only majority Jewish state in the world, despite Israel being the only free and democratic country in the region (one of the only places in the region where you won’t be thrown off a building for homosexuality, for instance). It is unthinkable that this horrific terrorist attack has inspired a rise in antisemitism around the world. In my home country of Canada, there are calls to boycott Jewish businesses, vandals have thrown Molotov cocktails at synagogues, academics and even a few politicians have publicly cheered Hamas for resisting a colonial oppressor, and anti-Israel protestors have flooded the streets of major Canadian cities calling for the destruction of Israel, beginning while the terrorist attack was still underway! If the government of Cuba carried out a proportionate terrorist attack on the United States, it would be a smoking ruin today. All sovereign states prioritize their basic need for security, and it is hard to imagine any state responding differently than Israel. Yet, across university campuses and in the streets of western cities, people protest the Gaza war and there are regular calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel. There are accusations against Israel of genocide, war crimes, and even the UN is calling for Israel to stop its campaign against Hamas. In another context, we might expect calls for the return of hostages and sympathy for the Jewish people. Instead, we have swastikas at rallies, muzuzah mapping, and vandalism of Jewish houses, businesses, synagogues, and community centres. The German Vice-Chancelor has stated that the condemnation of Israel is rooted in antisemitism – the phenomenon that even the holocaust did not eradicate. Is he right?
I never understood anti-semitism, and this doesn't help. I don't get it. The "oppressor/oppressed" narrative is not enough to explain this.
Hence why I haven't written on it yet. It's one more topic I've taken to pay attention to, and I've started taking notes on it, but I'm not sure when I'll post on it, since it's a problem I have such a hard time comprehending.
To be clear, it is very complex, as it includes things like rights of banking services in Middle Ages Europe, and things like that. So yeah, not going to publish on it imminently
I think this is just one of those things you can form an opinion on, but never really have an answer to. I would recommend Matt Yglesias’s recent pieces on how to untangle anti-Semitic and anti-Zionism (ftr, I am a liberal Jew who supports a two-state solution).
My take: people don’t know very much about the world, and are not invested in foreign policy. To the extent they are, it’s usually a projection of their own domestic political views. People warring with other people of the same color kind of just seem the same. The reading public may not even be sure what continent the conflict is taking place on. Militia X has overthrown Dictator Y, displacing thousands of people in religious sect Z. It’s hard to get invested.
In the I/P conflict, things feel very differentiated. Most people incorrectly think Israel is white, and has a significantly different ethnic background than Palestine, so we project our racial politics on it.
Leftists also fetishize the effects of colonization, but we all know we’re not going to decolonize the Americas. I/P looks like a place where our guilt and decolonization fantasies can come to fruition.
Additional factors: American Jews have always been viewed with suspicion by the Left, because we’re high on the socio-economic ladder, and class hierarchy is extremely salient. As we’ve become considered more straightforwardly white, an increasingly race-conscious left also considers us oppressors. Younger people’s experience of religious persecution is overwhelmingly shaped by the War on Terror, and they worry about Islamophobia, not antisemitism. They have no experience of Israel as a poor, militarily weak country that has repeatedly tried to make peace with its neighbors. All they’ve seen is Netanyahu.
So they do not understand that I/P is an incredibly complex situation, and they don’t really want to. They want a hero/villain story of powerful whites oppressing virtuous browns. And they want to be a part of history, like the Berlin Wall falling, or South Africa ending Apartheid.
For example, it focuses on the US, and the US is not the only player here. Within the US, antisemitism has a very long history that you can’t limit to the last few decades.
Maybe I should have been clearer. I am speaking of the primarily white left in America and Canada, since that’s where I’m from, and whose politics I’m familiar with. I can’t really speak on why, say, Italians care.
Though provoking article as always.. But for all these reforms to begin, a truly devastating war that hurts both sides tremendously is required. Both Germany and Japan were devastated due to WW2, it had led to countless death and immeasurable suffering which made it possible for majority section of society to accept above mentioned reforms. October 7 violence and ongoing Palestinian casualties although numerous are simply not enough for a paradigm change in thinking of the establishment in both societies.
Whoever rules in that region is dependent on the surrounding superpowers. Israel can’t do anything is the US disagrees. Palestinians of course even less without Arab support.
You could imagine pretty easily US bipartisan support for unbiased education in the region…
US-Saudi led diplomatic efforts can definitely put pressure for above mentioned reforms. But Iran has tremendous influence in the region and any initiative without the support of Iran would be incomplete. That is something improbable in present geopolitical scenario.
Post oil society is an interesting future to look at, where petro countries would have to initiate various liberal reforms and get industrialised or they would become inconsequential and could perhaps then reach consensus as that would require all countries to become part of rule based international world order.
Unfortunately, this “both sides are guilty to an extent and so they both need to change” approach is what westerners have been promoting for decades and it doesn’t lead to any progress.
Yes, people are imperfect and mistakes are always made even if you’re the “good guys”.
For example, you can look back at WWII and find bad things or bad choices that the allies made. You could even make a reasonable claim that Hitler got into power because of the harsh post-war terms that were imposed on Germany after Versailles.
None of that can take away from the fact that the Nazis were wrong and morally evil, while the Allies were on the right side.
You can’t put on the same level the indoctrination of children in Palestinian schools, teaching them to literally murder Jews, how to build bombs, etc, and the fact that Israelis don’t study the “nakba” (it’s not hard to see why; Israelis in those days were too busy fighting for their own survival to be concerned about refugees on the other side).
Palestinians should accept that a) the Jews aren’t going anywhere, b) violence against the Jews will always come back to bite them and make chances of a “free Palestine” ever more remote, and c) they (and their Arab allies) have fought war after war against Israel and -without exception- have always lost.
Every Country in the history of the world that has lost a war has had to make concessions.
That the Palestinians would like a peace deal on their own terms, despite having lost all the conflicts and despite the shocking support for violence from the general population, is simply not acceptable.
Israelis are not stupid. They don’t vote the way they do because they lack the education or are somehow tricked into being fearful.
They are rightly fearful because they take what the Palestinians say at face value. They know that if they lower their guard or make any concessions, they are putting themselves at grave risk of being wiped out as a people.
I don’t make moral equivalences, and state clearly that there are differences in the gaps in each side. What you say might be true, and yet still my conclusion be valid. The only thing you’re highlighting is that the Israeli curriculum and media are already closer to a neutral point. I’d probably agree with that. Which means Israel should have much more to gain from a common curriculum than Palestine, since it would have less to change, and would get more of the Palestinian side to change.
Appreciate you clarifying that Tomas, thanks for the reply.
I agree with you that when two sides have a completely different worldview and narrative, it is impossible to come to terms with each other.
I appreciate your optimism but I do find it hard to imagine that the Palestinians would make such dramatic changes to their view of history.
That would be like asking the Irish to stop teaching children about the evils of British imperialism. There would be much to be gained there for sure, but it would radically undermine their own self-view as a people.
The Palestinians have never had a State of their own, and they can’t credibly claim to have “always been there” in the way the Jews easily can.
So, if you ask them to take away the element of hate and rivalry against the Jews, what is left? Who are they?
This is what moderate Arab-Israelis have come to realise by the way. This is why you find many of them even serving in the IDF. They’ve learnt to live as a minority in a historically Jewish land, and for that they get all the rights and protections that only a democracy can offer (a hypothetical Jew in Palestine would never get that, but that’s a different story).
A Palestinian would have to come to accept something along similar lines if they were to revise their history according to truth.
I see what you mean, but it’s not as black or white. The feeling of nationhood is reinforced by school, but it’s not determined by it. It comes from everything, from your religion, language, and ethnicity, to the land you live in and the symbols you pledge alliance to.
You take a good example. Arab Israelis do feel different within Israeli. Tie them to a specific land, and that forms a nation-state.
Maybe I’m too optimistic, but it sounds to me like making education more fact-based in exchange for peace, money, international support, and getting the other side to be less radical is a deal that leaders on both sides might want to take.
It’s certainly easier to do this in the interim than going straight to a peace solution.
Unfortunately at the moment the Palestinian leadership know they’re going to get all the money they want and more, no matter what they do.
Western leaders don’t have the spine to refuse sending money when Palestinians refugees are at risk of starvation.
You also make a good point about the fact that education is not the only factor. The average Palestinian walks into a mosque multiple times a week and hears about the call to exterminate the infidels. That’s a far more powerful driver than anything they might get taught in school.
That is, back to my original point, why Israelis vote the way they do. They know this to be the reality among Palestinians, as much as they’d love things to be different!
The excellent aspect is the general conclusion about needing to change minds, and then specifically, the detail drawing on what the US/allies did in Japan and Germany after WWII (which I didn't know about).
The weaknesses are:
1. You advocate "eliminating" Hamas, which implies (though not explicit) supporting what the US & Israel are currently doing in Gaza — blatant crimes against humanity of ethnic cleansing & genocide through indiscriminate bombing of civilians. That is totally contrary to the rest of your work, which rightly says that this sort of approach simply supports the vicious circle of ever-more hatred and violence. Hamas, or its replacement, will not be eliminated by bombs. It can only be rendered ineffective by refusing to play their game of violence.
