Ross Barkan, the same fellow who wrote a loving piece about his father and baseball, pens one of the best, most thoughtful, essays I’ve read on this difficult subject. Keep writing Ross, the world needs your voice.
I just finished the Netanyahus this week and read your Baffler piece for the first time. It may be my favorite thing you’ve ever written. It really helped me elucidate my thoughts - and then some - on the schisms in the ideologies of Jewish people both here and there, then and now.
I agree with what you wrote. I am very much emotionally tied to the goal of a safe and secure Jewish homeland. That's my lens. So the question is what serves that goal best. It's certainly not the government of Netanyahu. He's been a disaster for that goal.
I don't know what's best over the next days and weeks and months. Borrowing a term from the great Daniel Kahneman, however, I hope there's a pre-mortem discussed in the room where decisions are being made, i.e., how could this decision be bad for Israel?
Ross: I could be convinced that Israel's plans for Gaza (which are still unclear to me) are a mistake, but I don't understand what you're proposing instead.
You write: "If politicians like Fetterman do not want a ceasefire, they must be asked what it is, exactly, they have planned for Gaza when the bombs stop falling. What is their reconstruction plan? What are their hopes for a grand occupation?"
That's a fair question to ask Fetterman (and people like me) who are calling for supporting Israel while they target Hamas (though I would add the caveat that my support is predicated on the IDF doing all they can reasonably can do to reduce civilian casualties as they try to capture or kill Hamas leaders and soldiers).
But then the fair question to ask you (and others calling for a ceasefire) is what are you proposing other than a ceasefire? Or is that it?
To clarify Stanley, I meant that I was unclear about whether Israel is planning a ground invasion and if so what the parameters are. But I think Israel's goals are clear: to remove Hamas from Gaza by capturing or killing its members.
I think you're definitely wrong that Israel wants to drive the Palestinians from Gaza (note: do I think that would be a fair charge about those in Israel who talk about recovering "Judea and Samaria"). Here's a few questions I would ask you if you think I'm wrong:
- If Israel wanted to drive the Palestinians from Gaza why did they withdraw from Gaza in 2005?
- If Israel has been trying to drive Palestinians from Gaza, why has the population there grown from 1.3 million in 2005 to over 2.0 million today?
- Given the density of Gaza and Israel's military capabilities, I believe that if Israel were deliberately trying to kill civilians in Gaza, the death toll would not be 4,000 or even 40k, but more like 400k. The fact that it's only about 1% of that reinforces for me the idea that Israel is trying to target Hamas and spare Gaza civilians. Where do you think that reasoning is wrong?
That's far from obvious. They have had many chances to accomplish such a final victory. They still hesitate. The most obvious reason is that governing an annexed Gaza - and being responsible for its welfare - would be a lot more difficult than merely guarding the entrances & exits of the place, as they do now.
There were fringe calls in about 2006 for the United States to annex Iraq, and offer statehood to its regions. Such a plan seems bizarre - is bizarre, simply on a geographical basis - but at this point peaceful Israeli governance of the Palestinians seems all but impossible.
The only long-term solution will be separating these two quarrelling neighbors - there are many homelands open for the settling in our beautiful New World - but such a thing cannot happen until Israel bites the bullet and "wins." Such a thing does seem inevitable, but after how many more years of pointless blood?
I suggest we plan now for the inevitable, and along the Red River plant some grand banks of ruby red olive trees, that when these huddled masses come to us at last, they may mistake it for the Jordan, and build sunbaked whitewashed manses of pure unblooded stone and clay, and in North Texas, say, find peace and rest, ensconced with us, their brothers in exile.
Correct. It’s easy to criticize Israel for trying to kill terrorists somehow - yet everyone advocating for a ceasefire doesn’t explain how to achieve justice and stop future Hamas attacks. No one should be expected to turn the other cheek after this.
It's essentially a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (with Israeli giving up almost all the settlements and with a U.S. led peacekeeping force enforcing the demilitarization).
I have an idea - how about we stop backing an apartheid regime bent on genocide, and let them create an actual democracy - one that gives all people, regardless of race, equal rights and reparations?
It astounds me that that people openly advocate for race-based citizenship in this day and age.
If the Zionists have a right to return to their homeland, shouldn't people actually living there now have the same rights?
And I'll ask this question for the thousandth time - how many America supporters of Zionism are making plans to practice what they preach, and give their land back to the native Americans.
