There are three Israels whose visions for the future clash furiously. If you don’t understand them, you can’t understand Israeli politics, the different paths they envision for their country, Israel’s conflicting and confusing actions, or predict the fate of the region.
As an Israeli following the conflict closely for the past 40 years I have to say this is a masterful series. The way you present the viewpoints of all sides in a way that allows the reader to make sense of how they see the world is invaluable. I wish this series would be required reading for any non Israeli/Palestinian who wants to express their viewpoints on this subject, as well as to Israelis and Palestinians!
Basically a majority of the Israeli political base (Nationalist + religious) don't support compromise or peace, and the same may be said for Hamas & other Palestinians. And the two sides feed each other.
One can only hope that the apocalypse now unfolding will cause a shift in those attitudes. Until then, neither side is fit to govern, so (IMO) the UN (excluding the US) should take over and keep the peace — even if that's for a 100 years until the people, attitudes & economics change & the hatred fades.
It may sound trite, but a key ingredient for peace is to care about living people, and though it may be easy for me to say it, that really should mean giving absolute total priority to currently living people over any kind of resentment or ambitions to reclaim what was lost by those who died hundreds or thousands of years ago.
It can certainly take time for people to recover from major traumas, and the effects of trauma can be passed down through generations, but eventually it fades. Britain was invaded by the Romans 2000 years ago, and by the French 1000 years ago, but I think most Brits have let it go now.
So the bit where you, Tomas, talk about how things could be very different in 100 years is really important, but we need to find a way to hold things together peacefully until then.
There is no chance the UN will take over and "keep the peace". After Israel's Gaza withdrawal in 2005 much stake was put on placing an international brigade on the border with Israel to keep the peace. They ran away with the first shot heard from Palestinian side. The Middle East is seething with violence in many fronts. No country in the world is willing to have its children killed in this swamp to protect the peace (all while Iran, Hezbollah and various other forces are meddling and pushing). In other words the idea is no more than a fantasy.
This attack will only harden the stance of nationalists and religious bloc. Only hope is that Americans put enough pressure on Israel to accept two state solution.
Astounding inside look of Israel. As an Israeli, I confirm every word and analysis. Admiratoon the clear explanations and writing. I am very excited and impressed. And I love yr maps snd infographics.
Excellent piece Tomas. Israel won't be able to move forward with Palestinians until it resolves the clash between its three factions. The Haredim are schnorrers (moochers), demanding resources but not contributing to Israel's economy or defense. The Palestinians won't move forward until they stop holding out for the elimination of Israel and, rather, accept that it will continue to exist within some borders. This means rejecting Hamas, whose "business model" is predicated on the fantasy that Israel will be replaced with a caliphate. Surely the political leaders of Hama understand that this is a myth, but having chosen to define themselves on the basis of resistance and terrorism rather than responsible governance, they will never agree to any accommodation with Israel. Netanyahu thought that he had reached an agreement with Hamas, but Oct 7 showed that he was catastrophically wrong in his assessment. As Tomas said, the Palestinians have not only been failed by Hamas, but also by the neighboring Arab countries. After fighting and losing several wars with Israel, the neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria now accept the existence of Israel. The Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia are cutting economic deals with Israel who thy see as a worthy trade partner as the price and future of oil plummets. For reasons discussed by Tomas, Palestine has little of economic value to offer the neighbors and is viewed by them as largely an annoying distraction from doing business with Israel and the West. These factors place Palestine in an isolated position, with little power to improve their situation. The combination of Israel's internal conflicts and Palestine's lack of status makes it difficult to see an obvious path forward.
Excelente artículo Tomás (¡y también toda la serie sobre este conflicto!).
Mi interés por los asuntos palestinos e israelíes arrancó hará unos 10 años, a través de los cuales fui leyendo, pensando y aprendiendo, poco a poco sobre toda esta historia . Tu exposición, en toda esta serie de artículos, me ha permitido terminar de ordenar y comprender, al menos en lo más general, la génesis y el desarrollo del conflicto árabe-israelí.
Very good piece Tomas. Though I'm far from an expert, my sense is that the piece accurately captures the different poles in Israel. As an American Jew who has long been a J-Street supporter and considers themselves squarely in the Peace Camp, I'm really looking forward to your next piece.
Here is on my own take on what is needed to achieve a lasting solution that gives the Palestinians both a viable state and a chance to have fulfilling lives:
It doesn't get all into the details of the land swaps (which is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to your take on that), but I think you might find it interesting because of what it says about what the U.S. role needs to be and the thoughts on justice.
