"What actually matters is the behavior of Western leftists, who care about the Palestinian cause precisely because it is so hateful and dysfunctional, just as how they romanticize the most anti-social elements of the criminal underclass at home." Ergo the effortless mobilization by the Left of clueless young Woke to join "pro Palestinian" protests.
"It is for that reason perhaps unsurprising that members of the Biden administration refuse to even say the words “Abraham Accords,” as the term must remind officials of how Trump and Kushner succeeded in an area where they have constantly failed."
Literal Harry Potter logic, no different to how they insisted on referring to Trump as "45" for the duration of 2017 until they finally realised how lame and cringe this was.
The only people I personally encountered doing it were people who disliked Trump. I've had several people "explain" to me that the reasoning behind it was to deny Trump the free publicity associated with mentioning his name in writing - which, of course, does nothing to explain why you'd refer to him as "45" verbally.
"Haaretz is now reporting that while Arab countries have been publicly calling for Israel to not fight such an aggressive war, behind the scenes they are encouraging it to not stop until it destroys Hamas."
I think this might be the single most frustrating phenomenon in the whole conflict. If I were in the Israeli govt. I would find it an irresistible temptation to tape this and play it at the UN. Actually, I'd find it an irresistible temptation to tell Jordan that, if they hate us so much, they can stick their peace deal and declare war if that's what they want.
I posted a comment above, but the difference in private/public responses have alot to do with the pressure they face from the religious populists. Last I checked, Israel had a 20-30% approval rating from the general Arab population, and no doubt after Oct7, the propaganda has been cranked up even higher to inflame tensions and put pressure to stop all modernizations efforts. So the Jordanians really can't do anything. But the good thing is, I think this also reduces the likelihood of an all out Arab v. Israel war. Because privately, most of the Arab leaders are aware that fundamentalist politics are not the way going forward, and modernizations nessescarily means embracing Israel
"the difference in private/public responses have alot to do with the pressure they face from the religious populists"
This exactly.
It's like if, during the Cold War, a secret card-carrying member of the Communist Party were elected President of the USA. He privately assures Khruschev, "I'm doing everything I can to ensure the global revolution succeeds, comrade, but understand I need to keep up the pretense of the Cold War. The American public isn't on board yet but I'm doing everything I can to undermine our corrupt capitalist order."
Khruschev, annoyed at the hypocrisy, secretly records the conversation and publicizes it to the world. Booyah! A huge win for Communism, great success!
I agree with Hanania that the Trump administration’s analysis proved correct, and that we should take it more seriously when considering the current conflict. At the same time, I don’t think this critique is entirely fair.
American diplomats linked the issues because Arab governments did. This began in 1973, when Saudi Arabia led OPEC to employ the “oil weapon” to punish the United States and its main allies (the Netherlands, the U.K., and Canada) for their support of Israel.
It’s difficult to overstate the impact of this event for western governments. The price of oil skyrocketed and wrecked the world economy. Incumbents were swept out of power as voters punished governments basically everywhere. You can make a serious case that the malaise and stagflation of the 1970’s resulted mainly from this event.
And the Arab governments responsible for it were very clear as to its cause. Saudi Arabia may have changed its view today. But if you went back to the 1970’s or 1980’s when the old King was still in power, you could not pursue the current tact.
Hanania is correct that the relationship between this and the so-called Arab street was always tenuous. One dictator certainly embraced that view and ignored the views of his people on it - the Shah of Iran.
He was joined by his dear friend, a fellow dictator who executed the peace treaty with Israel that Hanania references and gave the Shah refuge after he was overthrown - Anwar Sadat.
It’s perhaps not difficult to understand why diplomats grew skeptical of Hanania’s position here that middle eastern states could simply repress their way through these issues given the fate of both men.
Likewise, while things have changed today, back in the 1990’s and then after 9/11, there were very credible analyses calling into question the stability of the House of Saud.
Again, this is not to discount Hanania’s assessment of the situation today. I also think he is correct that some diplomats, like Kerry, refused to update their analysis based on personal preference — using the resistance of Arab governments as an excuse, not a reason — and that the Trump administration deserves praise for its willingness to challenge orthodoxy.
But there are solid reasons the orthodoxy prevailed that, indeed, represent “a reasonable view well-grounded in an understanding of history and the political dynamics of the region”, and they are worth recalling as well.