Stanley wrote: "It astounds me that that people openly advocate for race-based citizenship in this day and age."
Er, I assume you meant religion not race. Israel obviously has religious based citizenship laws, not race based. And I'm curious whether you are comfortable with all the Islamic Republics and their laws.
But if you're really just talking about the Law of Return a few points:
- Except for a small percent of religious zealots, Jews don't base the right of return on a biblical claim on the land. There is definitely a biblical attachment to the land ("next year in Jerusalem" but not a claim).
- The Zionist claim to the land is based on emigrating and settling it, getting recognized as a country, fighting a bunch of wars (none of which were started by Israel) and claiming territory. And while we can debate whether that is legitimate, it is literally how virtually every nation state on Earth's borders were determined.
- The Law of Return privileges Jews because Israel is explicitly meant to be a Jewish state. Given the history of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the idea that this is somehow illegitimate strikes me as utterly ridiculous.
- I would agree that this situation is unjust for Palestinians who fled their homes because of Jewish intimidation during the Nakba (and I would acknowledge that this is indeed the reason that some fled).
Which leads to your "question to Americans", which is ironic because it actually makes the opposite point of the one you intended. To answer you directly, I'm certainly not planning to give my land back to the descendants of the Native Americans who lived here at one time. I don't think they have a legitimate claim to today's land based on the fact that their ancestors lived in the area.
But of course the equivalent to the Native Americans in your analogy is really the Palestinians not the Jews. To be clear, I believe neither the Palestinians nor the Native Americans have claim on the lands their ancestors left (whether willingly nor unwillingly). Similarly, I don't think Russians, Poles, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, the French, Spanish, or other Europeans should be obligated to return the land they now own to Jewish claimants because their ancestors killed or drove off the Jews' ancestors. It's past time to move on from all these claims. No hypocrisy there.
The question, however is whether YOU are willing to practice what you preach by giving your land back to the Native Americans. And if not, why do you think the Palestinians have a claim on their ancestors' lands when the Native Americans don't?
Native americans are free to roam the country, purchase land, with equal rights to everyone. Palestinians are not and thats because unlike the USA, Israelis are hell bent on preserving their ethno-state. Which requires active ethnic cleansing and land theft. Hence https://colterlouwerse.substack.com/p/does-israel-target-civilians
Thanks for the Colter link NS. Will try to engage there.
Meanwhile, native Americans are indeed free to roam the country and purchase land with equal rights today but that wasn't the case in the 1700 and 1800s. And I suspect that if there were 200 million Native Americans living on reservations in American today and their political leadership (and public opinion generally) was committed to driving all non-Native Americans out of the country, they wouldn't be free to roam the country and purchase land today either.
I would also guess that if an attack from a reservation resulted in the slaughter of 50,000 Americans, and the folks who perpetrated that slaughter hid among the women and children of that reservation, the U.S. would do whatever is necessary to capture or kill the perpetrators, even if it resulted in the death of a significant number of the woman and children they were hiding amongst. That at least is my best guess at what would happen.
Meanwhile, three questions for you NS:
- If a Native American family came to you and provided evidence that their ancestors used to live on the land you own, would you give them the property. If not, why not?
- Do you have an idea for how the Hamas leaders and fighters who slaughtered Israeli civilians on October 7th can be captured or killed without harming innocents Gazans? If so, can you share it.
- What do you think of this proposal for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
"- If a Native American family came to you and provided evidence that their ancestors used to live on the land you own, would you give them the property. If not, why not?"
If it was my religious ancestors that had evicted them from the land, they'd have a right to live in the land as citizens or at least seek out land for purchasing to re-citizen. Most Palestinians were Muslims, Muslims didn't expel Jews when they conquered the Holy Land so this point is moot.
"- Do you have an idea for how the Hamas leaders and fighters who slaughtered Israeli civilians on October 7th can be captured or killed without harming innocents Gazans? If so, can you share it."
Do you have any idea on how the IDF leaders and fighters who slaughtered Palestinian civilians in the Past 75 years, a few who are still alive from the massacres that preceded it can be captured or killed without harming Israeli civilians? If so, can you share it.
"Israel pulls back from the West Bank except for a few settlements close to the border and swaps other lands in exchange for the settlement lands they are keeping."
Palestinians have a right to Jerusalem. It doesn't really matter how Israelis feel about it because Israelis are the aggressors and thieves here.