Thanks for sharing your article and for the simplicity of its message. I work mainly on helping to solve the problems of individuals, one of the most common problems I encounter is talking to people who are stuck in the past due to unresolved grief. Your article talks about the idea of shared grief as a barrier to moving on. There are solutions if people choose to look for them.
Vox did a great piece on the Settlements here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6L9mS9ti6o . It's pretty hard to see how a solution that involved walking away from this type of infrastructure would be viable, IMO.
That's certainly been the Nationalist Bloc's strategy in the West Bank. To establish facts on the ground that will make it harder for Israel to pull out. But I would make three arguments:
- First, for the settlements that are essentially right on the border, there can some land swaps for others areas that would make those settlements a part of Israel (along the lines of what was discussed at Oslo and Taba).
- Second, in the grand scheme of things, the cost of whatever infrastructure the settlers leave behind, is a drop in the bucket compared to the savings (in terms of resources, time, and lives) that Israel will gain through a viable long term peace.
- Third, the U.S. and the world should essentially give Israel no choice. The U.S. should not only cut off aid to Israel if it doesn't cede the vast majority of the West Bank to the Palestinian state but should back strong sanctions against Israel as well. As for the settlers, if they want to remain on these lands they can, but they need to understand their claims will be fully under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian state (just as the Palestinians living in Israel are fully under the jurisdiction of the Israeli state).
You're probably right, but (assuming you're American) I think it's our responsibility to try and get it there.
And to Biden's credit, I think he has played it exactly right so far. Expressing full sympathy for the Israelis in the wake of October 7th and supporting the fight back against Hamas (while urging Israel to do what all that is reasonable to spare civilians lives while conducting this fight) was the right thing to do.
But that support should come at a price. And that price should be a pivot soon that makes it clear that part of the fight against Hamas is offering real hope to the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians. And that means creating a viable state for the Palestinians on the West Bank and no longer supporting the settlers provocations.
Tomas, here's another of my questions about "why is this conflict different from all other conflicts." In 2003 the US invaded Iraq on the false premise that it was involved in 9/11. It is estimated that at least 150,000 people, and perhaps many more, died over the next three years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). Most of these deaths were of Arabic civilians. The world saw the dehumanization of Iraqis on display at Abu Ghraib, and the wanton killing of civilians by US "contractors." Despite the much greater magnitude of civilian casualties in Iraq, we didn't see anything near the level of protest, societal division, and world-wide condemnation of the US as we are seeing now against Israel's assault on Gaza. So again I ask why is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict the focus of so much of the world's attention and anger on all sides?
I think a more perfect example is the Uighurs and China
Muslims ethnically cleansed from their ancestral land by a more powerful foe that controls that land?
My current hypothesis is: Because Israel is weaker, because this is in the heart of the Islamic world, and because the West pays attention and cares—which means the outcome could change
I agree that the better example is the Uighurs and China. Ethnic cleansing on a mass scale that is largely ignored by the world. Your hypothesis makes sense, as does Markdk21's suggestion of the role played by religion. I've read various other authors who point to the sense of "ownership" of the Holy Lands common among Jews, Muslims, and Christians around the world. Events there take on a significance beyond that accorded to conflict elsewhere, such as the Uighurs or in Syria. Speaking as a (secular) Jew, I have to raise the suggestion that anti-semitism also is a factor. Much of the more virulent anti-Israel rhetoric rapidly crossed over to anti-semitic tropes. One can criticize Israel's actions without resorting to anti-semitism.
It's well worth repeating that question and considering the answers if we want to understand the world we live in and to find ways to solve its problems. Oil is obviously part of the answer, but a long way from all of it. Religion is another large part. People mostly fight to possess valuable, scarce resources and both sides want Jerusalem.
Many years ago I visited the British War Museum and had time to look at the post WWII section. As the colonial powers pulled back from their empires they left a power vacuum in so many areas of the world. Inevitably two sides formed to fight over what was left behind.
Yes, the British bare a large share of responsibility for the historical instability here and elsewhere. They exited both Palestine/Israel and India without working with local populations to facilitate a peaceful and stable transition.
You haven't talked much about the role of US Aid in the region. Israel and Egypt are the #1 and #3 aid recipients over the 1946-2021 period (source: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-receive-the-most-aid-from-the-us/). What if the US, in addition to its all diplomatic efforts, had made more of its aid conditional to an actual two-state solution, put in practice?
Thanks for another excellent piece, Tomás. I think this one should have preceded the others, because it is basic to understand what Israelis want to know why they are doing what they are doing.