2. You are also silent on the implications of what you propose for democracy in Israel. The reality is it essentially means suspending democracy and having a UN body govern Israel & Palestine for many years (and I think that is indeed necessary). As you note, the control of media and education will have to be forced on Israel, and you cannot do that in a democracy. There's also no point doing that if you still have Israelis electing governments who run the police, military & justice systems to persecute Palestinians (with even "justice" now controlled by the Government, thanks to Netanyahu — it really is a fascist state: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/09/defending-the-rule-of-law-enforcing-apartheid-the-double-life-of-israels-judiciary/ ). Even the health system is run by doctors who support the bombing of hospitals and civilians in Gaza: https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-doctors-letter
Remember, Hitler was elected. Sometimes the results of "democracy" are unacceptable.
3. You have a blind spot that overlooks the devastatingly negative influence of the US. Nothing will improve until the US ends its current and longstanding strategy of supporting & enabling violence across the Middle East (for its own benefit) — refer my comment here:
I'm also not sure how to interpret your comment, "When somebody denies that information is true—like whether Hamas beheaded babies". Do you have evidence for it? As I've said before, I see no reason to believe this and every reason not to. That doesn't mean I'm defending Hamas; only that I see Israeli and US propaganda for what it is — a tactic for dehumanising Palestinians and justifying their mass murder.
I proposed another one—a peaceful one—in the footnotes. Alas, that doesn't matter because Israel is aiming at a physical elimination. I deplore that, but if at least they achieve their military goal, it might be net positive for both Israel and Palestine.
2. You don't need to suspend autonomy in Israel & Palestine to influence their education. It's like nuclear programs: They're all subject to international laws, with the IAEA overseeing every country, but they don't give up their sovereignty overall.
You totally can control the media in a democracy. The US is a maximalist in freedom of speech, many other countries aren't. It's illegal to support Nazism in Germany for example. This is similar: It would be illegal to support Hamas, From the River to the Sea, or the aim of the Land of Israel covering all the Levant.
3. The US's influence won't stop here, so that's a non-starter.
Beheaded babies: I have now seen plenty of images of these horrors, and I've heard dozens of reports from international reporters who have seen these images and confirm them. I understand the logic of not sharing these images further.
So when you think about the likelihood they exist vs not, you should consider what's more likely: That the images are true, or that dozens of journalists from all over the world, from many different news outlets, some of which are not pro-Israeli, are conspiring to create a fake narrative that babies were not beheaded.
1. I see nothing good coming from what the US & Israel are now doing. But it's a forecast (based on history), so maybe it's futile to keep arguing it.
2. I'll accept it's a matter of degree with media & education, but you avoid the critical matter of police, military, justice.
3. Nothing persuasive in your response to this #1 critical issue. It's the one thing we, as "Westerners", and you especially, as a US citizen, have influence on.
Re. babies, how do you know who did the beheading? I assume you haven't seen videos. I'm not suggesting Hamas didn't kill many civilians, but we know the IDF did too – even deliberately as an apparently acceptable cost for killing the Hamas attackers: https://new.thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-on-7th-october
Hamas' top priority was to capture as many hostages as possible, as quickly as possible, then get them back to Gaza. Why would they hang around to cut off babies' heads?
On the other hand, the Israelis were left surveying the dead, including, no doubt, babies killed by IDF cross-fire/grenades/shelling/rocket fire. In their anger, they may well have decided, "Well, they're dead anyway, we may as well decapitate them and use it as propaganda". It's an absolutely hideous thought, yet not quite as bad as deliberately beheading alive babies.
Is one side more moral than the other? I don't think so. So what is the more plausible explanation? I certainly don’t think you can assert with confidence that Hamas did it.
Is anyone else not extremely worried about this response? Tomas is doing his absolute best to remain objective and help people learn some actual truths and look for ways to move forward. You have clearly made up your mind which side of the fence you sit on and your comments read as extremely anti-Israel and its people. Are you genuinely trying to create an argument around suspecting the veracity of what happened on 7th October?
Do you really think Hamas is beyond any level of depravity and barbarism given what we all know happened on 7th October or are you so blinded by your hatred for Israel that you are cannot see it?
Don't believe anything Israel says (except when it's open about it's intentions for genocide and ethnic cleansing, as it often is). They are brutal, lying, fascist thugs. And don't believe complicit Western media & politicians either:
How about we discuss my language objectively then?
Israel has slaughtered 20k+ Palestinians at an unprecedented rate in just 2 months – 2/3rds women & children, plus let's not forget the innocent men (why are men considered worthless, or guilty by default and deserving of death?).
Gaza is almost totally destroyed. Hospitals, schools, refugee camps full of children all deliberately wiped out. Remember the ridiculous debate in Oct. when Israel tried to claim they didn't bomb al-Ahli Arab hospital? They stopped pretending after that.
People who can't move given an hour to leave hospitals, and then bombed. Babies left to die (for real, unlike the unevidenced lies about Hamas beheading babies), or killed as buildings collapse. People told to leave for the south, then bombed on their way, &/or when they get there. Then Israel gaslights the world, saying they give people notice to avoid civilian casualties.
Phosphorus bombs used against people also in Lebanon.
Food, water, energy, medical supplies all cut off for 2 months now. If they're not killed by bombs, people are literally starving and dying of disease – this is likely to accelerate now.
In what world is it NOT appropriate to label this "brutal"?
Palestinian civilians are not "collateral damage" – all of this genocide and ethnic cleansing has been clearly planned and intentional (see links above), and they're all blatant war crimes. The military campaign is clearly aligned to ethnic cleansing – transparently trying to push all Gazans into Sinai, by threat of death.
If I said that German Nazis in WWII were fascist thugs, no-one would disagree. How, objectively, is what Israel saying and doing right now any different?
The propaganda & lies are blatant and transparent (with abundant evidence, of which the above links give just a hint), yet Western media practically ignores them.
Why is the West determined to avoid condemning and appropriately labelling what is happening, let alone stop it (as only the US easily could)?
Why is the West – including you now it seems – determined to censor those who speak out? People everywhere being sacked and condemned (& falsely labelled "anti-semetic") for telling the truth plainly and supporting Palestinians, whilst the US especially continues to support & enable this atrocity?
Is everyone in a position of influence politically captured, scared to speak out, ignorant, got their head in the sand, in denial, or just plain racist? Why??
We said "never again", and now the West has enabled another Holocaust. If that doesn't deserve strong language then nothing ever will.
you don't seem to have any problem with this kind of language being used to describe hamas, so how can you call it one-sided when it's being used to describe the side that has killed 30x as many people as the other?
I do recognise Tomas is trying to be objective, and generally doing a good job of seeing both sides.
Given your misrepresentation of my views NOAB, you seem to be projecting, with your inability to question events and your one-sided view that appears blind to the atrocities Israel has been committing for a month now, and continues to do, with Western support.
I make no apologies for calling that out, and calling for a ceasefire. More broadly, I'm happy to sit on the fence, not on one side (as you seem to think is necessary), and I don't doubt Hamas is as capable of the same depravity as the Israelis clearly are.
A key takeaway I got from this article is no amount of redrawing borders will solve a situation where violence is encouraged by the leaders of both entities. Always look at the incentives.
I don't know if the ideas about education and media, and social media will work but teaching each group to understand and respect each other feels like a step in the right direction if it can be done.
Nov 8, 2023·edited Nov 8, 2023Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Always find your posts engaging and helpful - but is it really accurate to refer to Israel 'giving' Palestine land in return for peace, as depicted in your initial diagrams and argument? Isn't that assumption of Israel's ownership of the land in question the root problem? What does the argument look like if we replace 'give land' with 'agree to retreat from illegal settlements'?
primarily, it is, insofar as Israel controls it. By “giving” I mean “give control”.
Secondarily, that land has never belonged to a Palestinian state, so you could also argue it in that context. In fact, it has not ever belonged to an Arab nation-state either.
I think semantics matter, but after a month of consuming this topic non-stop, I feel like the sides war about words more than about specifics.
I think the difference between 'give land' and 'retreat from illegal settlements' is far more than semantics. Controlling land does not mean owning it. If it did, then there would be no such thing as 'invasion' in international law.
The state of Palestine was recognised by the UN in 2012, so one could argue that whether or not a state exists is semantics, probably a stronger argument than the difference between 'give land' and 'retreat from illegal settlements' being purely semantic....
I think that side-skirts the issue. It's not a game - it's a very different meaning - give land vs. retreat from illegal settlements which are recognised as illegal by international conventions. I do agree with quite a bit of what you say - but there's a false equivalence here, I think you are usually more balanced tbh.
Let me clarify. I am not against the letter of what you say. Yes, this is not their land to give. You’re right!
I’m against the spirit of what you say: most of the debate ends up revolving about such terms. Not only that, but every time one of these debates emerges, we need to be extra careful about a new expression, which adds to the cognitive load. Technically, this is not their land to give. But also, technically, this is neither apartheid nor occupation. But I’d like to use all these terms, because although they’re not precisely accurate, they’re more useful than the correct and more verbose equivalent.