"Palestine gains recognition as a country and full self-government but agrees to full demilitarization (perhaps indefinitely or maybe for a set period of years) and agrees to give up all claims on lands within Israel."
They have the right of return to the lands Jews expelled them from in the Nakba. Israel can perhaps return most of that land and center a 99% Jewish state in a smaller area around Tel Aviv. And it's more fair to demand Israelis demilitarize considering 1) they started it, 2) they've done far worse.
"Big fences for the foreseeable future."
Sure but it should be reasonable to the Palestinians, not merely "might makes right therefore Israelis get most of their burglery". If might makes right is the argument here, I can tell you now Palestinians have a far stronger will. If Israelis were subject to what they do to Palestinians they would have quit well ahead. Palestinians mostly believe in an eternal paradise and punishment so they're not going to give up the fight.
There is a reasonable fear that Palestinian statehood outside Israeli oversight would just mean far greater access to weapons for Hamas, and no real reduction in hostility. Yet full annexation would mean Israel faced a domestic rather than international terror threat - much harder to secure against. So either outcome probably results in more & more horrific terrorism in the coming decades - but the present course looks to be heading that way too.
Whether Hamas is upping the ante out of intra-organizational pressure or to attract international attention, upping the ante seems to be their plan. There is no surrender or ceasefire for Hamas. It is antithetical to their fundaments, and more importantly, any Hamas leader agreeing to a ceasefire would be ousted in short order.
Israel has conquered the Palestinians - it is a fait accompli - and if we for a moment set human life as our prime concern, above "homelands" and "historical rectitude," it is clear that what has been long accomplished must at last be acknowledged. This state of limbo must not go on.
Is it too much to ask the mercy of conquest for these huddled masses? is it too much to ask the mercy of exile for those to whom Israeli rule is now intolerable? We have here in America a golden door through which many exiles past have stepped, and in stepping, have forgotten the pomp & persecution which drove them to our shore.
Ross Barkan, the same fellow who wrote a loving piece about his father and baseball, pens one of the best, most thoughtful, essays I’ve read on this difficult subject. Keep writing Ross, the world needs your voice.
thank you, I really appreciate that Robert!
I just finished the Netanyahus this week and read your Baffler piece for the first time. It may be my favorite thing you’ve ever written. It really helped me elucidate my thoughts - and then some - on the schisms in the ideologies of Jewish people both here and there, then and now.
thank you, I appreciate that! honestly, it might be the nonfiction piece I'm most proud of
I agree with what you wrote. I am very much emotionally tied to the goal of a safe and secure Jewish homeland. That's my lens. So the question is what serves that goal best. It's certainly not the government of Netanyahu. He's been a disaster for that goal.
I don't know what's best over the next days and weeks and months. Borrowing a term from the great Daniel Kahneman, however, I hope there's a pre-mortem discussed in the room where decisions are being made, i.e., how could this decision be bad for Israel?
robertsdavidn.substack.com
Thoughtful, restrained, difficult and challenging like most Barkan-may his stature grow.
Ross: I could be convinced that Israel's plans for Gaza (which are still unclear to me) are a mistake, but I don't understand what you're proposing instead.
You write: "If politicians like Fetterman do not want a ceasefire, they must be asked what it is, exactly, they have planned for Gaza when the bombs stop falling. What is their reconstruction plan? What are their hopes for a grand occupation?"
That's a fair question to ask Fetterman (and people like me) who are calling for supporting Israel while they target Hamas (though I would add the caveat that my support is predicated on the IDF doing all they can reasonably can do to reduce civilian casualties as they try to capture or kill Hamas leaders and soldiers).
But then the fair question to ask you (and others calling for a ceasefire) is what are you proposing other than a ceasefire? Or is that it?
"Israel's plans for Gaza (which are still unclear to me)"
Their plans, obviously, are to continue to drive the Palestinians from their land.
Why pretend?
To clarify Stanley, I meant that I was unclear about whether Israel is planning a ground invasion and if so what the parameters are. But I think Israel's goals are clear: to remove Hamas from Gaza by capturing or killing its members.
I think you're definitely wrong that Israel wants to drive the Palestinians from Gaza (note: do I think that would be a fair charge about those in Israel who talk about recovering "Judea and Samaria"). Here's a few questions I would ask you if you think I'm wrong:
- If Israel wanted to drive the Palestinians from Gaza why did they withdraw from Gaza in 2005?
- If Israel has been trying to drive Palestinians from Gaza, why has the population there grown from 1.3 million in 2005 to over 2.0 million today?