The core of the problem, in my view seems to be this:
"Early on, Israeli governments of the Nationalist Bloc supported the creation of Hamas to undermine the secular Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)"
"Over the last few years, Israel facilitated millions of dollars in direct or indirect funding to Hamas, and indirectly supported the regime by drastically increasing the number of worker permits in Gaza."
"When the Nationalist Bloc is in power, Israel punishes Palestinian leadership by doing things that inconvenience it. For example, Israel collects taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and at times it strategically withholds them."
In a previous comment, I asked why neither Israel nor the rest of the world were giving more support to the PA in the West Bank, despite all its flaws, and you indirectly answer with the quotes above: Because the current government in Israel really does not want a strong PA. What the Israeli right has done, is create a monster, which they can now conveniently blame for all atrocities committed... on BOTH sides... they claim they are defending themselves from a monster they helped create. And their defense (or their "security," as they call it) is to wipe out Gaza, and let the settlers run amok in the West Bank... This is simply not acceptable, or should not be acceptable, to the Israelis who are not right leaning or religious, to the US, and to the world. This should be called out. I believe that, in the long run, Israel will lose the support it has now from the majority of the world, just like it happened to the US and its crazy "War on Terror" after 9/11.
The real problem is that there is truly no feasible solution in sight, so this conflict and its violence will continue to carry on indefinitely.
If I were to write this as a book, I would probably write things differently. Alas, I write as I study, and I study as my questions lead me.
You point at one of the pbms indeed. Another is the settlements. Both are shady strategies that go against Israeli security, which is their one true goal.
I agree this should be called out, and that's very much why I do call it out. We need more of it!
Excelente revisión y esfuerzo titánico por entender esta terrible y trágica realidad sin aparente solución y con miles de inocentes sacrificados en ambas partes, más por los palestinos, muchos más , sin que los gritos del resto del mundo sirvan de algo. Gracias, muchas gracias por intentarlo y tan claramente difundirlo.
Well Tomas you continue to argue the case for Israeli policy of the domination and oppression of the Palestinians with next to no quotations or references from Palestinians or objective scholars such as Noam Chomsky. A viable two state solution is the only way out of the decades of bloodshed and oppression. Hamas killing over a thousand Israelis, and the killing thousands of innocent children in Gaza ordered by Netanyahu is not the solution, they are both crimes against humanity.
Thank you for pulling this together! Very well done. Amazing how much history is overlooked or ignored in the current "debate". Looking forward to hearing more from the Palestinian point of view.
Wikipedia has an (excellent?) write-up on the Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba. For my money, I don't htink you can begin to understand the Palestinian viewpoint without understanding exactly what happened leading up to the declaration of Independence in May 1948, and in particular the expulsions of 300,000 and the massacres that formed a Casus Belli for the Arab League - which Israel has conveniently denied and suppressed in their narrative....(and I noticed you make no mention of it).
Will you write an article about the Palestinians view of the past, the conflict, the present, which includes instances as Nakba? It would also be interesting to comment on Hamas leaders who are apparently living a very plush life in Qatar, and why the Arab countries who seem to be tired of Palestinian refugees continue to support them? It seems to me that both the Israelis and many Arab countries profit from the existence of Hamas. It is not easy to understand why the world was able to neutralize the Islamic State relatively fast, and yet Hamas keeps getting stronger and stronger.
I'm unlikely to write about Hamas. I wrote the articles about Gaza and the West Bank, and they cover some of it. I'm not sure how much a dedicated one on Palestinians would help, but I can consider otherwise.
Paul: There is not doubt that the Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948 either because of direct pressure from Jews or from fears of what might happen if they stayed suffered mightily (and I always thought the number was much greater than 300k). I don't doubt they feel hard done by from history, and I think they are justified in feeling that way.
That being said, the 850k Mizrahi Jews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews) who had to leave their previous lives and properties behind when they were expelled or fled from countries across the Middle East also have reason to feel they were shafted. And, of course, the Jews who fled from Europe because of pogroms or in the run up to or aftermath of World War II also have good reason to believe that history was unkind to them (although they obviously feel lucky compared to the 6 million who did not escape).
What has made the Palestinian situation worse, of course, is that they have continued to suffer since 1948. And while I think it is fair to place some of the blame for that on Israel, most of it should be placed on the Arab States who have deliberately chosen to keep the Palestinians as refugees rather than integrating them in and a significant amount on the Palestinian themselves for allowing themselves to be ruled by maximalists who pursued goals they didn't have the ability to deliver versus focusing on making the most of what they have.
It's time for the world to no longer allow Israel to pursue maximalist goals on the West Bank and to be clear that the settlers dreams of "Judea and Samaria" as part of Israel is not going to happen, but it's also time for the world to be honest with the Palestinians that the right of return is just as much a fantasy and it's time for them to move on.