OK - what is it then, technically, if UN resolutions and the Geneva convention call it occupation? I'm going to read the previous article you linked for a second time to see if you've answered this, or where what I perceive as a lack of balance is justified there. I didn't think so the first time, but I like to be extra careful about every word here. It's why I commented in the first place - because I see your expressions as problematic - in spirit.
What do you see as an equitable endpoint to Jewish-Palestinian conflict? Regardless of what words are used, what does lasting peace actually look like?
Dear fellow readers: we might debate points in this and Tomas’s prior articles but we owe him our deepest respect and gratitude for what he’s done here. Nuance and non-binary thinking is necessary when it comes to solving this mess, but paradoxically it can’t come at the cost of ignoring certain truths that should be self-evident. Kudos to Tomas!
Tomas came very close to identifying the elephant in the room but I don’t think he quite nailed it, or at least wasn’t explicit enough: it’s that Wetikos/bad apples/sociopaths/ideological extremists have seized control of the steering wheel and unfortunately they’re driving us off the cliff. Even if they are in the minority, they hold the power because they’re the ones driving the agenda.
Thus, the exchange between Tomas Pueyo and Marco Troisi (in the comment thread) is illuminating and worth reading. I think Marco makes an excellent point so please read it before proceeding further.
Unfortunately, all the calls for “cease fire”, “2-state solution NOW”, and villainization of Israel will paradoxically just make things worse in the Mideast. It will make Israelis feel even less secure and more embattled (reinforcing the Nationalist block). It will reinforce Palestinians’ beliefs that violence gets them results and the world is on their side, because after all, see how quickly the world pivoted from condemning Hamas to condemning Israel?!! So why not double down?
I can’t blame any Israeli or Jew who absolutely bristles at all the moral equivalence BS - or worse! - being tossed around.
When it comes down to the nitty gritty, education only worked for Japan/Germany after they were utterly defeated and when their populace was forced to look into the mirror and see their own inhumane brutality. And only after Japan experienced two atomic bombs and Germany experienced similar devastation from bombing - where yes, children and women were unfortunate casualties.
Hamas is the product of a set of ideologies and its similar hateful, genocidal mindset is unfortunately widespread in Gaza, West Bank and throughout Muslim countries so I certainly can understand how alarming it is for Israelis and Jews to hear the world reacting with either appeasement or even worse, condemnation of Israel.
Unfortunately it is just strengthening the wetikos/bad apples/extremists on both sides and will end up making things worse. The true elephant in the room? Wetikos/bad apples/extremists are in the driver’s seat when it comes to the Mideast and they are a malignant cancer. Likewise in much of the world. How do we deal with them?
Personally, as someone who founded two nonprofits that are all about putting more light into the world (The Illumignossi Project; OrLanu) I am truly confounded by the “bad apple” (Wetiko) problem. World-wide. Throughout history. 😥
Spot on. This is indeed at the heart of so many human problems.
To solve human problems we need to understand humans! Humans have a variety of personality characteristics which are largely genetically/evolutionally determined and distributed in roughly 10/80/10 percentages*
Somewhere around 10% of humans are programmed to hold moderately antisocial +/- extremist views. Most of these people are too unpleasant or ineffective to cause major problems for society, but a small number have intelligence +/- charisma and manage to convince some of their kin to follow them. If they are not stopped they move onto influencing the next 10%, then the next 10% and with a bit of luck they get into a position of power.
How do we deal with them? As the old Irish joke goes "you'd best not be starting from here"!! The best time to stop them is before they become too powerful and the only way to stop to them is by coercion. A humane society will get away with using the minimum of force if the problem is recognised early enough, but the more powerful the "bad apples" become the more difficult it is to deal with the problem. As you say, look what is happening in the world around us and you will realise that we have been asleep at the wheel for too long.
See my discussion with Robert Ferrell under "What did a Two-State solution look like" if you can, but the main point was that peace and true democracy are not something that have happened that often in human history. They need constant attention and effort to maintain them.
*please feel free to argue against this view of reality. It is only by discussing things and looking at the evidence that we can come to some sort of agreement.
A very interesting challenge in how germany and Japan was 'moved' to what today is successfull and peace loving societies.. I did not know how it was done.
If you look at how radicalization happens - f.ex. Russia has companies that employ people to work on SoMe bots etc. - to spread disinformation and enrage as much as they can..
We as a society I think, NEED a counter to this.. SoME like facbook, twitter, tiktok etc. MUST be worked towards removing those trying to wreak havoc and we need to invest in ways to ensure that people are correctly informed.. Not just getting "one side of the story" etc.
Many don't want to read much (this seems to be getting worse with the raise of apps, movies etc. - everyone wants to just 'be fed') - so we'll have to have a place that produces content on SoMe to battle this - and also probably legislation to ensure SoMe sites - work with the public here - in an open manner - so everyone can see whats taking place and why..
It would be interesting to see a piece of how we could take use SoMe to improve our world, instead of letting the radicals roam free, radicalizing even more
I don't know what SoMe bots are specifically. For the rest, I agree. Something will have to be done with social networks. TikTok is especially concerning, as it's controlled by the Chinese party. It will have to be curtailed soon.
Thank you for a fair intent, Tomas, but the comparison with Germany and Japan misses two fundamental points:
1) Germany and Japan had been military beaten and occupied, and they knew it.
2) Germany and Japan had an authoritarian tradition of obedience to their rulers, and their new rulers were the occupying allies.
So, the first requisite for your peace plan to work would be to forcefully occupy both Israel and Palestine. However, that’s when you notice the absence of the second point. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were occupied by the US, and it failed miserably. Also, Jews have a millennial tradition of forming their own nuclea of resistance to the empire they live in.
Unlike japan and Germany, Israel and Palestine depend on whomever is the international power du jour. they must ply to their will. If US, EU, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia agree on this, they would be pretty forced to do it.
We don’t need total war and total wins for Thais to happen.
I fully agree with the diagnosis -- especially as it's what I've concluded myself over the years, as being from a family of peace-loving ex-kibbutzniks yet living far away to have the critical distancing. However, only at the end you hit the only lever for peace that really makes or breaks it: incentives. As always, cui bono?
The problem is when political and economic elites are shielded from the bad outcomes of their decisions; they socialize the damage while pocketing the gains. (Case in point: Hamas's leader lives safely away from the carnage, in Qatar.) This used to be less the case in Israel, which prided itself on being a place where the PM would take the train and shop for groceries like everyone else. But corruption and nepotism are quickly eroding that.
This lack of skin in the game blunts the most powerful weapon in the diplomacy arsenal, which is economic diplomacy. (Not to be confused with the joke that is "international aid".) The measures you discuss for Germany and Japan could only be deployed effectively in the context of the Marshall Plan and other sources of great financial upside for - and only for - businesspeople willing to align with the US. This is how we still have ex-Nazi businesses like BASF, Bayer, Allianz, all the German motor companies... (And East Germany's denazification, which might have been even more radical, obviously took place in a context of radically reshaped incentives, i.e., nationalization of the ~whole economy under communism.)
How to do this? It seems a bit more plausible in war-wrecked Gaza, where the promise of prosperity for the destitute, and of filthy wealth for the elites, might get both to soften up on the genocide talk. Sure, they'll continue believing something else in private, but next generation it will already be "the weird uncles who hoard Hamas memorabilia in the basement".
In Israel, a prosperous country where the elites are already somewhere between well off and filthy rich with Russian oligarch money, this simple approach seems implausible. Perhaps the US and EU could make business harder for companies owned or associated with the extremist right wing, as they already try to do for terrorism. If this doesn't make the crooked elites fall in line (all that Russian money...), it could at least generate enough pressure to keep their radical wings in check. IDK, it's all iffy...
Maybe I should have spent more time on that specifically.
Israel is a small country. It depends on the US’s support completely. Strong pressure from the US could surely be enough to get a reasonable demand through, which is to rebuild the curriculum to be neutral. Threatening the US’s support is the type of existential threat that gets ppl moving.
Interestingly, the Marshall Plan came *after* denazification and deimperialization, as the communist threat emerged. Yes, both Germany and japan had another advantage: a common enemy. But this shows that you can get the education and media pieces going without the economic side solved.
Rebuilding secular education is hard enough (I don't think a heavy-handed approach will fly), but the really hard part in Israel is the institutionalized autonomy of the haredim (ultra-Orthodox), which of course make up the majority of West Bank settlers and are potentially the major anti-peace force in the Israeli side. Intervening in any aspect of their lives is IMO impossible via the political institutions, they just won't touch it period. What is a bit easier to imagine is that the US Jewish leaders divert the money flow from US donors to pro-peace or at least more moderate haredi groups. This could be considered a quid pro quo for continued US support, although it will never be officially acknowledged as such...
And the Marshall plan was implemented from 1948, just 1.5 years after denazification started in Germany; I don't think anyone believes that the denazification process was complete or even significantly impactful in that window. Arguably Adenauer's pivot to a policy of amnesty and reintegration might even have reverted what little effect was had. Hard to know.
