Great piece, Ross. It's difficult to consider (and put voice to) the possibility that there truly are no good answers here, but it certainly seems to be true. This really resonated with me.
There are absolutely good answers. Freeing the Palestinian people from the terrorists who treat them as cannon fodder in an effort to kill as many Jews as possible is a nice start.
Wes: There is a site formerly known as Twitter that would welcome your contributions. I'm sure you would find the kind of reactions you're looking for if you posted there.
One angle that hasn’t been analyzed is the effect of demographic change in the US and EU on the current “blank check” support these entities provide Israel.
I wouldn’t be so quick to say the US and Western Europe will blindly support Israel forever.
Demographic trends as currently on pace suggests by 2100 there will be a very different electorate that will affect policy across a whole host of domains.
Christian Zionism as a political force in the States isn’t going anywhere. American Evangelicals will continue to take a line to the right of Likud on the Arab-Israeli conflict. True, the Republican Party’s fortunes may ebb a bit by 2100, but that edifying idea is merely speculative and not really borne out by any empirical data. 70 years is functionally the Triassic Period in US politics.
>Israel is a contradiction. At some point, you can no longer be an ethno-state and a democracy.
Except for all the Arabs who serve in Parliament, and the non-Jews throughout Israel who have full legal and voting rights, you might be on to something here.
> Like George W. Bush after 9/11, Benjamin Netanyahu will be bathed in the glow of a new holy war, one that will slaughter many more civilians on the other side. ... When he loses power or dies, there will be no Golda Meir presiding over this land of the Jews. It will be the muscular Jews, the ultrareligious and bloodthirsty, who will get all that they want.
Except for the part where Netanyahu is already being pilloried for letting this happen, and the fact that Likud is at an all-time low in the polls, and the party that's surged as its replacement is the centrist, competency-based coalition of Gantz and Sa'ar, you might be on to something here.
>Two-state solution, one-state solution, no solution. Israel possesses, thanks to the United States, one of the world’s great militaries.
Except for the part about how Israel began its existence by defending against an invasion from six different Arab countries, you might be on to something here.
>The most idealistic solution, the one most popular with American leftists, is the single, multinational state, a democracy where everyone has an equal vote, an equal say. This, in a just world, would be one outcome, but it will not happen. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.
Except for the part where Gaza is ruled by an international terrorist organization dedicated only to the slaughter of Jews, and the West Bank is ruled by a purported "moderate" who maintains a "Martyrs Fund" for the families of dead Palestinians who die killing a Jew (and where the payouts scale with the number of Jews they kill), you might be on to something here.
> A multinational state is not a Jewish state, just as it’s not written into the Constitution that America is for the white Protestants and no one else. The Jews might get outvoted, just like Catholics (and even a Black man) became president here. Bibi and his allies won’t allow that to happen. Nor will the United States. The bombardment of Gaza makes that clear.
Yes, the Jewish Homeland should not come to be ruled by Arabs who would ethnically cleanse all Jews from it if given the opportunity, just like they've done in every other Arab country.
You really thought you were saying something here, weren't you? Just because you're Jewish doesn't make you any less of a traitor to your people.
I love how you give away the game by starting off bragging about the rights of non-Jews in Israel and then end by claiming that the Jewish homeland will not be overruled by Arabs.
There will always be ethnic minorities in any state. The Arab minority in Israel is freer than the Arab majority anywhere else in the Midlde East. It is not incompatible to note that (1) Israel must remain a majority-Israeli state in order to safeguard the safety of the Jewish people; and (2) that does not preclude it from being a pluralistic liberal society.
I think our host has the better of the argument on most of your rebuttals, but you do make some excellent points. Gaza is indeed ruled by an international terrorist org, and Arab citizens of Israel can vote (although Netanyahu is increasingly trying to keep them from the polls. Still, Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank can’t vote in Israeli elections, and they are functional stateless individuals, with zero civil liberties. So, Israel isn’t an apartheid state. It’s only partly an apartheid state state in Gaza and the West Bank. To point to a current slump in the polls for Likud as evidence for ongoing political diversity in Israel is either highly naive or deeply disingenuous. Sa’ar, lifelong Likudnik with an axe to grind, and the pallucidly centrist Gantz are a million miles politically for old-school Labor Zionism. In the unlikely event they eventually defeat the electorally indomitable Bibi, the political climate of Israel will barely change at all. As for the “traitor to his people” claim, that cliched nonsense essentially impeached everything reasonable you stated earlier. Nice try, but try harder.