From what Tomas has written so far, the Arab reluctance to absorb the Palestinian persian population has been well covered, as has the question of Palestinian leadership. I think Tomas is doing an amazing job so far steering clear of judgements or assigning blame, as there appears to be a lot to go around.
I personally can't see any solution,... Tomas effectively and definitively destroyed the two-state proposal a few days ago, and he continues to dig the pit deeper with every new post, so I look forward to the next one with anticipation.
Paul: What was the post where you think Tomas effectively and definitively destroyed the two state solution? I think he has posted about why it didn't happen but not about why it could never happen.
Anyway, I'll guess we'll have to wait until next week to see where he tries to lead us.
Sure - given what we know from Tomas' previous analysis of how geography relates to political boundaries and economic success, that's how I read this article....
Key extracts...."I’m going to assume none of this is a coincidence. First, there’s a reason all of this region was a single one for thousands of years: Its different regions are inextricably connected...Now add to that the huge differences of Gaza and West Bank in flatlands vs hills, being landlocked vs open to the world, and being non-contiguous, and you can get the sense of how different the politics in each side would be."
As an fyi, when I write a "2 state solution", I'm really contrasting it with the idea of a 1 state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians are part of the same country (or where one drives the other out).
I would consider a "3 state solution" a variation of what I mean when I say "2 state solution." Ultimately, I'm mostly indifferent to whether the Palestinians choose to have one state that includes the West Bank and Gaza or two different states. I would support whatever solution the Palestinian people decide on.
That said, I think I'm more optimistic than you guys about the West Bank and Gaza being a sustainable polity, as long as there are reasonable transportation links and freedom of movement between the two. Pakistan and Bangladesh are inevitably trotted out as the comparison, but the geographical distance was far greater and that was a time when people were far less mobile. I think a better comparison would be countries made up of multiple islands like Indonesia and the Philippines.
Hmmm...maybe..."Gaza is to the West Bank as New York is to Kentucky" ?? i.e they have nothing really in common, are not connected physically, and would fracture economically and politically even if put together (as they have already done) - i.e. good solid Tomas geopolitical grist for the mill :)
I think you should emphasize the dichotomy facing the Nationalistic Bloc. Under their policies, Israel can be a Jewish state or a democratic state but not both because it must restrict the Palestinian political rights if it wants to have a Jewish majority in the Knesset. Israel needs international support to keep these policies despite its policies being completely antithetical to the core Western democratic values. As you pointed out, the West Bank is basically a military occupation with military orders governing the rule of law for Palestinians.
It is not at all clear that such support can be forthcoming in the long-run.
Yes, the Nationalist approach is definitely not viable in the long run. There is no way anyone will (or should) support an approach that keeps the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza a permanent minority without rights. A two state solution is the only viable path forward that leads to lives of dignity for both sides.
The world (led by the U.S.) needs to force Israelis to accept it (the Peace Bloc within Israel is too small), while also offering the security guarantees (through a demilitarized West Bank and Gaza enforced by a large international peacekeeping force) to replace the security through oppression that has been the basis for the Nationalist's support.
The temple area within the West Bank seems to be a nonstarter of negotiations. The ideas that the US can force this or anyone arises from the same well that keeps failing.
I don’t have the answer. If most people would start there we might find it.
IMHO as a secular Jew. Pretty mush also not a Zionist of any kind other than Israel must exist.
The discussion is very worthy and when Palestinians are held to make a solution equally as Israel, we can move forward. Make Syria or Iran make them. See how silly it sounds?
Yes the war is on (mostly juvenile) narratives that kill a lot of innocent people - that doesn't mean the evidence should be ignored academically but more importantly genuine solutions found. There comes a time when the narratives are just not important and more adult behaviour implemented.
As an Israeli following the conflict closely for the past 40 years I have to say this is a masterful series. The way you present the viewpoints of all sides in a way that allows the reader to make sense of how they see the world is invaluable. I wish this series would be required reading for any non Israeli/Palestinian who wants to express their viewpoints on this subject, as well as to Israelis and Palestinians!
You’re onto something
Another informative & insightful article.
Basically a majority of the Israeli political base (Nationalist + religious) don't support compromise or peace, and the same may be said for Hamas & other Palestinians. And the two sides feed each other.
One can only hope that the apocalypse now unfolding will cause a shift in those attitudes. Until then, neither side is fit to govern, so (IMO) the UN (excluding the US) should take over and keep the peace — even if that's for a 100 years until the people, attitudes & economics change & the hatred fades.