Anti Israeli sentiments/pro Palestinian was championed by Nasser, who used the Palestinian issue as a play to become the strongman of Arab nationalism and rallying other Arab nations behind him. This ultimately culminated in the yom Kippur invasion, which failed.
I think Arab support for Palestine post Nasser has followed the same, cynical template, which is that nobody actually cares about Palestinian welfare, but sees them as a great political platform to rally behind a pan Arabic front. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that no neighbouring Arab countries are willing to send aid to Palestine, or even allow their refugees into their borders. This playbook is very much tied into the religio-fundamentalist-populist-islamic section of Arab politics, which is what dominated the region for the past 10-20 years.
However, recent modernizations in key Arab states, led by MBS of Saudi Arabia (of all places) have introduced an alternative politics, that calls for greater Westernization and modernization, and moving away from the religious fundamentalist template of earlier Arab politics. These are the Arab leaders who negotiated the Abraham Accords.
I think what is being played out, in the Oct7 attack, is as much about the internal conflicts between the two factions I described above than it is abt Israel and Palestine. Personally imo, it's Oct7 is a counter move by the religious faction to check the gains made by the modernizes with the Abraham Accords, because it again rallies the general Arab sentiments against the Israelis and for the Palestinians, poisoning all efforts by modernized to embrace the west as siddling to the infidels. So tldr: there are two Arab political factions, one that supports the Oct7 and one that loses from it
The oil weapon has lost its edge now, at least for the US. (And in Europe, it's not the Arab states wielding it any more.) Maybe a joint action by the OPEC could still cause headache if it came to happen, but it has been tried and failed many times over the last few years. So that argument is out of the window, even if it held back in the 70s.
One might argue that Western countries are afraid of their own Muslim minorities, but these kinds of fears are more frequently invoked as excuses for policies already desired by the government than honestly indulged in. I don't know of a single successful immigrant uprising in the last 70 years of European history. The last 10 years, in particular, have shown that Islamic terrorism in Europe correlates positively with the successes of Islamists in the Middle East rather than with the strength of its repression. ISIS was all the rage in Europe as long as Raqqa was standing; now it's a lone stabbing once a year. After Oct 7, these things became more frequent again, but everything suggests that they will peter back out when Hamas is crushed.
" some solution to the refugee problem that would have not just included the return of Palestinians to a Palestinian state, but to Israel proper.
In other words, the only thing the Palestinians would ask for was that Israel stop being a Jewish state."
So what? I thought open borders was an unequivocal good and the only reason anyone opposes it is because they're a bunch of dirty, low-status racists. Or maybe that was last month -- it's hard to keep up with the whirlwind of contradictory spicy takes coming from ol' Dick Shakespeare here.
Fine Richard but where will the Palestinians go? You just say elsewhere. Cowardly move for a guy who's so forthright and doesn't care about social niceties. Europe and the US should not, and their people will absolutely not, take them in. Tired of being the dumping ground for the world's poor and problematic people.
They wouldn't go anywhere. They can stay exactly where they are. They would just have to accept the fact that they won't be able to annihilate Israel to set up a Palestinian state from the River to the Sea, and make do with the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
So Israel can offload Palestinians onto Jordan because of its security needs but Jordan’s security needs don’t matter. No way Jordan will take them in. You deal with your own problems. Don’t push them onto someone else.
I know that Jordan's population is overwhelmingly Arab. Same for Syria. Palestinians are Arabs, but not all Arabs are Palestinians. More importantly, Palestinians don't want to be forced into Jordan. Whether that happens is another thing. What you are disputing is the ethnogenesis of Palestinians.
Not sure I follow you here. But there is no room for another Arab state west of the Jordan. Since most of the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria make their livelihood from jobs in Israel, and that now those jobs are lost forever, they may be interested in well-compensated emigration. It doesn't have to be Jordan, and for sure no forceful solution. There is no hope for them having a decent life where they are (same for the Gazans). Why not offer them a normal future?
There is room. It's called the West Bank. They can have a state there. I agree Gazan and West Bank economic prospects look dim. Israelis won't let them work in Israel anymore and they shouldn't. You want to pay them to leave but they don't want to leave their land. Richard wants to force them out but he never says where to. You said Jordan but Jordan doesn't want them.