Also, who, pray tell, would the author be betraying? Israel isn’t “his people.” He’s not Israeli. Do all Jews owe loyalty to Israel? No more than all Muslims owe fealty to the PLO or Hamas. The author is an American, so that’s where his loyalties lie. And I’d imagine his loyalties there are fairly strong, much stronger than those who tried to overthrow the republic on January 6th.
>Still, Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank can’t vote in Israeli elections
That makes sense, considering they are not Isaelis. Wonder why they can't vote in Palestinian elections, though. Could have something to do with Gaza being ruled by a totalitarian terrorist organization, and the West Bank being ruled by Abbas, in the 18th year of a four-year term, who won't allow elections because he'd probably lose to Hamas.
>So, Israel isn’t an apartheid state. It’s only partly an apartheid state state in Gaza and the West Bank.
Israel's actions towards the settlements in the West Bank are atrocious, but it cannot be considered "apartheid" to impose restrictions on those outside of your state.
>To point to a current slump in the polls for Likud as evidence for ongoing political diversity in Israel is either highly naive or deeply disingenuous. Sa’ar, lifelong Likudnik with an axe to grind, and the pallucidly centrist Gantz are a million miles politically for old-school Labor Zionism. In the unlikely event they eventually defeat the electorally indomitable Bibi, the political climate of Israel will barely change at all.
Yair Lapid was literally Prime Minister a year ago.
>As for the “traitor to his people” claim, that cliched nonsense essentially impeached everything reasonable you stated earlier. Nice try, but try harder.
The Jewish people are entitled to a homeland, safety, and security. Any Jew who would deny them that is functionally a kapo.
And Lapid being PM changed the political culture of Israel not at all. There will only be two kinds of Israeli governments henceforth: center-right and far-right. For better and for worse, Zionist social democracy is literally dead.
In part, but more significantly the old secular left was outbred by the Orthodox. Demographics are political destiny in Israel, and when the social democratic Ashkenazi old guard don’t have a replacement level of children, their power was bound to dissipate, then disappear. And of course you have a welfare system which encourages Haredi men to forego both conscription and gainful employment.
>I'm not sure "we have to seize their land and drive them out because of we don't they will drive us out" is a very solid argument.
What land has Israel seized in Gaza? You're aware that it unilaterally disengaged, withdrew all settlements, and that no Israeli civilian has set foot in Gaza in decades, right?
We are speaking after more than fifty years of mutual outrage, perceived outrage, recrimination, and resentment - and yet as you say, it would not seem wise at this point to put more power in the hands of present Palestinian leadership.
It is true that, regardless of initial conditions or justifications, one cannot expect a people to tolerate subjection (or even perceived subjection) in peace - and yet knowing this does not help anything, when one already has the tiger by the tail.
Thus there is no answer - at least for people who consider the people presently confined to Gaza & the West Bank to have a right to self-determination & self-governance. Personally, however, I don't particularly care which people feel attached to which land.
If it were in my power to end this awful business by transplanting all the Palestinians to depopulated Detroit tomorrow, I would order it done, and worry about the "injustice" later - or never - but the only reason I say Palestinians, rather than Israelis, is because they are fewer & less well armed.
The only answer left, it seems to me, is vae victis, and once we all acknowledge the clear fait accompli, we can move on with helping the Palestinians find some new land of their own to call home - and leave to the victor Israelis those thin strips of desert which are to them so mysteriously precious.
The amazing thing to me about the Israel-Palestinian conflict is that, contra Ross, "the answer" is actually obvious:
- 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.
- 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 gives up all claims on lands within Israel.
- Demilitarization is enforced by a huge international military presence in the West Bank and Gaza.
- Big fences for the foreseeable future.
The tragedy, of course, is that neither side today is willing to agree to this obvious answer (which, I get, is what Ross really means when he writes there is “no answer”). But I'm more optimistic than he is that an American led international effort could still force this answer into existence. It will likely require the U.S threatening to cut off aid and even the threat of sanctions against Israel; but in the end the Israelis will agree. The reality is that the crazy settlers committed to making “Judea and Samaria” part of Israel are still a significant minority and most Israelis would trade land for a credible peace.
So it’s ultimately a question of whether the Palestinians will accept this, and I think they ultimately do so, if only because they would have no real options otherwise.
But I also think that the right messaging would help. And for that messaging,I would amend Ross’ “no answer” formulation slightly to instead be “no justice.”