It may sound trite, but a key ingredient for peace is to care about living people, and though it may be easy for me to say it, that really should mean giving absolute total priority to currently living people over any kind of resentment or ambitions to reclaim what was lost by those who died hundreds or thousands of years ago.
It can certainly take time for people to recover from major traumas, and the effects of trauma can be passed down through generations, but eventually it fades. Britain was invaded by the Romans 2000 years ago, and by the French 1000 years ago, but I think most Brits have let it go now.
So the bit where you, Tomas, talk about how things could be very different in 100 years is really important, but we need to find a way to hold things together peacefully until then.
Spot on
There is no chance the UN will take over and "keep the peace". After Israel's Gaza withdrawal in 2005 much stake was put on placing an international brigade on the border with Israel to keep the peace. They ran away with the first shot heard from Palestinian side. The Middle East is seething with violence in many fronts. No country in the world is willing to have its children killed in this swamp to protect the peace (all while Iran, Hezbollah and various other forces are meddling and pushing). In other words the idea is no more than a fantasy.
Perhaps the British then — you could say we owe it to them.
Maybe we should never have left.
This attack will only harden the stance of nationalists and religious bloc. Only hope is that Americans put enough pressure on Israel to accept two state solution.
Astounding inside look of Israel. As an Israeli, I confirm every word and analysis. Admiratoon the clear explanations and writing. I am very excited and impressed. And I love yr maps snd infographics.
Thank you!
Excellent piece Tomas. Israel won't be able to move forward with Palestinians until it resolves the clash between its three factions. The Haredim are schnorrers (moochers), demanding resources but not contributing to Israel's economy or defense. The Palestinians won't move forward until they stop holding out for the elimination of Israel and, rather, accept that it will continue to exist within some borders. This means rejecting Hamas, whose "business model" is predicated on the fantasy that Israel will be replaced with a caliphate. Surely the political leaders of Hama understand that this is a myth, but having chosen to define themselves on the basis of resistance and terrorism rather than responsible governance, they will never agree to any accommodation with Israel. Netanyahu thought that he had reached an agreement with Hamas, but Oct 7 showed that he was catastrophically wrong in his assessment. As Tomas said, the Palestinians have not only been failed by Hamas, but also by the neighboring Arab countries. After fighting and losing several wars with Israel, the neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria now accept the existence of Israel. The Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia are cutting economic deals with Israel who thy see as a worthy trade partner as the price and future of oil plummets. For reasons discussed by Tomas, Palestine has little of economic value to offer the neighbors and is viewed by them as largely an annoying distraction from doing business with Israel and the West. These factors place Palestine in an isolated position, with little power to improve their situation. The combination of Israel's internal conflicts and Palestine's lack of status makes it difficult to see an obvious path forward.
Excelente artículo Tomás (¡y también toda la serie sobre este conflicto!).
Mi interés por los asuntos palestinos e israelíes arrancó hará unos 10 años, a través de los cuales fui leyendo, pensando y aprendiendo, poco a poco sobre toda esta historia . Tu exposición, en toda esta serie de artículos, me ha permitido terminar de ordenar y comprender, al menos en lo más general, la génesis y el desarrollo del conflicto árabe-israelí.
¡Se agradece enormemente!
Cuánto me alegro!
The nationalist trilemma is that Israel can be Jewish, democratic, expanded - pick two.
This is indeed one way to put it.
Very good piece Tomas. Though I'm far from an expert, my sense is that the piece accurately captures the different poles in Israel. As an American Jew who has long been a J-Street supporter and considers themselves squarely in the Peace Camp, I'm really looking forward to your next piece.
Here is on my own take on what is needed to achieve a lasting solution that gives the Palestinians both a viable state and a chance to have fulfilling lives:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
It doesn't get all into the details of the land swaps (which is one of the reasons I'm so looking forward to your take on that), but I think you might find it interesting because of what it says about what the U.S. role needs to be and the thoughts on justice.
Thanks for sharing your article and for the simplicity of its message. I work mainly on helping to solve the problems of individuals, one of the most common problems I encounter is talking to people who are stuck in the past due to unresolved grief. Your article talks about the idea of shared grief as a barrier to moving on. There are solutions if people choose to look for them.
Vox did a great piece on the Settlements here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6L9mS9ti6o . It's pretty hard to see how a solution that involved walking away from this type of infrastructure would be viable, IMO.
Thanks for the link Paul.
That's certainly been the Nationalist Bloc's strategy in the West Bank. To establish facts on the ground that will make it harder for Israel to pull out. But I would make three arguments:
- First, for the settlements that are essentially right on the border, there can some land swaps for others areas that would make those settlements a part of Israel (along the lines of what was discussed at Oslo and Taba).
