 |
| Pro-Palestinian protest, Chicago 2014 |
This is the high octane version of today's column, the way it read when turned into the newspaper Tuesday morning. If you'd rather read the print version that ran in the Sun-Times, you can find that here.
During the recent Democratic National Convention I attended a reception for the Israeli ambassador and found myself face to face with the husband of a member of the Netanyahu administration. The situation called for small talk. But what to say?
"If I had a choice between getting rid of Hamas and getting rid of Netanyahu, I'd choose Netanyahu," I began, in my artless fashion. "There will always be another terror group to take Hamas's place. But I don't think Israel can ever have a worse leader than Netanyahu."
He spun on his heel and strode away. So much for dialogue. I'd be more embarrassed at my rudeness, but obviously am not alone in this opinion, judging from the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who filled the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem after this weekend after six hostages were found executed in the tunnels underneath Gaza.
I don't write about the Israeli-Palestinian mess much because nothing ever changes. I could pluck a column from 2004 or 2014 and post it and it would be just as current and just as futile as what I'll be writing today. To apply a logical concept — it's time someone did — both sides are making what is called a "category error." A category error is when you misinterpret the essential nature of what you're dealing with. Such as if you come home, find a tiger prowling your living room and welcome it as a stray feline and hope it will get along with your other cats. What you categorize as "potential pet" should in fact be seen as an "immediate lethal danger."
The Palestinians traditionally treat Israel as a military problem. An approach which failed spectacularly in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, and that was when they had Arab armies behind them. They've been going it alone for the past 50 years, achieving greater levels of failure, leading to suffering, death and a dwindling area of land they actually possess.
Israel, on the other hand, views the Palestinians as a long term management issue, instead of a pressing moral call to immediate action. That is, rather than solve the situation that fate has left on their doorstep, they blame the Palestinians' admittedly corrupt and — Oct. 7 notwithstanding — bumbling leadership, shrug, make do, and let another decade slide by. Rather the way Chicago handles its pension problem.
Both sides have a policy of focusing exclusively on their own humanity, decrying their own tragedy while ignoring the tragedy they inflict, calling on the compassion of a public that, while often capable of extravagant displays of sympathy for the Palestinians, at the end of the day can't fix the problem and doesn't really try.
Admittedly, logic doesn't do much in a highly charged emotional issue like this, with children dying every day and kidnapped babies being hidden in tunnels. It's like bringing a slide rule to a knife fight. I'm a little embarrassed to bring it up, except it would be nice to get past the current disaster so we could proceed to the next one.
Speaking of category errors, I'd like to suggest that the "from the river to the sea" chant hurts, not Jews so much, who see its genocidal implications and feel more uneasy than usual, but Palestinians, hindering their ability to improve their situation by inflating their expectations. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Trying to fight their way back to an imagined past, they lose any hope of an actual future. Or to put it another way: Oct. 7 was not a convincing demonstration of their desire to live in peace.
But if you bring up Oct. 7, Palestinian supporters instantly counter that, given the colonial crime that is Israel, in their estimation, they have a "right" to resist.
Sure they do. And I have a right to jam my hand into a grinder. Doesn't make it a good idea. Was Oct. 7 a good idea? How's that working out? I'd suggest not so well, but I'm biased. Those urging a cease fire now should ask themselves what a cease fire achieves if the war starts up the next day after the next barrage of missiles.
The first anniversary of the war is coming up. I won't write about it til then. Meanwhile, protests will disrupt college campuses, frighten passing Jews, and accomplish little. The war continues, the blood flows, and the sides seem further apart than ever. I wish they'd finally realize they can't kill their way or blame their way to a solution. They're tried that before and are trying it now. It doesn't seem to be working. The solution is where it has always been, in their own hands.
From the river to the sea is what both sides clearly want. It's an impossible dream, and it's the reason this never ends.
ReplyDeleteDon't be daft Jack. If Israel wanted to be from the river to the sea, it would be.
DeleteQuite a good analysis. Now I need to read the version in the paper to see what was sanded away.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand this conflict...I don't think I ever will. I've tried reading books about it and the blurry lines of who's entitled to what just never seem to define themselves. What I have determined and what has become clear is that "Bibi" has been an antagonist his entire life. He's never been a solutions guy. He's only seen the "zionist" of it all. In the 90's, there was real opportunity. Players like Arafat and Rabin made real progress with public displays of, "gasp!", dialogue. The Oslo Accords were a real chance. Ironically, it was an American-Israeli and an Israeli nationalist who really helped put the screws to potential long term resolutions. But Bibi's "we can't trust the peace process" attitude helped propel him to the Prime Minister post and his attitude toward a single-state solution hasn't waivered. Even among my uneducated colleagues (I one of them) and our low brow discussions on the matter come to the same conclusion as the tens of thousands Israelis in Tel-Aviv....Netanyahu has got to go.
ReplyDeleteSo the paper removed all mention of October 7th. I don't see the logic here (what are readers going to do, protest?), but I'm not sure this is a situation where logic was applied. Your undiluted column is best!
ReplyDeleteEver since the paper became part of WBEZ, they have valiantly tried to obscure the violence and barbarity of the Palestinians. The readers cannot protest because the paper is now free, and you get what you pay for.
DeleteNetanyahu has legal problems that could send him to jail. His legal strategy - rig the justice system. He and Trump have an obvious kinship.
ReplyDeleteIsrael has one of the most powerful militaries on earth. they use it to preventive destruction of themselves and their country. several countries have given up on the idea that the Jewish people can be forced to leave the middle east. Iran and its proxies seem to believe that if their persistent eventually they will accomplish this. in the meantime the people in Gaza are willing to endure death to cast the Israelis as monsters.
