As most people know, last Saturday brought an unprecedented series of attacks on Israel by Palestinian militants. The violence has made above-the-fold headlines in major newspapers around the world every day since. Depending on where you sit politically, the attacks are either the
I think this is a thoughtful response to a terrible situation, and therefore likely to be dismissed by people on both sides. There is a place for certainty, and identifying evil, and the terrorist attacks by Hamas are definitely evil. The danger of certainty is taking that moment of evil and viewing the entire Israel-Palestine conflict through that lens. There's a danger of bringing certainty to any response to certain evil, and then "level the place" as Lindsay Graham advocated about Gaza. I do also worry about what I would call "the Anti-Certainty Trap"--dismissing views because they express certainty. You attack the Jacobin article as an example of the evils of certainty, but I thought it was a useful, and biased but thoughtful article. The only way we can escape the Certainty Trap is by listening to many different views, including those people who we think are wrong because of their certainty.
"That is: can (as in does it have the right to) or should Israel exist as a Jewish state? If one side says yes and the other say no...."
Good question. To be clear, I think Israel has the right to exist as a secular republic which protects the rights of its citizens and with a large Jewish majority. And those caveats: "republic with rights to citizens" are key. Otherwise, it's just another tyranny. (Does it always measure up? Sadly, NO. Is there a freer country in the Middle East? I don't think so.)
I can't comment on "Palestinians" in general (who largely probably want to live in peace), but I can observe the actions of the people in charge in those regions, the people who claim to represent the "Palestinians". It appears to me that side does not believe in the right of Israel to exist. Going back to the original 1947 UN partition plan -- a 2 state solution -- it appears that the govt. of Israel has been willing to accept a 2 state solution, but -- first the "Arabs", later the "Palestinian leadership" -- appears to have consistently rejected proposed 2 state solutions. And it seems like Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, as are chants of "From the Jordan to the sea, Palestine should be free". None of that sounds like acknowledgement of the right of Israel to exist.
I'd welcome evidence to the contrary, or perhaps evidence of what the borders of an Israel acceptable to Palestinian leadership would look like. If I'm correct, it is an irreconcilable difference -- at least with the current crop of "Palestinian leaders".
I'm not sure if I'm closing on an optimistic or pessimistic note, but it doesn't have to be "Attack, defend, repeat. " WW-II was horribly bloody, as was the US Civil War. But neither were attack, defend, repeat.
I think this is a thoughtful response to a terrible situation, and therefore likely to be dismissed by people on both sides. There is a place for certainty, and identifying evil, and the terrorist attacks by Hamas are definitely evil. The danger of certainty is taking that moment of evil and viewing the entire Israel-Palestine conflict through that lens. There's a danger of bringing certainty to any response to certain evil, and then "level the place" as Lindsay Graham advocated about Gaza. I do also worry about what I would call "the Anti-Certainty Trap"--dismissing views because they express certainty. You attack the Jacobin article as an example of the evils of certainty, but I thought it was a useful, and biased but thoughtful article. The only way we can escape the Certainty Trap is by listening to many different views, including those people who we think are wrong because of their certainty.
"That is: can (as in does it have the right to) or should Israel exist as a Jewish state? If one side says yes and the other say no...."
Good question. To be clear, I think Israel has the right to exist as a secular republic which protects the rights of its citizens and with a large Jewish majority. And those caveats: "republic with rights to citizens" are key. Otherwise, it's just another tyranny. (Does it always measure up? Sadly, NO. Is there a freer country in the Middle East? I don't think so.)
I can't comment on "Palestinians" in general (who largely probably want to live in peace), but I can observe the actions of the people in charge in those regions, the people who claim to represent the "Palestinians". It appears to me that side does not believe in the right of Israel to exist. Going back to the original 1947 UN partition plan -- a 2 state solution -- it appears that the govt. of Israel has been willing to accept a 2 state solution, but -- first the "Arabs", later the "Palestinian leadership" -- appears to have consistently rejected proposed 2 state solutions. And it seems like Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, as are chants of "From the Jordan to the sea, Palestine should be free". None of that sounds like acknowledgement of the right of Israel to exist.
I'd welcome evidence to the contrary, or perhaps evidence of what the borders of an Israel acceptable to Palestinian leadership would look like. If I'm correct, it is an irreconcilable difference -- at least with the current crop of "Palestinian leaders".
I'm not sure if I'm closing on an optimistic or pessimistic note, but it doesn't have to be "Attack, defend, repeat. " WW-II was horribly bloody, as was the US Civil War. But neither were attack, defend, repeat.