Because we should acknowledge that the answer above means there will ultimately be no justice for the Palestinian families that lost land to an influx of Jewish immigrants fleeing from Europe and other Middle Eastern countries. We should acknowledge that these Palestinian families have legitimate grievances about how they have been treated by history.
At the same time, we should also acknowledge that there was also no justice for the Jewish families who fled to Israel from the lands of their birthplaces, in most cases leaving everything they had ever known behind.
And while one could perhaps argue that it’s all Europe’s fault because of the anti-semitism that led to Zionism, and that they should ultimately fund reparations to both Israelis and Palestinians to make things right, that would hardly be just to the Europeans of today, who were neither the perpetrators of the sins of their ancestors and whose ancestors themselves suffered horribly because of World Wars I and II.
The reality is that expecting justice from history is a false hope that is almost always a practical impossibility. Whether one is Jewish, Palestinian, Cherokee, African American, Rwandan, Ukrainian, Indonesian, Cuban, etc. holding out for “justice” is a mistake if it prevents you from making the most of the present.
So the message to the Palestinians should be to acknowledge their past suffering and to admit that the solution being offered above is not justice. But it also should be to make clear that it’s the best solution they are likely to get and that it’s time to move forward, even though it means moving forward without justice.
Challenging, insightful piece. Groups like Standing Together and other peace activists comprised of Jews and Palestinians give me a great deal of hope, even though they are incredibly marginal in their society. But if the last few years of global politics, especially, have taught us nothing else, today's margin can be tomorrow's mainstream. A better future for all parties involved only dissolves if we decide it isn't worth fighting for.
I'll share what I wrote on Wednesday, which is not political but is how I, a Reform Jew living in NYC, feel. A sense of tribal identity and gratitude that there exists a Jewish homeland.
Great piece, Ross. It's difficult to consider (and put voice to) the possibility that there truly are no good answers here, but it certainly seems to be true. This really resonated with me.
There are absolutely good answers. Freeing the Palestinian people from the terrorists who treat them as cannon fodder in an effort to kill as many Jews as possible is a nice start.
Wes: There is a site formerly known as Twitter that would welcome your contributions. I'm sure you would find the kind of reactions you're looking for if you posted there.
One angle that hasn’t been analyzed is the effect of demographic change in the US and EU on the current “blank check” support these entities provide Israel.
I wouldn’t be so quick to say the US and Western Europe will blindly support Israel forever.
Demographic trends as currently on pace suggests by 2100 there will be a very different electorate that will affect policy across a whole host of domains.
Christian Zionism as a political force in the States isn’t going anywhere. American Evangelicals will continue to take a line to the right of Likud on the Arab-Israeli conflict. True, the Republican Party’s fortunes may ebb a bit by 2100, but that edifying idea is merely speculative and not really borne out by any empirical data. 70 years is functionally the Triassic Period in US politics.
>Israel is a contradiction. At some point, you can no longer be an ethno-state and a democracy.
Except for all the Arabs who serve in Parliament, and the non-Jews throughout Israel who have full legal and voting rights, you might be on to something here.
> Like George W. Bush after 9/11, Benjamin Netanyahu will be bathed in the glow of a new holy war, one that will slaughter many more civilians on the other side. ... When he loses power or dies, there will be no Golda Meir presiding over this land of the Jews. It will be the muscular Jews, the ultrareligious and bloodthirsty, who will get all that they want.
Except for the part where Netanyahu is already being pilloried for letting this happen, and the fact that Likud is at an all-time low in the polls, and the party that's surged as its replacement is the centrist, competency-based coalition of Gantz and Sa'ar, you might be on to something here.
>Two-state solution, one-state solution, no solution. Israel possesses, thanks to the United States, one of the world’s great militaries.
Except for the part about how Israel began its existence by defending against an invasion from six different Arab countries, you might be on to something here.
>The most idealistic solution, the one most popular with American leftists, is the single, multinational state, a democracy where everyone has an equal vote, an equal say. This, in a just world, would be one outcome, but it will not happen. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever.
Except for the part where Gaza is ruled by an international terrorist organization dedicated only to the slaughter of Jews, and the West Bank is ruled by a purported "moderate" who maintains a "Martyrs Fund" for the families of dead Palestinians who die killing a Jew (and where the payouts scale with the number of Jews they kill), you might be on to something here.
> A multinational state is not a Jewish state, just as it’s not written into the Constitution that America is for the white Protestants and no one else. The Jews might get outvoted, just like Catholics (and even a Black man) became president here. Bibi and his allies won’t allow that to happen. Nor will the United States. The bombardment of Gaza makes that clear.