- Given the density of Gaza and Israel's military capabilities, I believe that if Israel were deliberately trying to kill civilians in Gaza, the death toll would not be 4,000 or even 40k, but more like 400k. The fact that it's only about 1% of that reinforces for me the idea that Israel is trying to target Hamas and spare Gaza civilians. Where do you think that reasoning is wrong?
That's far from obvious. They have had many chances to accomplish such a final victory. They still hesitate. The most obvious reason is that governing an annexed Gaza - and being responsible for its welfare - would be a lot more difficult than merely guarding the entrances & exits of the place, as they do now.
There were fringe calls in about 2006 for the United States to annex Iraq, and offer statehood to its regions. Such a plan seems bizarre - is bizarre, simply on a geographical basis - but at this point peaceful Israeli governance of the Palestinians seems all but impossible.
The only long-term solution will be separating these two quarrelling neighbors - there are many homelands open for the settling in our beautiful New World - but such a thing cannot happen until Israel bites the bullet and "wins." Such a thing does seem inevitable, but after how many more years of pointless blood?
I suggest we plan now for the inevitable, and along the Red River plant some grand banks of ruby red olive trees, that when these huddled masses come to us at last, they may mistake it for the Jordan, and build sunbaked whitewashed manses of pure unblooded stone and clay, and in North Texas, say, find peace and rest, ensconced with us, their brothers in exile.
Correct. It’s easy to criticize Israel for trying to kill terrorists somehow - yet everyone advocating for a ceasefire doesn’t explain how to achieve justice and stop future Hamas attacks. No one should be expected to turn the other cheek after this.
As an fyi, here is my answer to the question of what should happen after the bombs stop falling in Gaza:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
It's essentially a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (with Israeli giving up almost all the settlements and with a U.S. led peacekeeping force enforcing the demilitarization).
I have an idea - how about we stop backing an apartheid regime bent on genocide, and let them create an actual democracy - one that gives all people, regardless of race, equal rights and reparations?
It astounds me that that people openly advocate for race-based citizenship in this day and age.
If the Zionists have a right to return to their homeland, shouldn't people actually living there now have the same rights?
And I'll ask this question for the thousandth time - how many America supporters of Zionism are making plans to practice what they preach, and give their land back to the native Americans.
Weird how no one ever answers this.
Stanley wrote: "It astounds me that that people openly advocate for race-based citizenship in this day and age."
Er, I assume you meant religion not race. Israel obviously has religious based citizenship laws, not race based. And I'm curious whether you are comfortable with all the Islamic Republics and their laws.
But if you're really just talking about the Law of Return a few points:
- Except for a small percent of religious zealots, Jews don't base the right of return on a biblical claim on the land. There is definitely a biblical attachment to the land ("next year in Jerusalem" but not a claim).
- The Zionist claim to the land is based on emigrating and settling it, getting recognized as a country, fighting a bunch of wars (none of which were started by Israel) and claiming territory. And while we can debate whether that is legitimate, it is literally how virtually every nation state on Earth's borders were determined.
- The Law of Return privileges Jews because Israel is explicitly meant to be a Jewish state. Given the history of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the idea that this is somehow illegitimate strikes me as utterly ridiculous.
- I would agree that this situation is unjust for Palestinians who fled their homes because of Jewish intimidation during the Nakba (and I would acknowledge that this is indeed the reason that some fled).
- But as I describe here (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians), I think there is plenty of unjustice in the world, and I don't believe that Palestinians who left during the Nakba have stronger claims than many other peoples.
Which leads to your "question to Americans", which is ironic because it actually makes the opposite point of the one you intended. To answer you directly, I'm certainly not planning to give my land back to the descendants of the Native Americans who lived here at one time. I don't think they have a legitimate claim to today's land based on the fact that their ancestors lived in the area.
But of course the equivalent to the Native Americans in your analogy is really the Palestinians not the Jews. To be clear, I believe neither the Palestinians nor the Native Americans have claim on the lands their ancestors left (whether willingly nor unwillingly). Similarly, I don't think Russians, Poles, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, the French, Spanish, or other Europeans should be obligated to return the land they now own to Jewish claimants because their ancestors killed or drove off the Jews' ancestors. It's past time to move on from all these claims. No hypocrisy there.
The question, however is whether YOU are willing to practice what you preach by giving your land back to the Native Americans. And if not, why do you think the Palestinians have a claim on their ancestors' lands when the Native Americans don't?