If Israel can't interfere in the education of Haredim, how can it demand an intervention on Palestinian education?
And if it doesn't, how can it complain that Palestinians are radicals?
What is easier, change internal education, or sign a peace agreement?
Germany and Japan had another huge advantage that Palestine/Israel won't have: a common enemy, Communism. The USSR and China were breathing down their neck. The only viable alternative was to quickly espouse the US world order, and that's what they did.
So the denazification and deimperialization processes weren't panaceas, but they helped.
Very good article - I'm interested to know why you don't mention Iran/the rise of Islamism and the control it has over the Islamist ideologies of Hamas/Hezbollah in the Israel context. We know that fundamental to Iran's ideology is the eradication is Israel and Jews.
Very interesting! However, you missed one critical point. Israel is a democracy, while Palestine is not. Moreover, not only is it not a democracy, but it is also governed by a terrorist organization—Hamas in Gaza—and a highly corrupted leadership in the West Bank.
The people there seem uninterested in peace, and they don't seem motivated by the same morals and incentives as you and the Western world. Complaining about the "occupation" is debatable, but in the meantime, what have they done? Nothing! Israel has developed a robust army, a strong economy, and become a liberal, Western country. On the other hand, Palestinians repeatedly chose terror.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2006, an opportunity for it to thrive as the "diamond of the Middle East." However, they chose Hamas, turning the region into a terror base. While not all Palestinians are terrorists, it's challenging to find anyone condemning Hamas or trying to bring about change.
Israel is not innocent, having made mistakes and dealing with radicals contributing to the conflict. However, blaming Israel for "control" on one side and "violence" on the other oversimplifies the issue. Israel can't take risks due to potential escalations, as seen recently. But if Palestine will try not to be violent then Israel can reduce control.
Consider viewing this conflict beyond Western eyes and common sense. Welcome to the Middle East, where power plays a significant role. Israel, unfortunately, learned this lesson the hard way and now knows how to navigate the game to protect its citizens. As radical Islam spreads in Europe and US now, perhaps a broader understanding will finally emerge in the Western world.
I recently became aware that Saudi Arabia wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Israel to Europe. If true, that is a major threat to Russia and Iran. This may explain why Biden was promoting peace talks between the Saudis and Israel at this time, and why Hamas chose this time to undermine these efforts with the horrific terrorist attack on Israel on October 7. Regarding the post war plan for the open air prison for 2 million people called Gaza, there will likely not be a better time for a 2 state solution than now. The Arab States and the US and EU will have to act very forcefully with both the Palestinians and Israel to make it happen. My sense is that a constitution for Palestine needs to be written that can help assure (reassure) the Israelis that it will result in more stability and security for Israel than the current occupation. That constitution must include a clear statement that both the State of Israel and the new State of Palestine have a right to exist in peace and security within their internationally agreed upon borders. It also needs to disavow the "right of return" that so many Palestinians have held onto for 70 years. That ain't gonna happen and is no different than the slogan that the Palestinians have a right to the whole of Palestine from the River to the Sea. Both imply that Israel should not exist. Disruptive right wing settlers in the West Bank and other non-Palestinian residents who cannot agree to the terms of the new constitution need to be evicted from the new Palestinian State (voluntarily or forcefully). Palestinian political organizations and Palestinian individuals who cannot agree to the terms of the new constitution must be viewed as a threat to the existence of both states and be barred from government and military service in the new state. Since neither side to date has apparently wanted peace and the 2 state solution that might bring peace, coming to this agreement will require international pressure, leadership and guarantees to both sides. However, continued occupation, spread of right wing fundamentalist settlements and the ongoing subjugation of millions of Palestinians is clearly untenable. Even if Israel were able to totally eliminate every Hamas fighter in Gaza, there are others who would take their place among the millions of traumatized Palestinians if left without hope, dignity, resources and freedom to travel and get an education and create a better life for themselves and their families.
We cannot allow the tragic violence Hamas perpetrated on innocent Israeli civilians on October 7 to not result in a more hopeful and secure situation for both the Israelis and the Palestinians going forward.
Bravo. This is, by far, the best and most lucid suggestion on how peace could be attained between both parties. I had imagined the best case scenario to be a kind of North Korea, with a demilitarized zone strictly administered by a multinational coalition force rather than an Israeli occupying force, and then foreign aid to prop up Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
But this, this is much better for it understands that the true issue at stake is not land. Land is just land. It has no feelings, no history, no culture. No, the true issue at stake is the mindsets and mentalities of the people living on the land. Unless that is reformed somewhat, the hostilities will continue. For example, Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza in 2005. If this were an issue of land for peace, Gaza should have been pacified. Instead, merely four months later, they put a genocidal terrorist group in power. It's unlikely that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, an even more difficult proposition, the outcomes would be dissimilar.
However, a few caveats to this cautious optimism. The first of course is the issue of religion. Religion is a curiously under-discussed aspect of this conflict but it's absolutely central. Religion means border disputes are recast as a theatre for total war, it means the actions of a few bad eggs on both sides inspire monomaniacal speeches. The Jews won't stop being Jews. The Arabs won't stop being Muslims. As such, my hope for a permanent solution is diminished. Children who are taught a fairer, more dispassionate history in school will then listen to imams and rabbis who whip up religious sentiment.
Western civilization is a secular civilization. As such, we look today with amusement at the barbarous conflicts between Huguenots and Catholics of medieval France or the epileptic convulsions of violence between Catholics and protestants in medieval England.
But in the rest of the world, religion is alive and well. Indeed, every major international event or conflict that has happened this year is animated by religious principle: Azerbaijan, a majorly Muslim nation, recently ethnically cleansed Armenian christians, the ongoing conflict in Burma between the native Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslims, India and Canada's diplomatic spat over the extrajudicial murder of a prominent Sikh( Sikhism itself is a separatist religion), ongoing herder-farmer conflicts in the Sahel between the farming christians and the Muslim rebels ( one of the several features of the Niger coup) and the proposed war by coastal, often christian African countries and the Muslim desert countries of the Sahel.
And finally, of course, Israel and Palestine, endlessly locked in the newest iteration of who are the rightful heirs to the holy city of Jerusalem.
In Japan and Germany, these dimensions did not exist. These were wars fought for ideologies. Ideologies may summon all of the vehemence of religions but their lifespans are short: the Soviet Union was a flicker of candlelight in Russian history for all of 74 years. Religions, in contrast, seem to keep going a lot longer. So I don't see this proposed future materializing especially as the demographics of Israel( ultraright judaists have the highest reproductive rates) and those of Palestine( birth rates may be falling but half Gaza's population are children growing up in an environment of radical islamism) do not provide much respite.
But if any well-intentioned attempts are to be made at bridging this divide, then this excellent proposal certainly ranks as the very best of them. It's not perfect. But it might be enough. In the affairs of men, that's something of a disappointment. In the affairs of men and their gods, it is nothing short of superb.
Extremely well put. Thank you.
I think you’re right, it is a massive problem.
And as you point out, it might be more of a problem in Israel over time. But I’m not sure this is true for Palestine. And religion is not always a hindrance for peace. Turkey is part of NATO, Israel has signed peace with a handful of Arab countries, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Malaysia are not very conflictive with their neighbors, etc.
All of this to say that, although you’re right religion is a big obstacle, I want to believe it’s not insurmountable.
A friend of mine liked to talk about "insurmountable opportunities".
We may need some dialectics.
I agree as well, it's a massive problem. Germany and Japan situation was a complete submission and then dictate the people what to learn, read etc. as you wrote. Walk of shame to rebirth as humane sort of.
Two points following that imo:
Frist, the approach of people in the center bending down the horseshoe will never reach such an intense situation of complete submission.
Second, who would take the role of the WW2 allies here? Even if the current wipeout of Hamas is successful, it's not what the current Israel gov would see as an opportunity to revamp the society, would they? So it rather must be a third party ... But such a situation only could result after a massively bigger war / escalation.
The big difference is that Israel and Palestine are weak, and will be for a long time, because the land doesn't allow much more. They depend on the US, EU, and neighboring Arab countries. If they agreed, I/P would have to bend.
Turkey is part of NATO because of secular Ataturk time. I hope I'm wrong but Erdogan's Turkey becomes more and more of an issue there - would he stand by the Umma or serve the NATO.
Yes, the Islamization of Turkey is concerning for European interests.
More importantly, Turkey was a great ally for the US while it was weak. As it becomes stronger, its imperial history looms large.
Why didn’t religion factor more heavily in your explanations of the conflict? This seems consistent across histories I’ve read. Isn’t a huge point of contention who gets to worship, and where?
Because people use it indiscriminately and usually project their biases. An antisemite will say Jews are the root of all evil, Islamophobia that Islam is a religion of conflict…
Religion has a role, but I think it’s less than what ppl think and, more importantly, it’s much more nuanced than ppl claim. I will cover religion, but when I do, I want to make it justice.