- Second, in the grand scheme of things, the cost of whatever infrastructure the settlers leave behind, is a drop in the bucket compared to the savings (in terms of resources, time, and lives) that Israel will gain through a viable long term peace.
- Third, the U.S. and the world should essentially give Israel no choice. The U.S. should not only cut off aid to Israel if it doesn't cede the vast majority of the West Bank to the Palestinian state but should back strong sanctions against Israel as well. As for the settlers, if they want to remain on these lands they can, but they need to understand their claims will be fully under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian state (just as the Palestinians living in Israel are fully under the jurisdiction of the Israeli state).
Unfortunately that's not the USA we have right now....
You're probably right, but (assuming you're American) I think it's our responsibility to try and get it there.
And to Biden's credit, I think he has played it exactly right so far. Expressing full sympathy for the Israelis in the wake of October 7th and supporting the fight back against Hamas (while urging Israel to do what all that is reasonable to spare civilians lives while conducting this fight) was the right thing to do.
But that support should come at a price. And that price should be a pivot soon that makes it clear that part of the fight against Hamas is offering real hope to the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians. And that means creating a viable state for the Palestinians on the West Bank and no longer supporting the settlers provocations.
Tomas, here's another of my questions about "why is this conflict different from all other conflicts." In 2003 the US invaded Iraq on the false premise that it was involved in 9/11. It is estimated that at least 150,000 people, and perhaps many more, died over the next three years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). Most of these deaths were of Arabic civilians. The world saw the dehumanization of Iraqis on display at Abu Ghraib, and the wanton killing of civilians by US "contractors." Despite the much greater magnitude of civilian casualties in Iraq, we didn't see anything near the level of protest, societal division, and world-wide condemnation of the US as we are seeing now against Israel's assault on Gaza. So again I ask why is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict the focus of so much of the world's attention and anger on all sides?
I think a more perfect example is the Uighurs and China
Muslims ethnically cleansed from their ancestral land by a more powerful foe that controls that land?
My current hypothesis is: Because Israel is weaker, because this is in the heart of the Islamic world, and because the West pays attention and cares—which means the outcome could change
I agree that the better example is the Uighurs and China. Ethnic cleansing on a mass scale that is largely ignored by the world. Your hypothesis makes sense, as does Markdk21's suggestion of the role played by religion. I've read various other authors who point to the sense of "ownership" of the Holy Lands common among Jews, Muslims, and Christians around the world. Events there take on a significance beyond that accorded to conflict elsewhere, such as the Uighurs or in Syria. Speaking as a (secular) Jew, I have to raise the suggestion that anti-semitism also is a factor. Much of the more virulent anti-Israel rhetoric rapidly crossed over to anti-semitic tropes. One can criticize Israel's actions without resorting to anti-semitism.
It's well worth repeating that question and considering the answers if we want to understand the world we live in and to find ways to solve its problems. Oil is obviously part of the answer, but a long way from all of it. Religion is another large part. People mostly fight to possess valuable, scarce resources and both sides want Jerusalem.
Many years ago I visited the British War Museum and had time to look at the post WWII section. As the colonial powers pulled back from their empires they left a power vacuum in so many areas of the world. Inevitably two sides formed to fight over what was left behind.
Yes, the British bare a large share of responsibility for the historical instability here and elsewhere. They exited both Palestine/Israel and India without working with local populations to facilitate a peaceful and stable transition.
You haven't talked much about the role of US Aid in the region. Israel and Egypt are the #1 and #3 aid recipients over the 1946-2021 period (source: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-receive-the-most-aid-from-the-us/). What if the US, in addition to its all diplomatic efforts, had made more of its aid conditional to an actual two-state solution, put in practice?
That would certainly help
I don’t know well the US’ incentives for these beyond simple peace in the Middle East. I need to learn more.
Thanks for another excellent piece, Tomás. I think this one should have preceded the others, because it is basic to understand what Israelis want to know why they are doing what they are doing.
The core of the problem, in my view seems to be this:
"Early on, Israeli governments of the Nationalist Bloc supported the creation of Hamas to undermine the secular Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)"
"Over the last few years, Israel facilitated millions of dollars in direct or indirect funding to Hamas, and indirectly supported the regime by drastically increasing the number of worker permits in Gaza."
"When the Nationalist Bloc is in power, Israel punishes Palestinian leadership by doing things that inconvenience it. For example, Israel collects taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and at times it strategically withholds them."