The Palestinians can continue living mired in poverty and corruption in their own land under their own government. You want to push them out into someone else's country and then take over the land and settle it with Jews. I don't see why the US and Europe should take in radicalized Palestinians. That is where they will go if they are pushed into Egypt. Boats to Italy and Greece. No thank you. Keep the Middle Eastern problems there and stop pushing them onto the rest of the world.
Jordan is already basically a Palestinian State in all but name. Obviously the Jordanians don't want any more of them. But the Jordanians are also quite good at scattering Palestinians to the four winds when they cause problems (see Black September)
My point is that no one wants the radicalized Palestinians and for good reason. Israel trying to dump them onto other countries in the name of security and self-interest is a principle that applies to other states too. Richard says Palestinians must be crushed and be forcibly displaced in other countries. He wants Europe and the US while Israelis don't care where they go, but for ease would likely prefer Egypt or Jordan, but see principle above. It would be disastrous for those countries from a security and economic perspective, not to mention the effect on the Copts.
I think you owe Edward N. Luttwak a hat tip on this series of articles who wrote an article in 1999 in Foreign Affairs making precisely the same point you have been making - worth a read. Here is the opening paragraph:
“An unpleasant truth often overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. Either way the key is that the fighting must continue until a resolution is reached. War brings peace only after passing a culminating phase of violence. Hopes of military success must fade for accommodation to become more attractive than further combat.”
Some time ago, during the height of the protests regarding Netanyahu's attempt to reform the Israeli Supreme Court (which everyone appears to agree needs SOME kind of reform), I made the point that the protests proved that Israel had become a regular country and had solved all or nearly all of the problems that had made it a nation under siege.
This being the case, its population, grown bored with peace and prosperity as all humans eventually become, began to invent problems leading to their society being roiled by entirely bog-standard debates and scandals like quis custodiet ipsos custodes and corruption. The End of History and the Last Man had triumphed in yet another troubled corner of the world.
If October 7 had been followed by a regional escalation and/or a cognizable Israeli defeat, I would have been happy to admit that I was wrong about this. But that's not what has happened, and of course (as everyone now knows), Frank made allowances for these kinds of uprisings against the end of history, but opined that they would effectively always be resolved in favor of the status quo, broadly speaking.
Indeed, this is what we see. Aside from some face-saving military actions between Israel, Hezbollah, and Syria, this has been entirely Hamas versus Israel, a conflict that Hamas is sure to lose. Israel has had to endure some tongue-lashings from the 'traditional' Arab allies of the Palestinians, but I have not heard that Israel's diplomatic standing has been meaningfully effected among the states of the Arab League, or really anywhere else. At worst, progress towards normalization has been paused while the military matters are settled. And otherwise, Israel's standing in the minds of most-right thinking people and states has risen.
Thanks for reminding me that life is too short. I don't have time to read people who mock the suffering of millions and make up fancy intellectual bullshit to defend Trump. I hung in for a while because you are obviously brilliant and unique, but this is what I needed to know it's time to unsubscribe.
What exactly is made up "fancy intellectual bullshit?"
It is both possible to consider Trump a buffoon unfit for office and a anchor around the neck of the GOP winning elections and also believe that the Palestinian statehood cause should fail and a effective means to ensure that failure is to go around them to other Arab states to isolate Hamas, the PA and Iran.
When the chips are down the petrostates and middle-east monarchies want to be on the side of the west rather than live in fear of Iran. Not one entity has ensured the suffering of Palestinians more than their political leadership in the West Bank and Gaza.
Those facts on the ground will be reversed as forcefully as they were established. It's unrealistic to settle a stable Jewish homeland with those methods
Thank you for such an insightful, informative article. You really helped explain some things for me that I hadn’t really understood about the Abraham Accords. I appreciate the ability to learn more about the real issues going on over there.
Up until 10/7, wasn’t Biden pretty committed to one-upping Trump with bringing Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords? Doesn’t sound like he didn’t see it as a success, at least after the fact.
And, speaking of 10/7, isn’t it possible to read the Hamas attack and favorable views of it in the Arab world as a direct consequence of the Trump/Kushner policy of the Jerusalem embassy move and the AA accords, which was premised on the notion, shared by the Netanyahu govt, that the Palestinian issue could be ignored and sidestepped without consequences?
And it’s not clear that the AAs brought peace between the US and, say, Bahrain--we’ve been parking our 5th Navy fleet there for decades. Good for the Israelis, but not clearly a gain for the US.