Yes, the Jewish Homeland should not come to be ruled by Arabs who would ethnically cleanse all Jews from it if given the opportunity, just like they've done in every other Arab country.
You really thought you were saying something here, weren't you? Just because you're Jewish doesn't make you any less of a traitor to your people.
I love how you give away the game by starting off bragging about the rights of non-Jews in Israel and then end by claiming that the Jewish homeland will not be overruled by Arabs.
There will always be ethnic minorities in any state. The Arab minority in Israel is freer than the Arab majority anywhere else in the Midlde East. It is not incompatible to note that (1) Israel must remain a majority-Israeli state in order to safeguard the safety of the Jewish people; and (2) that does not preclude it from being a pluralistic liberal society.
I think our host has the better of the argument on most of your rebuttals, but you do make some excellent points. Gaza is indeed ruled by an international terrorist org, and Arab citizens of Israel can vote (although Netanyahu is increasingly trying to keep them from the polls. Still, Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank can’t vote in Israeli elections, and they are functional stateless individuals, with zero civil liberties. So, Israel isn’t an apartheid state. It’s only partly an apartheid state state in Gaza and the West Bank. To point to a current slump in the polls for Likud as evidence for ongoing political diversity in Israel is either highly naive or deeply disingenuous. Sa’ar, lifelong Likudnik with an axe to grind, and the pallucidly centrist Gantz are a million miles politically for old-school Labor Zionism. In the unlikely event they eventually defeat the electorally indomitable Bibi, the political climate of Israel will barely change at all. As for the “traitor to his people” claim, that cliched nonsense essentially impeached everything reasonable you stated earlier. Nice try, but try harder.
Also, who, pray tell, would the author be betraying? Israel isn’t “his people.” He’s not Israeli. Do all Jews owe loyalty to Israel? No more than all Muslims owe fealty to the PLO or Hamas. The author is an American, so that’s where his loyalties lie. And I’d imagine his loyalties there are fairly strong, much stronger than those who tried to overthrow the republic on January 6th.
>Also, who, pray tell, would the author be betraying? Israel isn’t “his people.” He’s not Israeli. Do all Jews owe loyalty to Israel?
All Jews owe loyalty to the Jewish people, yes. The Holocaust demanded that of us. Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Loyalty to the people precisely means not being loyal to the nation-state.
>Still, Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank can’t vote in Israeli elections
That makes sense, considering they are not Isaelis. Wonder why they can't vote in Palestinian elections, though. Could have something to do with Gaza being ruled by a totalitarian terrorist organization, and the West Bank being ruled by Abbas, in the 18th year of a four-year term, who won't allow elections because he'd probably lose to Hamas.
>So, Israel isn’t an apartheid state. It’s only partly an apartheid state state in Gaza and the West Bank.
Israel's actions towards the settlements in the West Bank are atrocious, but it cannot be considered "apartheid" to impose restrictions on those outside of your state.
>To point to a current slump in the polls for Likud as evidence for ongoing political diversity in Israel is either highly naive or deeply disingenuous. Sa’ar, lifelong Likudnik with an axe to grind, and the pallucidly centrist Gantz are a million miles politically for old-school Labor Zionism. In the unlikely event they eventually defeat the electorally indomitable Bibi, the political climate of Israel will barely change at all.
Yair Lapid was literally Prime Minister a year ago.
>As for the “traitor to his people” claim, that cliched nonsense essentially impeached everything reasonable you stated earlier. Nice try, but try harder.
The Jewish people are entitled to a homeland, safety, and security. Any Jew who would deny them that is functionally a kapo.
And Lapid being PM changed the political culture of Israel not at all. There will only be two kinds of Israeli governments henceforth: center-right and far-right. For better and for worse, Zionist social democracy is literally dead.
And who killed that? The Israeli Left was discredited by the Second Intifada.
In part, but more significantly the old secular left was outbred by the Orthodox. Demographics are political destiny in Israel, and when the social democratic Ashkenazi old guard don’t have a replacement level of children, their power was bound to dissipate, then disappear. And of course you have a welfare system which encourages Haredi men to forego both conscription and gainful employment.
I'm not sure "we have to seize their land and drive them out because if we don't they will drive us out" is a very solid argument.
"The Arab majority totally has equal rights and the government must be controlled by Jews," doesn't make much sense to me either.