In a previous comment, I asked why neither Israel nor the rest of the world were giving more support to the PA in the West Bank, despite all its flaws, and you indirectly answer with the quotes above: Because the current government in Israel really does not want a strong PA. What the Israeli right has done, is create a monster, which they can now conveniently blame for all atrocities committed... on BOTH sides... they claim they are defending themselves from a monster they helped create. And their defense (or their "security," as they call it) is to wipe out Gaza, and let the settlers run amok in the West Bank... This is simply not acceptable, or should not be acceptable, to the Israelis who are not right leaning or religious, to the US, and to the world. This should be called out. I believe that, in the long run, Israel will lose the support it has now from the majority of the world, just like it happened to the US and its crazy "War on Terror" after 9/11.
The real problem is that there is truly no feasible solution in sight, so this conflict and its violence will continue to carry on indefinitely.
If I were to write this as a book, I would probably write things differently. Alas, I write as I study, and I study as my questions lead me.
You point at one of the pbms indeed. Another is the settlements. Both are shady strategies that go against Israeli security, which is their one true goal.
I agree this should be called out, and that's very much why I do call it out. We need more of it!
Excelente revisión y esfuerzo titánico por entender esta terrible y trágica realidad sin aparente solución y con miles de inocentes sacrificados en ambas partes, más por los palestinos, muchos más , sin que los gritos del resto del mundo sirvan de algo. Gracias, muchas gracias por intentarlo y tan claramente difundirlo.
Well Tomas you continue to argue the case for Israeli policy of the domination and oppression of the Palestinians with next to no quotations or references from Palestinians or objective scholars such as Noam Chomsky. A viable two state solution is the only way out of the decades of bloodshed and oppression. Hamas killing over a thousand Israelis, and the killing thousands of innocent children in Gaza ordered by Netanyahu is not the solution, they are both crimes against humanity.
Yes, this is very much an Israeli narrative. The article you discuss will be the next one.
Thank you for pulling this together! Very well done. Amazing how much history is overlooked or ignored in the current "debate". Looking forward to hearing more from the Palestinian point of view.
Wikipedia has an (excellent?) write-up on the Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba. For my money, I don't htink you can begin to understand the Palestinian viewpoint without understanding exactly what happened leading up to the declaration of Independence in May 1948, and in particular the expulsions of 300,000 and the massacres that formed a Casus Belli for the Arab League - which Israel has conveniently denied and suppressed in their narrative....(and I noticed you make no mention of it).
I agree
This article is the Israeli narrative, so of course it doesn’t dive into the Palestinian aspect of it. What you say about the Nakba is true.
Will you write an article about the Palestinians view of the past, the conflict, the present, which includes instances as Nakba? It would also be interesting to comment on Hamas leaders who are apparently living a very plush life in Qatar, and why the Arab countries who seem to be tired of Palestinian refugees continue to support them? It seems to me that both the Israelis and many Arab countries profit from the existence of Hamas. It is not easy to understand why the world was able to neutralize the Islamic State relatively fast, and yet Hamas keeps getting stronger and stronger.
Ah, yes indeed...
I'm unlikely to write about Hamas. I wrote the articles about Gaza and the West Bank, and they cover some of it. I'm not sure how much a dedicated one on Palestinians would help, but I can consider otherwise.
Agreed that this is convenient to many
I think Tomas talked a bit about the Nakba in this piece https://open.substack.com/pub/unchartedterritories/p/the-gaza-trap?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=198q70
Although, maybe not in great detail, given that it is a core part of Palestinian identity and sympathies.
Paul: There is not doubt that the Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948 either because of direct pressure from Jews or from fears of what might happen if they stayed suffered mightily (and I always thought the number was much greater than 300k). I don't doubt they feel hard done by from history, and I think they are justified in feeling that way.
That being said, the 850k Mizrahi Jews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews) who had to leave their previous lives and properties behind when they were expelled or fled from countries across the Middle East also have reason to feel they were shafted. And, of course, the Jews who fled from Europe because of pogroms or in the run up to or aftermath of World War II also have good reason to believe that history was unkind to them (although they obviously feel lucky compared to the 6 million who did not escape).
What has made the Palestinian situation worse, of course, is that they have continued to suffer since 1948. And while I think it is fair to place some of the blame for that on Israel, most of it should be placed on the Arab States who have deliberately chosen to keep the Palestinians as refugees rather than integrating them in and a significant amount on the Palestinian themselves for allowing themselves to be ruled by maximalists who pursued goals they didn't have the ability to deliver versus focusing on making the most of what they have.
It's time for the world to no longer allow Israel to pursue maximalist goals on the West Bank and to be clear that the settlers dreams of "Judea and Samaria" as part of Israel is not going to happen, but it's also time for the world to be honest with the Palestinians that the right of return is just as much a fantasy and it's time for them to move on.