Finally if a root of the prolonged conflict is misguided western liberal sentimentalism towards the Palestinian cause, what of that from western conservatives towards Israel? Couldn’t the US just not take sides and bow out all together? Israel would move to crush the Palestinians and take the land. Subsequently they’d likely face severe consequences with the international community, Arab states, and Iran without US diplomatic and military cover. Probably some kind of detente and stasis would follow. That could be a path to peace.
"It’s an open question how much the US can restrain Israel, though it certainly can to a certain extent..."
We can completely restrain them if we so want. Almost all munitions that Israel uses come straight from their generous Uncle Sam. All we gotta do is turn off the supply tap, and it's bye-bye war.
The Palestinians are losing more human lives in a day or two in this war than they lost in 26 years of occupation until the Oslo Accords, which brought terrorists from Tunisia. If the world stops bothering and stirring things up, it might be possible to return to an improved model of the pre-Oslo period and to peace and stability. The Palestinians will manage their internal affairs themselves, meaning how to punish thieves or homosexuals and how to deal with sewage, hospitals and regime opponents, but the IDF will be able to enter from time to time to arrest terrorists.
Wow! Not what I expected from you Richard. You woke up full on neocon this AM. The solution to the Israel Palestinian issue is simple. Implement the 1947 UN mandate. Two states with defined borders with UN monitored enforcement.
It would be nice if the Palestinians could form a state that could make deals with Israel, but after all this time I just don't see it happening. A state divided into two is particularly odd. It didn't last for East & West Pakistan, and currently the Palestinian territories are split between different governments (although Hamas doesn't even seem to aspire to be a government rather than a terrorist group).
The Likud party's charter explicitly denies the idea of a 2 state solution. To pretend that Israel has been excited about giving up claims to the Palestinian side of the 67 borders is ahistorical hasbara bullshit.
"What actually matters is the behavior of Western leftists, who care about the Palestinian cause precisely because it is so hateful and dysfunctional, just as how they romanticize the most anti-social elements of the criminal underclass at home." Ergo the effortless mobilization by the Left of clueless young Woke to join "pro Palestinian" protests.
"Perhaps by 2050 the most likely next Republican president will have started out as a young groyper..."
Guys, you heard it here first.
Richard, you have my vote! But I'd like to see you there before then!
"It is for that reason perhaps unsurprising that members of the Biden administration refuse to even say the words “Abraham Accords,” as the term must remind officials of how Trump and Kushner succeeded in an area where they have constantly failed."
Amazing. So childish! lol!
Literal Harry Potter logic, no different to how they insisted on referring to Trump as "45" for the duration of 2017 until they finally realised how lame and cringe this was.
Wait, it was the Dems doing that? I thought that was Trump's own PR, to place him on a glorious line...
The only people I personally encountered doing it were people who disliked Trump. I've had several people "explain" to me that the reasoning behind it was to deny Trump the free publicity associated with mentioning his name in writing - which, of course, does nothing to explain why you'd refer to him as "45" verbally.
"Haaretz is now reporting that while Arab countries have been publicly calling for Israel to not fight such an aggressive war, behind the scenes they are encouraging it to not stop until it destroys Hamas."
I think this might be the single most frustrating phenomenon in the whole conflict. If I were in the Israeli govt. I would find it an irresistible temptation to tape this and play it at the UN. Actually, I'd find it an irresistible temptation to tell Jordan that, if they hate us so much, they can stick their peace deal and declare war if that's what they want.
I posted a comment above, but the difference in private/public responses have alot to do with the pressure they face from the religious populists. Last I checked, Israel had a 20-30% approval rating from the general Arab population, and no doubt after Oct7, the propaganda has been cranked up even higher to inflame tensions and put pressure to stop all modernizations efforts. So the Jordanians really can't do anything. But the good thing is, I think this also reduces the likelihood of an all out Arab v. Israel war. Because privately, most of the Arab leaders are aware that fundamentalist politics are not the way going forward, and modernizations nessescarily means embracing Israel
"the difference in private/public responses have alot to do with the pressure they face from the religious populists"
This exactly.
It's like if, during the Cold War, a secret card-carrying member of the Communist Party were elected President of the USA. He privately assures Khruschev, "I'm doing everything I can to ensure the global revolution succeeds, comrade, but understand I need to keep up the pretense of the Cold War. The American public isn't on board yet but I'm doing everything I can to undermine our corrupt capitalist order."