>I'm not sure "we have to seize their land and drive them out because of we don't they will drive us out" is a very solid argument.
What land has Israel seized in Gaza? You're aware that it unilaterally disengaged, withdrew all settlements, and that no Israeli civilian has set foot in Gaza in decades, right?
How did those people wind up in Gaza again?
We are speaking after more than fifty years of mutual outrage, perceived outrage, recrimination, and resentment - and yet as you say, it would not seem wise at this point to put more power in the hands of present Palestinian leadership.
It is true that, regardless of initial conditions or justifications, one cannot expect a people to tolerate subjection (or even perceived subjection) in peace - and yet knowing this does not help anything, when one already has the tiger by the tail.
Thus there is no answer - at least for people who consider the people presently confined to Gaza & the West Bank to have a right to self-determination & self-governance. Personally, however, I don't particularly care which people feel attached to which land.
If it were in my power to end this awful business by transplanting all the Palestinians to depopulated Detroit tomorrow, I would order it done, and worry about the "injustice" later - or never - but the only reason I say Palestinians, rather than Israelis, is because they are fewer & less well armed.
The only answer left, it seems to me, is vae victis, and once we all acknowledge the clear fait accompli, we can move on with helping the Palestinians find some new land of their own to call home - and leave to the victor Israelis those thin strips of desert which are to them so mysteriously precious.
The amazing thing to me about the Israel-Palestinian conflict is that, contra Ross, "the answer" is actually obvious:
- 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.
- 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 gives up all claims on lands within Israel.
- Demilitarization is enforced by a huge international military presence in the West Bank and Gaza.
- Big fences for the foreseeable future.
The tragedy, of course, is that neither side today is willing to agree to this obvious answer (which, I get, is what Ross really means when he writes there is “no answer”). But I'm more optimistic than he is that an American led international effort could still force this answer into existence. It will likely require the U.S threatening to cut off aid and even the threat of sanctions against Israel; but in the end the Israelis will agree. The reality is that the crazy settlers committed to making “Judea and Samaria” part of Israel are still a significant minority and most Israelis would trade land for a credible peace.
So it’s ultimately a question of whether the Palestinians will accept this, and I think they ultimately do so, if only because they would have no real options otherwise.
But I also think that the right messaging would help. And for that messaging,I would amend Ross’ “no answer” formulation slightly to instead be “no justice.”
Because we should acknowledge that the answer above means there will ultimately be no justice for the Palestinian families that lost land to an influx of Jewish immigrants fleeing from Europe and other Middle Eastern countries. We should acknowledge that these Palestinian families have legitimate grievances about how they have been treated by history.
At the same time, we should also acknowledge that there was also no justice for the Jewish families who fled to Israel from the lands of their birthplaces, in most cases leaving everything they had ever known behind.
And while one could perhaps argue that it’s all Europe’s fault because of the anti-semitism that led to Zionism, and that they should ultimately fund reparations to both Israelis and Palestinians to make things right, that would hardly be just to the Europeans of today, who were neither the perpetrators of the sins of their ancestors and whose ancestors themselves suffered horribly because of World Wars I and II.
The reality is that expecting justice from history is a false hope that is almost always a practical impossibility. Whether one is Jewish, Palestinian, Cherokee, African American, Rwandan, Ukrainian, Indonesian, Cuban, etc. holding out for “justice” is a mistake if it prevents you from making the most of the present.
So the message to the Palestinians should be to acknowledge their past suffering and to admit that the solution being offered above is not justice. But it also should be to make clear that it’s the best solution they are likely to get and that it’s time to move forward, even though it means moving forward without justice.
I'm still waiting for American Zionists to explain to me why they haven't given their land back to the Native Americans.
Seems to me there's a little inconsistency there.
Nonsense. Gantz will be the next PM. He’s at least as liberal as Golda.
Challenging, insightful piece. Groups like Standing Together and other peace activists comprised of Jews and Palestinians give me a great deal of hope, even though they are incredibly marginal in their society. But if the last few years of global politics, especially, have taught us nothing else, today's margin can be tomorrow's mainstream. A better future for all parties involved only dissolves if we decide it isn't worth fighting for.
I'd say instead, There Is No "Good" Answer
I'll share what I wrote on Wednesday, which is not political but is how I, a Reform Jew living in NYC, feel. A sense of tribal identity and gratitude that there exists a Jewish homeland.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/pain-that-cannot-forget
Thank you for this. I have never gone there and I never will, even though I have relatives there. I’d rather go to Canarsie.