Refined Incites: Excellent comment on Tomas's superb article (and 9 part series!). Better than I have seen in NYT or Washington Post or The Economist or any other of the source I read.
Thank you very very much. I really appreciate it
It would be much easier if people had a primary and a secondary religion, as is usual in Brasil. Since the objectives of the world's great religions are similar, it would facilitate the empathetic vision of other peoples.
Tomas, congratulations on a wonderful series of articles on this most complex topic. I follow this subject but have learned much from your detailed review of the history. I agree with your hopeful suggestions for moving both Israel and Palestine beyond endless conflict, but I am not optimistic that there is adequate motivation to pursue such an agenda on either side. As you so clearly and depressingly showed, there are powerful elements on both sides that benefit from a continual state of violence and conflict. The examples of post-war Germany and Japan moving beyond their destructive ideologies are possible models for Israel and Palestine, but those two countries were only open to mass re-education because of the catastrophic defeat and destruction that the Allies inflicted on them. To extend your analogy, Israel and Palestine might each have to face total collapse before they became amenable to the type of re-education that you propose. Even if such mutual collapse would result in a better future for both people, it is difficult to contemplate life becoming even more difficult in the interim. After reading your entire series, and learning so much, I have little hope for, and no alternative suggestions on how to achieve, a peaceful future in that region. So sad to say this. Thank you for all the effort you invested in educating us all.
The key difference that I should have made more explicit in the article is this:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/how-to-solve-the-israel-palestine-conflict?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Unlike japan and Germany, Israel and Palestine depend on whomever is the international power du jour. they must ply to their will. If US, EU, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia agree on this, they would be pretty forced to do it.
We don’t need total war and total wins for Thais to happen.
Exactly. Where does Palestinian hope for a better deal than those already offered come from? The power of non-Palestinians supporting their cause. Just as Israel's supporters could put conditions on their support, so could the supporters of the Palestinians.
Good point. Both Israelis and Palestinians depend on the kindness (and money) of friends and neighbors. It would be encouraging if the big donors could work together to pressure both sides into pursuing a better future. It looks like Netanyahu is starting to yield to Biden's pressure with today's agreement to pause military action for a few hours each day to allow civilians to evacuate and tend to life's needs.
Why doesn’t the US lean more heavily on Israel, then? It feels like we are the junior partner in the region.
Also, here is my dumb idea for peace: Israel establishes its current borders, with some withdrawal on the West Bank so it can be a viable Palestinian state. Then, it pays reparations. And says it’s done negotiating. They do what they have to for security.
The benefits here are that it gives Israel even more legitimacy, and it can be done unilaterally. Of course there would be vehement complaints over the amount and that it was insufficient without Right of Return, but from Israel’s perspective, it would be finished.
It does lean on it, but not for your education. It should.
What you say wouldn’t work because the fundamental issue is that Israel wants security, and Palestinians don’t want to give it to them. What Israel needs is a change in Palestinian mindset, and that won’t happen with unilateral moves.
Hi Tomas, great article as always! After 9 articles and a month of research, I’m curious about your perspective on the phenomenon of antisemitism. Is it related to the disproportionate attention and criticism that Israel gets all over the world? The outrage and attention directed towards Israel seems very selective, compared to lack of outrage over almost 400,000 war deaths in Yemen or the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. The AP has more journalists in Israel than the entire continent of Africa and there is a strong media bias against Israel, the only majority Jewish state in the world, despite Israel being the only free and democratic country in the region (one of the only places in the region where you won’t be thrown off a building for homosexuality, for instance). It is unthinkable that this horrific terrorist attack has inspired a rise in antisemitism around the world. In my home country of Canada, there are calls to boycott Jewish businesses, vandals have thrown Molotov cocktails at synagogues, academics and even a few politicians have publicly cheered Hamas for resisting a colonial oppressor, and anti-Israel protestors have flooded the streets of major Canadian cities calling for the destruction of Israel, beginning while the terrorist attack was still underway! If the government of Cuba carried out a proportionate terrorist attack on the United States, it would be a smoking ruin today. All sovereign states prioritize their basic need for security, and it is hard to imagine any state responding differently than Israel. Yet, across university campuses and in the streets of western cities, people protest the Gaza war and there are regular calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel. There are accusations against Israel of genocide, war crimes, and even the UN is calling for Israel to stop its campaign against Hamas. In another context, we might expect calls for the return of hostages and sympathy for the Jewish people. Instead, we have swastikas at rallies, muzuzah mapping, and vandalism of Jewish houses, businesses, synagogues, and community centres. The German Vice-Chancelor has stated that the condemnation of Israel is rooted in antisemitism – the phenomenon that even the holocaust did not eradicate. Is he right?
It is appalling.
I never understood anti-semitism, and this doesn't help. I don't get it. The "oppressor/oppressed" narrative is not enough to explain this.
Hence why I haven't written on it yet. It's one more topic I've taken to pay attention to, and I've started taking notes on it, but I'm not sure when I'll post on it, since it's a problem I have such a hard time comprehending.
To be clear, it is very complex, as it includes things like rights of banking services in Middle Ages Europe, and things like that. So yeah, not going to publish on it imminently
Well said!
I think this is just one of those things you can form an opinion on, but never really have an answer to. I would recommend Matt Yglesias’s recent pieces on how to untangle anti-Semitic and anti-Zionism (ftr, I am a liberal Jew who supports a two-state solution).
My take: people don’t know very much about the world, and are not invested in foreign policy. To the extent they are, it’s usually a projection of their own domestic political views. People warring with other people of the same color kind of just seem the same. The reading public may not even be sure what continent the conflict is taking place on. Militia X has overthrown Dictator Y, displacing thousands of people in religious sect Z. It’s hard to get invested.
In the I/P conflict, things feel very differentiated. Most people incorrectly think Israel is white, and has a significantly different ethnic background than Palestine, so we project our racial politics on it.
Leftists also fetishize the effects of colonization, but we all know we’re not going to decolonize the Americas. I/P looks like a place where our guilt and decolonization fantasies can come to fruition.
Additional factors: American Jews have always been viewed with suspicion by the Left, because we’re high on the socio-economic ladder, and class hierarchy is extremely salient. As we’ve become considered more straightforwardly white, an increasingly race-conscious left also considers us oppressors. Younger people’s experience of religious persecution is overwhelmingly shaped by the War on Terror, and they worry about Islamophobia, not antisemitism. They have no experience of Israel as a poor, militarily weak country that has repeatedly tried to make peace with its neighbors. All they’ve seen is Netanyahu.
So they do not understand that I/P is an incredibly complex situation, and they don’t really want to. They want a hero/villain story of powerful whites oppressing virtuous browns. And they want to be a part of history, like the Berlin Wall falling, or South Africa ending Apartheid.
I think that is partly valid, but not completely.
For example, it focuses on the US, and the US is not the only player here. Within the US, antisemitism has a very long history that you can’t limit to the last few decades.
Islamophobia is not a US-only feeling, etc.
Maybe I should have been clearer. I am speaking of the primarily white left in America and Canada, since that’s where I’m from, and whose politics I’m familiar with. I can’t really speak on why, say, Italians care.
Mandatory Palestine (1948) was much smaller than in 1923:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-british-mandate-1921-1923
You may want to put the year you refer to in brackets.
I recommended your 9 articles to www.hotlineforip.com: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/11/03/israel-palestine-hotline-harvard
In the West, we do need education on this conflict, too!
Acabo de inscribirme como voluntario.
Though provoking article as always.. But for all these reforms to begin, a truly devastating war that hurts both sides tremendously is required. Both Germany and Japan were devastated due to WW2, it had led to countless death and immeasurable suffering which made it possible for majority section of society to accept above mentioned reforms. October 7 violence and ongoing Palestinian casualties although numerous are simply not enough for a paradigm change in thinking of the establishment in both societies.
You forget this article
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/will-israel-be-at-war
Whoever rules in that region is dependent on the surrounding superpowers. Israel can’t do anything is the US disagrees. Palestinians of course even less without Arab support.
You could imagine pretty easily US bipartisan support for unbiased education in the region…
US-Saudi led diplomatic efforts can definitely put pressure for above mentioned reforms. But Iran has tremendous influence in the region and any initiative without the support of Iran would be incomplete. That is something improbable in present geopolitical scenario.
Post oil society is an interesting future to look at, where petro countries would have to initiate various liberal reforms and get industrialised or they would become inconsequential and could perhaps then reach consensus as that would require all countries to become part of rule based international world order.
The only influence Iran has is for subversive action. That’s why Hamas must be eliminated.
Agreed sadly
Unfortunately, this “both sides are guilty to an extent and so they both need to change” approach is what westerners have been promoting for decades and it doesn’t lead to any progress.
Yes, people are imperfect and mistakes are always made even if you’re the “good guys”.
For example, you can look back at WWII and find bad things or bad choices that the allies made. You could even make a reasonable claim that Hitler got into power because of the harsh post-war terms that were imposed on Germany after Versailles.
None of that can take away from the fact that the Nazis were wrong and morally evil, while the Allies were on the right side.