Khruschev, annoyed at the hypocrisy, secretly records the conversation and publicizes it to the world. Booyah! A huge win for Communism, great success!
I wrote this in response in a Note:
I agree with Hanania that the Trump administration’s analysis proved correct, and that we should take it more seriously when considering the current conflict. At the same time, I don’t think this critique is entirely fair.
American diplomats linked the issues because Arab governments did. This began in 1973, when Saudi Arabia led OPEC to employ the “oil weapon” to punish the United States and its main allies (the Netherlands, the U.K., and Canada) for their support of Israel.
It’s difficult to overstate the impact of this event for western governments. The price of oil skyrocketed and wrecked the world economy. Incumbents were swept out of power as voters punished governments basically everywhere. You can make a serious case that the malaise and stagflation of the 1970’s resulted mainly from this event.
And the Arab governments responsible for it were very clear as to its cause. Saudi Arabia may have changed its view today. But if you went back to the 1970’s or 1980’s when the old King was still in power, you could not pursue the current tact.
Hanania is correct that the relationship between this and the so-called Arab street was always tenuous. One dictator certainly embraced that view and ignored the views of his people on it - the Shah of Iran.
He was joined by his dear friend, a fellow dictator who executed the peace treaty with Israel that Hanania references and gave the Shah refuge after he was overthrown - Anwar Sadat.
It’s perhaps not difficult to understand why diplomats grew skeptical of Hanania’s position here that middle eastern states could simply repress their way through these issues given the fate of both men.
Likewise, while things have changed today, back in the 1990’s and then after 9/11, there were very credible analyses calling into question the stability of the House of Saud.
Again, this is not to discount Hanania’s assessment of the situation today. I also think he is correct that some diplomats, like Kerry, refused to update their analysis based on personal preference — using the resistance of Arab governments as an excuse, not a reason — and that the Trump administration deserves praise for its willingness to challenge orthodoxy.
But there are solid reasons the orthodoxy prevailed that, indeed, represent “a reasonable view well-grounded in an understanding of history and the political dynamics of the region”, and they are worth recalling as well.
Anti Israeli sentiments/pro Palestinian was championed by Nasser, who used the Palestinian issue as a play to become the strongman of Arab nationalism and rallying other Arab nations behind him. This ultimately culminated in the yom Kippur invasion, which failed.
I think Arab support for Palestine post Nasser has followed the same, cynical template, which is that nobody actually cares about Palestinian welfare, but sees them as a great political platform to rally behind a pan Arabic front. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that no neighbouring Arab countries are willing to send aid to Palestine, or even allow their refugees into their borders. This playbook is very much tied into the religio-fundamentalist-populist-islamic section of Arab politics, which is what dominated the region for the past 10-20 years.
However, recent modernizations in key Arab states, led by MBS of Saudi Arabia (of all places) have introduced an alternative politics, that calls for greater Westernization and modernization, and moving away from the religious fundamentalist template of earlier Arab politics. These are the Arab leaders who negotiated the Abraham Accords.
I think what is being played out, in the Oct7 attack, is as much about the internal conflicts between the two factions I described above than it is abt Israel and Palestine. Personally imo, it's Oct7 is a counter move by the religious faction to check the gains made by the modernizes with the Abraham Accords, because it again rallies the general Arab sentiments against the Israelis and for the Palestinians, poisoning all efforts by modernized to embrace the west as siddling to the infidels. So tldr: there are two Arab political factions, one that supports the Oct7 and one that loses from it
The oil weapon has lost its edge now, at least for the US. (And in Europe, it's not the Arab states wielding it any more.) Maybe a joint action by the OPEC could still cause headache if it came to happen, but it has been tried and failed many times over the last few years. So that argument is out of the window, even if it held back in the 70s.
One might argue that Western countries are afraid of their own Muslim minorities, but these kinds of fears are more frequently invoked as excuses for policies already desired by the government than honestly indulged in. I don't know of a single successful immigrant uprising in the last 70 years of European history. The last 10 years, in particular, have shown that Islamic terrorism in Europe correlates positively with the successes of Islamists in the Middle East rather than with the strength of its repression. ISIS was all the rage in Europe as long as Raqqa was standing; now it's a lone stabbing once a year. After Oct 7, these things became more frequent again, but everything suggests that they will peter back out when Hamas is crushed.