Native americans are free to roam the country, purchase land, with equal rights to everyone. Palestinians are not and thats because unlike the USA, Israelis are hell bent on preserving their ethno-state. Which requires active ethnic cleansing and land theft. Hence https://colterlouwerse.substack.com/p/does-israel-target-civilians
Thanks for the Colter link NS. Will try to engage there.
Meanwhile, native Americans are indeed free to roam the country and purchase land with equal rights today but that wasn't the case in the 1700 and 1800s. And I suspect that if there were 200 million Native Americans living on reservations in American today and their political leadership (and public opinion generally) was committed to driving all non-Native Americans out of the country, they wouldn't be free to roam the country and purchase land today either.
I would also guess that if an attack from a reservation resulted in the slaughter of 50,000 Americans, and the folks who perpetrated that slaughter hid among the women and children of that reservation, the U.S. would do whatever is necessary to capture or kill the perpetrators, even if it resulted in the death of a significant number of the woman and children they were hiding amongst. That at least is my best guess at what would happen.
Meanwhile, three questions for you NS:
- If a Native American family came to you and provided evidence that their ancestors used to live on the land you own, would you give them the property. If not, why not?
- Do you have an idea for how the Hamas leaders and fighters who slaughtered Israeli civilians on October 7th can be captured or killed without harming innocents Gazans? If so, can you share it.
- What do you think of this proposal for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
"- If a Native American family came to you and provided evidence that their ancestors used to live on the land you own, would you give them the property. If not, why not?"
If it was my religious ancestors that had evicted them from the land, they'd have a right to live in the land as citizens or at least seek out land for purchasing to re-citizen. Most Palestinians were Muslims, Muslims didn't expel Jews when they conquered the Holy Land so this point is moot.
"- Do you have an idea for how the Hamas leaders and fighters who slaughtered Israeli civilians on October 7th can be captured or killed without harming innocents Gazans? If so, can you share it."
Do you have any idea on how the IDF leaders and fighters who slaughtered Palestinian civilians in the Past 75 years, a few who are still alive from the massacres that preceded it can be captured or killed without harming Israeli civilians? If so, can you share it.
"Israel pulls back from the West Bank except for a few settlements close to the border and swaps other lands in exchange for the settlement lands they are keeping."
Palestinians have a right to Jerusalem. It doesn't really matter how Israelis feel about it because Israelis are the aggressors and thieves here.
"Palestine gains recognition as a country and full self-government but agrees to full demilitarization (perhaps indefinitely or maybe for a set period of years) and agrees to give up all claims on lands within Israel."
They have the right of return to the lands Jews expelled them from in the Nakba. Israel can perhaps return most of that land and center a 99% Jewish state in a smaller area around Tel Aviv. And it's more fair to demand Israelis demilitarize considering 1) they started it, 2) they've done far worse.
"Big fences for the foreseeable future."
Sure but it should be reasonable to the Palestinians, not merely "might makes right therefore Israelis get most of their burglery". If might makes right is the argument here, I can tell you now Palestinians have a far stronger will. If Israelis were subject to what they do to Palestinians they would have quit well ahead. Palestinians mostly believe in an eternal paradise and punishment so they're not going to give up the fight.
There is a reasonable fear that Palestinian statehood outside Israeli oversight would just mean far greater access to weapons for Hamas, and no real reduction in hostility. Yet full annexation would mean Israel faced a domestic rather than international terror threat - much harder to secure against. So either outcome probably results in more & more horrific terrorism in the coming decades - but the present course looks to be heading that way too.
Whether Hamas is upping the ante out of intra-organizational pressure or to attract international attention, upping the ante seems to be their plan. There is no surrender or ceasefire for Hamas. It is antithetical to their fundaments, and more importantly, any Hamas leader agreeing to a ceasefire would be ousted in short order.
Israel has conquered the Palestinians - it is a fait accompli - and if we for a moment set human life as our prime concern, above "homelands" and "historical rectitude," it is clear that what has been long accomplished must at last be acknowledged. This state of limbo must not go on.
Is it too much to ask the mercy of conquest for these huddled masses? is it too much to ask the mercy of exile for those to whom Israeli rule is now intolerable? We have here in America a golden door through which many exiles past have stepped, and in stepping, have forgotten the pomp & persecution which drove them to our shore.
https://colterlouwerse.substack.com/p/does-israel-target-civilians
thank you for that