You can’t put on the same level the indoctrination of children in Palestinian schools, teaching them to literally murder Jews, how to build bombs, etc, and the fact that Israelis don’t study the “nakba” (it’s not hard to see why; Israelis in those days were too busy fighting for their own survival to be concerned about refugees on the other side).
Palestinians should accept that a) the Jews aren’t going anywhere, b) violence against the Jews will always come back to bite them and make chances of a “free Palestine” ever more remote, and c) they (and their Arab allies) have fought war after war against Israel and -without exception- have always lost.
Every Country in the history of the world that has lost a war has had to make concessions.
That the Palestinians would like a peace deal on their own terms, despite having lost all the conflicts and despite the shocking support for violence from the general population, is simply not acceptable.
Israelis are not stupid. They don’t vote the way they do because they lack the education or are somehow tricked into being fearful.
They are rightly fearful because they take what the Palestinians say at face value. They know that if they lower their guard or make any concessions, they are putting themselves at grave risk of being wiped out as a people.
I don’t make moral equivalences, and state clearly that there are differences in the gaps in each side. What you say might be true, and yet still my conclusion be valid. The only thing you’re highlighting is that the Israeli curriculum and media are already closer to a neutral point. I’d probably agree with that. Which means Israel should have much more to gain from a common curriculum than Palestine, since it would have less to change, and would get more of the Palestinian side to change.
Appreciate you clarifying that Tomas, thanks for the reply.
I agree with you that when two sides have a completely different worldview and narrative, it is impossible to come to terms with each other.
I appreciate your optimism but I do find it hard to imagine that the Palestinians would make such dramatic changes to their view of history.
That would be like asking the Irish to stop teaching children about the evils of British imperialism. There would be much to be gained there for sure, but it would radically undermine their own self-view as a people.
The Palestinians have never had a State of their own, and they can’t credibly claim to have “always been there” in the way the Jews easily can.
So, if you ask them to take away the element of hate and rivalry against the Jews, what is left? Who are they?
This is what moderate Arab-Israelis have come to realise by the way. This is why you find many of them even serving in the IDF. They’ve learnt to live as a minority in a historically Jewish land, and for that they get all the rights and protections that only a democracy can offer (a hypothetical Jew in Palestine would never get that, but that’s a different story).
A Palestinian would have to come to accept something along similar lines if they were to revise their history according to truth.
I see what you mean, but it’s not as black or white. The feeling of nationhood is reinforced by school, but it’s not determined by it. It comes from everything, from your religion, language, and ethnicity, to the land you live in and the symbols you pledge alliance to.
You take a good example. Arab Israelis do feel different within Israeli. Tie them to a specific land, and that forms a nation-state.
Maybe I’m too optimistic, but it sounds to me like making education more fact-based in exchange for peace, money, international support, and getting the other side to be less radical is a deal that leaders on both sides might want to take.
It’s certainly easier to do this in the interim than going straight to a peace solution.
Unfortunately at the moment the Palestinian leadership know they’re going to get all the money they want and more, no matter what they do.
Western leaders don’t have the spine to refuse sending money when Palestinians refugees are at risk of starvation.
You also make a good point about the fact that education is not the only factor. The average Palestinian walks into a mosque multiple times a week and hears about the call to exterminate the infidels. That’s a far more powerful driver than anything they might get taught in school.
That is, back to my original point, why Israelis vote the way they do. They know this to be the reality among Palestinians, as much as they’d love things to be different!
Very good Tomas, but there are some weaknesses:
The excellent aspect is the general conclusion about needing to change minds, and then specifically, the detail drawing on what the US/allies did in Japan and Germany after WWII (which I didn't know about).
The weaknesses are:
1. You advocate "eliminating" Hamas, which implies (though not explicit) supporting what the US & Israel are currently doing in Gaza — blatant crimes against humanity of ethnic cleansing & genocide through indiscriminate bombing of civilians. That is totally contrary to the rest of your work, which rightly says that this sort of approach simply supports the vicious circle of ever-more hatred and violence. Hamas, or its replacement, will not be eliminated by bombs. It can only be rendered ineffective by refusing to play their game of violence.
2. You are also silent on the implications of what you propose for democracy in Israel. The reality is it essentially means suspending democracy and having a UN body govern Israel & Palestine for many years (and I think that is indeed necessary). As you note, the control of media and education will have to be forced on Israel, and you cannot do that in a democracy. There's also no point doing that if you still have Israelis electing governments who run the police, military & justice systems to persecute Palestinians (with even "justice" now controlled by the Government, thanks to Netanyahu — it really is a fascist state: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/09/defending-the-rule-of-law-enforcing-apartheid-the-double-life-of-israels-judiciary/ ). Even the health system is run by doctors who support the bombing of hospitals and civilians in Gaza: https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-doctors-letter
Remember, Hitler was elected. Sometimes the results of "democracy" are unacceptable.
3. You have a blind spot that overlooks the devastatingly negative influence of the US. Nothing will improve until the US ends its current and longstanding strategy of supporting & enabling violence across the Middle East (for its own benefit) — refer my comment here:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/how-to-solve-the-israel-palestine-conflict/comment/43336666?r=ry8au
I'm also not sure how to interpret your comment, "When somebody denies that information is true—like whether Hamas beheaded babies". Do you have evidence for it? As I've said before, I see no reason to believe this and every reason not to. That doesn't mean I'm defending Hamas; only that I see Israeli and US propaganda for what it is — a tactic for dehumanising Palestinians and justifying their mass murder.
1. I do reach that conclusion
But I am open to alternatives.
I proposed another one—a peaceful one—in the footnotes. Alas, that doesn't matter because Israel is aiming at a physical elimination. I deplore that, but if at least they achieve their military goal, it might be net positive for both Israel and Palestine.
2. You don't need to suspend autonomy in Israel & Palestine to influence their education. It's like nuclear programs: They're all subject to international laws, with the IAEA overseeing every country, but they don't give up their sovereignty overall.
You totally can control the media in a democracy. The US is a maximalist in freedom of speech, many other countries aren't. It's illegal to support Nazism in Germany for example. This is similar: It would be illegal to support Hamas, From the River to the Sea, or the aim of the Land of Israel covering all the Levant.
3. The US's influence won't stop here, so that's a non-starter.
Beheaded babies: I have now seen plenty of images of these horrors, and I've heard dozens of reports from international reporters who have seen these images and confirm them. I understand the logic of not sharing these images further.
So when you think about the likelihood they exist vs not, you should consider what's more likely: That the images are true, or that dozens of journalists from all over the world, from many different news outlets, some of which are not pro-Israeli, are conspiring to create a fake narrative that babies were not beheaded.
1. I see nothing good coming from what the US & Israel are now doing. But it's a forecast (based on history), so maybe it's futile to keep arguing it.
2. I'll accept it's a matter of degree with media & education, but you avoid the critical matter of police, military, justice.
3. Nothing persuasive in your response to this #1 critical issue. It's the one thing we, as "Westerners", and you especially, as a US citizen, have influence on.
Re. babies, how do you know who did the beheading? I assume you haven't seen videos. I'm not suggesting Hamas didn't kill many civilians, but we know the IDF did too – even deliberately as an apparently acceptable cost for killing the Hamas attackers: https://new.thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-on-7th-october
Hamas' top priority was to capture as many hostages as possible, as quickly as possible, then get them back to Gaza. Why would they hang around to cut off babies' heads?
On the other hand, the Israelis were left surveying the dead, including, no doubt, babies killed by IDF cross-fire/grenades/shelling/rocket fire. In their anger, they may well have decided, "Well, they're dead anyway, we may as well decapitate them and use it as propaganda". It's an absolutely hideous thought, yet not quite as bad as deliberately beheading alive babies.
Is one side more moral than the other? I don't think so. So what is the more plausible explanation? I certainly don’t think you can assert with confidence that Hamas did it.
Is anyone else not extremely worried about this response? Tomas is doing his absolute best to remain objective and help people learn some actual truths and look for ways to move forward. You have clearly made up your mind which side of the fence you sit on and your comments read as extremely anti-Israel and its people. Are you genuinely trying to create an argument around suspecting the veracity of what happened on 7th October?
Do you really think Hamas is beyond any level of depravity and barbarism given what we all know happened on 7th October or are you so blinded by your hatred for Israel that you are cannot see it?
Don't believe anything Israel says (except when it's open about it's intentions for genocide and ethnic cleansing, as it often is). They are brutal, lying, fascist thugs. And don't believe complicit Western media & politicians either:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-war-media-ignoring-evidence-actions-7-october
https://asawinstanley.substack.com/p/israel-admits-to-immense-amount-of
https://twitter.com/MintPressNews/status/1734328617981685953
This type of one-sided and aggressive comment adds nothing to the conversation. Please be more thoughtful or I’ll take measures.
How about we discuss my language objectively then?
Israel has slaughtered 20k+ Palestinians at an unprecedented rate in just 2 months – 2/3rds women & children, plus let's not forget the innocent men (why are men considered worthless, or guilty by default and deserving of death?).