" some solution to the refugee problem that would have not just included the return of Palestinians to a Palestinian state, but to Israel proper.
In other words, the only thing the Palestinians would ask for was that Israel stop being a Jewish state."
So what? I thought open borders was an unequivocal good and the only reason anyone opposes it is because they're a bunch of dirty, low-status racists. Or maybe that was last month -- it's hard to keep up with the whirlwind of contradictory spicy takes coming from ol' Dick Shakespeare here.
Fine Richard but where will the Palestinians go? You just say elsewhere. Cowardly move for a guy who's so forthright and doesn't care about social niceties. Europe and the US should not, and their people will absolutely not, take them in. Tired of being the dumping ground for the world's poor and problematic people.
They wouldn't go anywhere. They can stay exactly where they are. They would just have to accept the fact that they won't be able to annihilate Israel to set up a Palestinian state from the River to the Sea, and make do with the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Jordan. Simple.
So Israel can offload Palestinians onto Jordan because of its security needs but Jordan’s security needs don’t matter. No way Jordan will take them in. You deal with your own problems. Don’t push them onto someone else.
You do know that Jordan's population is 80% Palestinian, correct?
I know that Jordan's population is overwhelmingly Arab. Same for Syria. Palestinians are Arabs, but not all Arabs are Palestinians. More importantly, Palestinians don't want to be forced into Jordan. Whether that happens is another thing. What you are disputing is the ethnogenesis of Palestinians.
Not sure I follow you here. But there is no room for another Arab state west of the Jordan. Since most of the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria make their livelihood from jobs in Israel, and that now those jobs are lost forever, they may be interested in well-compensated emigration. It doesn't have to be Jordan, and for sure no forceful solution. There is no hope for them having a decent life where they are (same for the Gazans). Why not offer them a normal future?
There is room. It's called the West Bank. They can have a state there. I agree Gazan and West Bank economic prospects look dim. Israelis won't let them work in Israel anymore and they shouldn't. You want to pay them to leave but they don't want to leave their land. Richard wants to force them out but he never says where to. You said Jordan but Jordan doesn't want them.
The Palestinians can continue living mired in poverty and corruption in their own land under their own government. You want to push them out into someone else's country and then take over the land and settle it with Jews. I don't see why the US and Europe should take in radicalized Palestinians. That is where they will go if they are pushed into Egypt. Boats to Italy and Greece. No thank you. Keep the Middle Eastern problems there and stop pushing them onto the rest of the world.
Jordan is already basically a Palestinian State in all but name. Obviously the Jordanians don't want any more of them. But the Jordanians are also quite good at scattering Palestinians to the four winds when they cause problems (see Black September)
My point is that no one wants the radicalized Palestinians and for good reason. Israel trying to dump them onto other countries in the name of security and self-interest is a principle that applies to other states too. Richard says Palestinians must be crushed and be forcibly displaced in other countries. He wants Europe and the US while Israelis don't care where they go, but for ease would likely prefer Egypt or Jordan, but see principle above. It would be disastrous for those countries from a security and economic perspective, not to mention the effect on the Copts.
I think you owe Edward N. Luttwak a hat tip on this series of articles who wrote an article in 1999 in Foreign Affairs making precisely the same point you have been making - worth a read. Here is the opening paragraph:
“An unpleasant truth often overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. Either way the key is that the fighting must continue until a resolution is reached. War brings peace only after passing a culminating phase of violence. Hopes of military success must fade for accommodation to become more attractive than further combat.”
“Give War a Chance” was the title
Some time ago, during the height of the protests regarding Netanyahu's attempt to reform the Israeli Supreme Court (which everyone appears to agree needs SOME kind of reform), I made the point that the protests proved that Israel had become a regular country and had solved all or nearly all of the problems that had made it a nation under siege.
This being the case, its population, grown bored with peace and prosperity as all humans eventually become, began to invent problems leading to their society being roiled by entirely bog-standard debates and scandals like quis custodiet ipsos custodes and corruption. The End of History and the Last Man had triumphed in yet another troubled corner of the world.
If October 7 had been followed by a regional escalation and/or a cognizable Israeli defeat, I would have been happy to admit that I was wrong about this. But that's not what has happened, and of course (as everyone now knows), Frank made allowances for these kinds of uprisings against the end of history, but opined that they would effectively always be resolved in favor of the status quo, broadly speaking.