I broadly agree. There is one fundamental obstacle to that though. I will cover it next Tuesday.
Looking forward to the piece!
From what Tomas has written so far, the Arab reluctance to absorb the Palestinian persian population has been well covered, as has the question of Palestinian leadership. I think Tomas is doing an amazing job so far steering clear of judgements or assigning blame, as there appears to be a lot to go around.
I personally can't see any solution,... Tomas effectively and definitively destroyed the two-state proposal a few days ago, and he continues to dig the pit deeper with every new post, so I look forward to the next one with anticipation.
Hopefully, it’s like one of these good stories, for which you can’t foresee the resolution, but once you know it, it becomes obvious all along.
Paul: What was the post where you think Tomas effectively and definitively destroyed the two state solution? I think he has posted about why it didn't happen but not about why it could never happen.
Anyway, I'll guess we'll have to wait until next week to see where he tries to lead us.
He might refer to this, the one premium article of the series so far
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/west-bank?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Fwiw I think it is possible. We’ll see that on Thursday. But geopolitically 3 states makes more sense.
Sure - given what we know from Tomas' previous analysis of how geography relates to political boundaries and economic success, that's how I read this article....
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/west-bank
Key extracts...."I’m going to assume none of this is a coincidence. First, there’s a reason all of this region was a single one for thousands of years: Its different regions are inextricably connected...Now add to that the huge differences of Gaza and West Bank in flatlands vs hills, being landlocked vs open to the world, and being non-contiguous, and you can get the sense of how different the politics in each side would be."
Ah ok. Now, I understand.
As an fyi, when I write a "2 state solution", I'm really contrasting it with the idea of a 1 state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians are part of the same country (or where one drives the other out).
I would consider a "3 state solution" a variation of what I mean when I say "2 state solution." Ultimately, I'm mostly indifferent to whether the Palestinians choose to have one state that includes the West Bank and Gaza or two different states. I would support whatever solution the Palestinian people decide on.
That said, I think I'm more optimistic than you guys about the West Bank and Gaza being a sustainable polity, as long as there are reasonable transportation links and freedom of movement between the two. Pakistan and Bangladesh are inevitably trotted out as the comparison, but the geographical distance was far greater and that was a time when people were far less mobile. I think a better comparison would be countries made up of multiple islands like Indonesia and the Philippines.
It is viable indeed
I'm not sure what the "3 state solution" is. I'm unemployed so not paying.
A one-line summary would be great!
Hmmm...maybe..."Gaza is to the West Bank as New York is to Kentucky" ?? i.e they have nothing really in common, are not connected physically, and would fracture economically and politically even if put together (as they have already done) - i.e. good solid Tomas geopolitical grist for the mill :)
I think you should emphasize the dichotomy facing the Nationalistic Bloc. Under their policies, Israel can be a Jewish state or a democratic state but not both because it must restrict the Palestinian political rights if it wants to have a Jewish majority in the Knesset. Israel needs international support to keep these policies despite its policies being completely antithetical to the core Western democratic values. As you pointed out, the West Bank is basically a military occupation with military orders governing the rule of law for Palestinians.
It is not at all clear that such support can be forthcoming in the long-run.
Yes, the Nationalist approach is definitely not viable in the long run. There is no way anyone will (or should) support an approach that keeps the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza a permanent minority without rights. A two state solution is the only viable path forward that leads to lives of dignity for both sides.
The world (led by the U.S.) needs to force Israelis to accept it (the Peace Bloc within Israel is too small), while also offering the security guarantees (through a demilitarized West Bank and Gaza enforced by a large international peacekeeping force) to replace the security through oppression that has been the basis for the Nationalist's support.
I agree
Nice magic wand.
The temple area within the West Bank seems to be a nonstarter of negotiations. The ideas that the US can force this or anyone arises from the same well that keeps failing.
I don’t have the answer. If most people would start there we might find it.
IMHO as a secular Jew. Pretty mush also not a Zionist of any kind other than Israel must exist.
The discussion is very worthy and when Palestinians are held to make a solution equally as Israel, we can move forward. Make Syria or Iran make them. See how silly it sounds?
The Old City is mostly a solved problem, as we will see this Thursday.
Yes. I think the other gentleman on the thread, if I’m not mistaken, would let it go. Thanks.
Yes the war is on (mostly juvenile) narratives that kill a lot of innocent people - that doesn't mean the evidence should be ignored academically but more importantly genuine solutions found. There comes a time when the narratives are just not important and more adult behaviour implemented.
And yet here we are, more childish than ever