Gaza is almost totally destroyed. Hospitals, schools, refugee camps full of children all deliberately wiped out. Remember the ridiculous debate in Oct. when Israel tried to claim they didn't bomb al-Ahli Arab hospital? They stopped pretending after that.
People who can't move given an hour to leave hospitals, and then bombed. Babies left to die (for real, unlike the unevidenced lies about Hamas beheading babies), or killed as buildings collapse. People told to leave for the south, then bombed on their way, &/or when they get there. Then Israel gaslights the world, saying they give people notice to avoid civilian casualties.
Phosphorus bombs used against people also in Lebanon.
Food, water, energy, medical supplies all cut off for 2 months now. If they're not killed by bombs, people are literally starving and dying of disease – this is likely to accelerate now.
In what world is it NOT appropriate to label this "brutal"?
Palestinian civilians are not "collateral damage" – all of this genocide and ethnic cleansing has been clearly planned and intentional (see links above), and they're all blatant war crimes. The military campaign is clearly aligned to ethnic cleansing – transparently trying to push all Gazans into Sinai, by threat of death.
If I said that German Nazis in WWII were fascist thugs, no-one would disagree. How, objectively, is what Israel saying and doing right now any different?
Have you seen this? Reminiscent of Hitler Youth:
https://twitter.com/intifada/status/1726345295515058255
The propaganda & lies are blatant and transparent (with abundant evidence, of which the above links give just a hint), yet Western media practically ignores them.
Why is the West determined to avoid condemning and appropriately labelling what is happening, let alone stop it (as only the US easily could)?
Why is the West – including you now it seems – determined to censor those who speak out? People everywhere being sacked and condemned (& falsely labelled "anti-semetic") for telling the truth plainly and supporting Palestinians, whilst the US especially continues to support & enable this atrocity?
Is everyone in a position of influence politically captured, scared to speak out, ignorant, got their head in the sand, in denial, or just plain racist? Why??
We said "never again", and now the West has enabled another Holocaust. If that doesn't deserve strong language then nothing ever will.
you don't seem to have any problem with this kind of language being used to describe hamas, so how can you call it one-sided when it's being used to describe the side that has killed 30x as many people as the other?
I do recognise Tomas is trying to be objective, and generally doing a good job of seeing both sides.
Given your misrepresentation of my views NOAB, you seem to be projecting, with your inability to question events and your one-sided view that appears blind to the atrocities Israel has been committing for a month now, and continues to do, with Western support.
I make no apologies for calling that out, and calling for a ceasefire. More broadly, I'm happy to sit on the fence, not on one side (as you seem to think is necessary), and I don't doubt Hamas is as capable of the same depravity as the Israelis clearly are.
A key takeaway I got from this article is no amount of redrawing borders will solve a situation where violence is encouraged by the leaders of both entities. Always look at the incentives.
I don't know if the ideas about education and media, and social media will work but teaching each group to understand and respect each other feels like a step in the right direction if it can be done.
Always find your posts engaging and helpful - but is it really accurate to refer to Israel 'giving' Palestine land in return for peace, as depicted in your initial diagrams and argument? Isn't that assumption of Israel's ownership of the land in question the root problem? What does the argument look like if we replace 'give land' with 'agree to retreat from illegal settlements'?
primarily, it is, insofar as Israel controls it. By “giving” I mean “give control”.
Secondarily, that land has never belonged to a Palestinian state, so you could also argue it in that context. In fact, it has not ever belonged to an Arab nation-state either.
I think semantics matter, but after a month of consuming this topic non-stop, I feel like the sides war about words more than about specifics.
I think the difference between 'give land' and 'retreat from illegal settlements' is far more than semantics. Controlling land does not mean owning it. If it did, then there would be no such thing as 'invasion' in international law.
The state of Palestine was recognised by the UN in 2012, so one could argue that whether or not a state exists is semantics, probably a stronger argument than the difference between 'give land' and 'retreat from illegal settlements' being purely semantic....
Who owns the land though?
We can play the narrative game if you want.
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/who-can-claim-palestine
I think that side-skirts the issue. It's not a game - it's a very different meaning - give land vs. retreat from illegal settlements which are recognised as illegal by international conventions. I do agree with quite a bit of what you say - but there's a false equivalence here, I think you are usually more balanced tbh.
Let me clarify. I am not against the letter of what you say. Yes, this is not their land to give. You’re right!
I’m against the spirit of what you say: most of the debate ends up revolving about such terms. Not only that, but every time one of these debates emerges, we need to be extra careful about a new expression, which adds to the cognitive load. Technically, this is not their land to give. But also, technically, this is neither apartheid nor occupation. But I’d like to use all these terms, because although they’re not precisely accurate, they’re more useful than the correct and more verbose equivalent.
OK - what is it then, technically, if UN resolutions and the Geneva convention call it occupation? I'm going to read the previous article you linked for a second time to see if you've answered this, or where what I perceive as a lack of balance is justified there. I didn't think so the first time, but I like to be extra careful about every word here. It's why I commented in the first place - because I see your expressions as problematic - in spirit.
What do you see as an equitable endpoint to Jewish-Palestinian conflict? Regardless of what words are used, what does lasting peace actually look like?
Dear fellow readers: we might debate points in this and Tomas’s prior articles but we owe him our deepest respect and gratitude for what he’s done here. Nuance and non-binary thinking is necessary when it comes to solving this mess, but paradoxically it can’t come at the cost of ignoring certain truths that should be self-evident. Kudos to Tomas!
Tomas came very close to identifying the elephant in the room but I don’t think he quite nailed it, or at least wasn’t explicit enough: it’s that Wetikos/bad apples/sociopaths/ideological extremists have seized control of the steering wheel and unfortunately they’re driving us off the cliff. Even if they are in the minority, they hold the power because they’re the ones driving the agenda.
Thus, the exchange between Tomas Pueyo and Marco Troisi (in the comment thread) is illuminating and worth reading. I think Marco makes an excellent point so please read it before proceeding further.
Unfortunately, all the calls for “cease fire”, “2-state solution NOW”, and villainization of Israel will paradoxically just make things worse in the Mideast. It will make Israelis feel even less secure and more embattled (reinforcing the Nationalist block). It will reinforce Palestinians’ beliefs that violence gets them results and the world is on their side, because after all, see how quickly the world pivoted from condemning Hamas to condemning Israel?!! So why not double down?
I can’t blame any Israeli or Jew who absolutely bristles at all the moral equivalence BS - or worse! - being tossed around.
When it comes down to the nitty gritty, education only worked for Japan/Germany after they were utterly defeated and when their populace was forced to look into the mirror and see their own inhumane brutality. And only after Japan experienced two atomic bombs and Germany experienced similar devastation from bombing - where yes, children and women were unfortunate casualties.
Hamas is the product of a set of ideologies and its similar hateful, genocidal mindset is unfortunately widespread in Gaza, West Bank and throughout Muslim countries so I certainly can understand how alarming it is for Israelis and Jews to hear the world reacting with either appeasement or even worse, condemnation of Israel.
Unfortunately it is just strengthening the wetikos/bad apples/extremists on both sides and will end up making things worse. The true elephant in the room? Wetikos/bad apples/extremists are in the driver’s seat when it comes to the Mideast and they are a malignant cancer. Likewise in much of the world. How do we deal with them?
Personally, as someone who founded two nonprofits that are all about putting more light into the world (The Illumignossi Project; OrLanu) I am truly confounded by the “bad apple” (Wetiko) problem. World-wide. Throughout history. 😥
Spot on. This is indeed at the heart of so many human problems.
To solve human problems we need to understand humans! Humans have a variety of personality characteristics which are largely genetically/evolutionally determined and distributed in roughly 10/80/10 percentages*
Somewhere around 10% of humans are programmed to hold moderately antisocial +/- extremist views. Most of these people are too unpleasant or ineffective to cause major problems for society, but a small number have intelligence +/- charisma and manage to convince some of their kin to follow them. If they are not stopped they move onto influencing the next 10%, then the next 10% and with a bit of luck they get into a position of power.
How do we deal with them? As the old Irish joke goes "you'd best not be starting from here"!! The best time to stop them is before they become too powerful and the only way to stop to them is by coercion. A humane society will get away with using the minimum of force if the problem is recognised early enough, but the more powerful the "bad apples" become the more difficult it is to deal with the problem. As you say, look what is happening in the world around us and you will realise that we have been asleep at the wheel for too long.
See my discussion with Robert Ferrell under "What did a Two-State solution look like" if you can, but the main point was that peace and true democracy are not something that have happened that often in human history. They need constant attention and effort to maintain them.
*please feel free to argue against this view of reality. It is only by discussing things and looking at the evidence that we can come to some sort of agreement.
A very interesting challenge in how germany and Japan was 'moved' to what today is successfull and peace loving societies.. I did not know how it was done.
If you look at how radicalization happens - f.ex. Russia has companies that employ people to work on SoMe bots etc. - to spread disinformation and enrage as much as they can..