Indeed, this is what we see. Aside from some face-saving military actions between Israel, Hezbollah, and Syria, this has been entirely Hamas versus Israel, a conflict that Hamas is sure to lose. Israel has had to endure some tongue-lashings from the 'traditional' Arab allies of the Palestinians, but I have not heard that Israel's diplomatic standing has been meaningfully effected among the states of the Arab League, or really anywhere else. At worst, progress towards normalization has been paused while the military matters are settled. And otherwise, Israel's standing in the minds of most-right thinking people and states has risen.
Thanks for reminding me that life is too short. I don't have time to read people who mock the suffering of millions and make up fancy intellectual bullshit to defend Trump. I hung in for a while because you are obviously brilliant and unique, but this is what I needed to know it's time to unsubscribe.
What exactly is made up "fancy intellectual bullshit?"
It is both possible to consider Trump a buffoon unfit for office and a anchor around the neck of the GOP winning elections and also believe that the Palestinian statehood cause should fail and a effective means to ensure that failure is to go around them to other Arab states to isolate Hamas, the PA and Iran.
When the chips are down the petrostates and middle-east monarchies want to be on the side of the west rather than live in fear of Iran. Not one entity has ensured the suffering of Palestinians more than their political leadership in the West Bank and Gaza.
Those facts on the ground will be reversed as forcefully as they were established. It's unrealistic to settle a stable Jewish homeland with those methods
Thank you for such an insightful, informative article. You really helped explain some things for me that I hadn’t really understood about the Abraham Accords. I appreciate the ability to learn more about the real issues going on over there.
Up until 10/7, wasn’t Biden pretty committed to one-upping Trump with bringing Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords? Doesn’t sound like he didn’t see it as a success, at least after the fact.
And, speaking of 10/7, isn’t it possible to read the Hamas attack and favorable views of it in the Arab world as a direct consequence of the Trump/Kushner policy of the Jerusalem embassy move and the AA accords, which was premised on the notion, shared by the Netanyahu govt, that the Palestinian issue could be ignored and sidestepped without consequences?
And it’s not clear that the AAs brought peace between the US and, say, Bahrain--we’ve been parking our 5th Navy fleet there for decades. Good for the Israelis, but not clearly a gain for the US.
Finally if a root of the prolonged conflict is misguided western liberal sentimentalism towards the Palestinian cause, what of that from western conservatives towards Israel? Couldn’t the US just not take sides and bow out all together? Israel would move to crush the Palestinians and take the land. Subsequently they’d likely face severe consequences with the international community, Arab states, and Iran without US diplomatic and military cover. Probably some kind of detente and stasis would follow. That could be a path to peace.
"It’s an open question how much the US can restrain Israel, though it certainly can to a certain extent..."
We can completely restrain them if we so want. Almost all munitions that Israel uses come straight from their generous Uncle Sam. All we gotta do is turn off the supply tap, and it's bye-bye war.
The Palestinians are losing more human lives in a day or two in this war than they lost in 26 years of occupation until the Oslo Accords, which brought terrorists from Tunisia. If the world stops bothering and stirring things up, it might be possible to return to an improved model of the pre-Oslo period and to peace and stability. The Palestinians will manage their internal affairs themselves, meaning how to punish thieves or homosexuals and how to deal with sewage, hospitals and regime opponents, but the IDF will be able to enter from time to time to arrest terrorists.
Wow! Not what I expected from you Richard. You woke up full on neocon this AM. The solution to the Israel Palestinian issue is simple. Implement the 1947 UN mandate. Two states with defined borders with UN monitored enforcement.
It would be nice if the Palestinians could form a state that could make deals with Israel, but after all this time I just don't see it happening. A state divided into two is particularly odd. It didn't last for East & West Pakistan, and currently the Palestinian territories are split between different governments (although Hamas doesn't even seem to aspire to be a government rather than a terrorist group).
Unfortunately a two state solution would only work if they both wanted peace. Hamas-Palestinians want Israel wiped off the map. Forever.
The Likud party's charter explicitly denies the idea of a 2 state solution. To pretend that Israel has been excited about giving up claims to the Palestinian side of the 67 borders is ahistorical hasbara bullshit.
The UN couldn’t effectively monitor or enforce rules in my local middle school, I don’t think they are going to accomplish much in this theater.