We as a society I think, NEED a counter to this.. SoME like facbook, twitter, tiktok etc. MUST be worked towards removing those trying to wreak havoc and we need to invest in ways to ensure that people are correctly informed.. Not just getting "one side of the story" etc.
Many don't want to read much (this seems to be getting worse with the raise of apps, movies etc. - everyone wants to just 'be fed') - so we'll have to have a place that produces content on SoMe to battle this - and also probably legislation to ensure SoMe sites - work with the public here - in an open manner - so everyone can see whats taking place and why..
It would be interesting to see a piece of how we could take use SoMe to improve our world, instead of letting the radicals roam free, radicalizing even more
I don't know what SoMe bots are specifically. For the rest, I agree. Something will have to be done with social networks. TikTok is especially concerning, as it's controlled by the Chinese party. It will have to be curtailed soon.
Thank you for a fair intent, Tomas, but the comparison with Germany and Japan misses two fundamental points:
1) Germany and Japan had been military beaten and occupied, and they knew it.
2) Germany and Japan had an authoritarian tradition of obedience to their rulers, and their new rulers were the occupying allies.
So, the first requisite for your peace plan to work would be to forcefully occupy both Israel and Palestine. However, that’s when you notice the absence of the second point. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were occupied by the US, and it failed miserably. Also, Jews have a millennial tradition of forming their own nuclea of resistance to the empire they live in.
This is by far the least clear part of the article, ow that’s clear to me. Let me paste my answer to a similar comment
The key difference that I should have made more explicit in the article is this:
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/how-to-solve-the-israel-palestine-conflict?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Unlike japan and Germany, Israel and Palestine depend on whomever is the international power du jour. they must ply to their will. If US, EU, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia agree on this, they would be pretty forced to do it.
We don’t need total war and total wins for Thais to happen.
I fully agree with the diagnosis -- especially as it's what I've concluded myself over the years, as being from a family of peace-loving ex-kibbutzniks yet living far away to have the critical distancing. However, only at the end you hit the only lever for peace that really makes or breaks it: incentives. As always, cui bono?
The problem is when political and economic elites are shielded from the bad outcomes of their decisions; they socialize the damage while pocketing the gains. (Case in point: Hamas's leader lives safely away from the carnage, in Qatar.) This used to be less the case in Israel, which prided itself on being a place where the PM would take the train and shop for groceries like everyone else. But corruption and nepotism are quickly eroding that.
This lack of skin in the game blunts the most powerful weapon in the diplomacy arsenal, which is economic diplomacy. (Not to be confused with the joke that is "international aid".) The measures you discuss for Germany and Japan could only be deployed effectively in the context of the Marshall Plan and other sources of great financial upside for - and only for - businesspeople willing to align with the US. This is how we still have ex-Nazi businesses like BASF, Bayer, Allianz, all the German motor companies... (And East Germany's denazification, which might have been even more radical, obviously took place in a context of radically reshaped incentives, i.e., nationalization of the ~whole economy under communism.)
How to do this? It seems a bit more plausible in war-wrecked Gaza, where the promise of prosperity for the destitute, and of filthy wealth for the elites, might get both to soften up on the genocide talk. Sure, they'll continue believing something else in private, but next generation it will already be "the weird uncles who hoard Hamas memorabilia in the basement".
In Israel, a prosperous country where the elites are already somewhere between well off and filthy rich with Russian oligarch money, this simple approach seems implausible. Perhaps the US and EU could make business harder for companies owned or associated with the extremist right wing, as they already try to do for terrorism. If this doesn't make the crooked elites fall in line (all that Russian money...), it could at least generate enough pressure to keep their radical wings in check. IDK, it's all iffy...
Thank you!
Maybe I should have spent more time on that specifically.
Israel is a small country. It depends on the US’s support completely. Strong pressure from the US could surely be enough to get a reasonable demand through, which is to rebuild the curriculum to be neutral. Threatening the US’s support is the type of existential threat that gets ppl moving.
Interestingly, the Marshall Plan came *after* denazification and deimperialization, as the communist threat emerged. Yes, both Germany and japan had another advantage: a common enemy. But this shows that you can get the education and media pieces going without the economic side solved.
Rebuilding secular education is hard enough (I don't think a heavy-handed approach will fly), but the really hard part in Israel is the institutionalized autonomy of the haredim (ultra-Orthodox), which of course make up the majority of West Bank settlers and are potentially the major anti-peace force in the Israeli side. Intervening in any aspect of their lives is IMO impossible via the political institutions, they just won't touch it period. What is a bit easier to imagine is that the US Jewish leaders divert the money flow from US donors to pro-peace or at least more moderate haredi groups. This could be considered a quid pro quo for continued US support, although it will never be officially acknowledged as such...
And the Marshall plan was implemented from 1948, just 1.5 years after denazification started in Germany; I don't think anyone believes that the denazification process was complete or even significantly impactful in that window. Arguably Adenauer's pivot to a policy of amnesty and reintegration might even have reverted what little effect was had. Hard to know.
If Israel can't interfere in the education of Haredim, how can it demand an intervention on Palestinian education?
And if it doesn't, how can it complain that Palestinians are radicals?
What is easier, change internal education, or sign a peace agreement?
Germany and Japan had another huge advantage that Palestine/Israel won't have: a common enemy, Communism. The USSR and China were breathing down their neck. The only viable alternative was to quickly espouse the US world order, and that's what they did.
So the denazification and deimperialization processes weren't panaceas, but they helped.
Well, that's what I'm saying: I don't think there's a viable solution at all.
Very good article - I'm interested to know why you don't mention Iran/the rise of Islamism and the control it has over the Islamist ideologies of Hamas/Hezbollah in the Israel context. We know that fundamental to Iran's ideology is the eradication is Israel and Jews.
I aim to get into it, but that layer is even more fraught with bias than this one. I need to do more research. Thanks for pointing it out.
Very interesting! However, you missed one critical point. Israel is a democracy, while Palestine is not. Moreover, not only is it not a democracy, but it is also governed by a terrorist organization—Hamas in Gaza—and a highly corrupted leadership in the West Bank.
The people there seem uninterested in peace, and they don't seem motivated by the same morals and incentives as you and the Western world. Complaining about the "occupation" is debatable, but in the meantime, what have they done? Nothing! Israel has developed a robust army, a strong economy, and become a liberal, Western country. On the other hand, Palestinians repeatedly chose terror.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2006, an opportunity for it to thrive as the "diamond of the Middle East." However, they chose Hamas, turning the region into a terror base. While not all Palestinians are terrorists, it's challenging to find anyone condemning Hamas or trying to bring about change.
Israel is not innocent, having made mistakes and dealing with radicals contributing to the conflict. However, blaming Israel for "control" on one side and "violence" on the other oversimplifies the issue. Israel can't take risks due to potential escalations, as seen recently. But if Palestine will try not to be violent then Israel can reduce control.
Consider viewing this conflict beyond Western eyes and common sense. Welcome to the Middle East, where power plays a significant role. Israel, unfortunately, learned this lesson the hard way and now knows how to navigate the game to protect its citizens. As radical Islam spreads in Europe and US now, perhaps a broader understanding will finally emerge in the Western world.
I agree
I recently became aware that Saudi Arabia wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Israel to Europe. If true, that is a major threat to Russia and Iran. This may explain why Biden was promoting peace talks between the Saudis and Israel at this time, and why Hamas chose this time to undermine these efforts with the horrific terrorist attack on Israel on October 7. Regarding the post war plan for the open air prison for 2 million people called Gaza, there will likely not be a better time for a 2 state solution than now. The Arab States and the US and EU will have to act very forcefully with both the Palestinians and Israel to make it happen. My sense is that a constitution for Palestine needs to be written that can help assure (reassure) the Israelis that it will result in more stability and security for Israel than the current occupation. That constitution must include a clear statement that both the State of Israel and the new State of Palestine have a right to exist in peace and security within their internationally agreed upon borders. It also needs to disavow the "right of return" that so many Palestinians have held onto for 70 years. That ain't gonna happen and is no different than the slogan that the Palestinians have a right to the whole of Palestine from the River to the Sea. Both imply that Israel should not exist. Disruptive right wing settlers in the West Bank and other non-Palestinian residents who cannot agree to the terms of the new constitution need to be evicted from the new Palestinian State (voluntarily or forcefully). Palestinian political organizations and Palestinian individuals who cannot agree to the terms of the new constitution must be viewed as a threat to the existence of both states and be barred from government and military service in the new state. Since neither side to date has apparently wanted peace and the 2 state solution that might bring peace, coming to this agreement will require international pressure, leadership and guarantees to both sides. However, continued occupation, spread of right wing fundamentalist settlements and the ongoing subjugation of millions of Palestinians is clearly untenable. Even if Israel were able to totally eliminate every Hamas fighter in Gaza, there are others who would take their place among the millions of traumatized Palestinians if left without hope, dignity, resources and freedom to travel and get an education and create a better life for themselves and their families.
We cannot allow the tragic violence Hamas perpetrated on innocent Israeli civilians on October 7 to not result in a more hopeful and secure situation for both the Israelis and the Palestinians going forward.