ReplyDeleteIt would be less powerful if we and England and who ever else is supplying Israel with arms and money. The war would have been over pretty quick if we stopped doing that. And perhaps Oct 7th wouldn't have happened. Norm Finklesteitn might not have been the first to call Gaza an open air concentration camp. What do you expect will happen after 75 years of this.
DeleteYou are so right! Had Israel not had the arms, the war would have been over pretty quick, way before October 7th Israel would have been overrun by its neighbors and its entire population would have been suggested to the same fate as the raped, mutilated, burned alive and brutally murdered victims of October 7th.
Deletegood column
ReplyDeletePlease understand that what I am about to write is not what I wish to happen. Not at all. But that said for a long time now I have said that Israel and the Palestinians have developed what I call “ The Last Man Standing” rule. That is, the group left with the last man standing is the winner. Bragging right's, etc. Like many groups with generational hatred each side is raising their children to fear and hate the other. Sure there are some from each group trying to change this but fear and mistrust generally win out. My brother has said for decades that if only they could figure out a way to make money from each other the problems would eventually cease. I don’t know. Maybe. We’ll see.
ReplyDeleteI have read both. The edits made at the end of the piece didn't make much sense, but your analysis of the situation remained intact. Your analysis was excellent, but perhaps I'm biased because it mirrors my own. After 80 years of conflict, none of us bystanders but only the participants can end it.
ReplyDeleteArtless? I don't think so. Deliberately disingenuous ? Of course. And no small talk ensued nor was really expected, I would guess. Netanyahu probably doesn't much care what a Chicago journalist thinks about him nor possibly the low regard for him evinced by the hundreds of thousands of Israeli strikers in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. But maybe Netanyahu isn't the "worse leader" Israel can have. There seem to be a few super right wingers waiting in the wings who think Netanyahu hasn't been mean enough and are eager to kill even more Palestinians than he. No doubt there are also plenty of terrorists waiting to succeed to the leadership of Hamas as soon as the present leader is martyred.
ReplyDeletejohn
One of the biggest problems of our time, is the inability to compromise. In life, no one should ever get it all. There must be give and take. There is an old adage that says a good negotiation results in both sides leaving angry (or something to that accord).
ReplyDeleteThe American Right is destroyed the ability to compromise and for some reason everyone still blames the democrats. Regardless, the same is true of Israel and it's Arab neighbors. Neither side will stop at anything unless they get it all. And like the Democrats here in America, Israel will always be blamed for it. Though the main difference here is that Israel (Specifically Netanyahu) is to blame.
The loudest voices don't want to live with people who aren't like them. They are not the majority, just the loudest. We need to prevent those inflammatory voices of the air they need to spread.
Register. Educate. Vote
The edits were more minor than I expected and probably relatively harmless and not so bad an idea. But for all the editing, you'd think they'd have changed "slide ruler" to "slide rule," though maybe young editors these days don't know what one is.
ReplyDeleteBeing an inveterate nitpicker, this was what I was wondering about after reading the version of the column in the e-edition (which I believe is the same as what appeared in the print newspaper), but wasn't going to bring it up. I see now that in the online version at the website (and linked to above), it's been corrected to "slide rule," however.
DeleteI'm gonna assume that it was a simple typo, that Neil himself certainly knows the proper term, and that some of the young editors you refer to may not.
Which raises the question of whether Neil fixed it in the online version, or if there are different editors for that.
No, I always called it a "slide ruler" even though my dad was a nuclear physicist and had one. No one corrected me until now. I fixed the Sun-Times version, but neglected to fix the EGD version until just now.
DeleteThanks for the reply, NS. I think of us as being about the same age, but you're a few years younger. Perhaps a critical difference when it came to slide rules. I had one in high school, and assumed you might have, too. Though I barely knew how to use it, and you know what they say about folks who assume things!
DeleteWikipedia says: "Around 1974, lower-cost handheld electronic scientific calculators started to make slide rules largely obsolete." Also: "Even during their heyday, slide rules never caught on with the general public."
I had a friend as a kid who carried a slide rule. He and his science geek buddies at Evanston H.S. wore them in holsters, like gunfighters, and they had slide rule fights.
DeleteNo, no...not like a sword fight. A math problem would be written on a blackboard (hey, I'm old), and they had to whip it out (the slide rule, that is) and come up with the answer before the other guy. Or guys. Maybe there were more than just two. Never saw it happen...just heard about it.
My friend was a fast draw.
He eventually became a nuclear physicist.
Worked at Fermilab for a while, and then out West..
After Jesse Jackson made a trip to this part of the Middle East (long ago) and acknowledged the intransigence of the opposing positions, he said, "But SOMEone has to break the cycle of pain." I agree. And that will happen ... oh ... probably never.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let us grieve for all the Jews who have died recently, in recent history, over all time. Someone always deems Jew worthy of death.
ReplyDeleteSecond, let us grieve for all the Palestinians throughout all history, in living memory and right now. Their suffering is manifest.
Whose god demands killing one’s neighbors? That god is disqualified because life is the one richness we all value.
Killing babies and children and mothers and fathers is an abomination. The nations of the Earth must go in and stop the killing, force negotiation, lay down a system of coexistence and make it last a generation so that life is what the people know, and respect and interdependence.
What do you imagine each side is willing to give up or lose in order to gain this? Peace
DeleteI remember seeing an episode of "Last Week Tonight, with John Oliver" that I believe explained how the conflict started vey well. Because of the way he stated it you can see tough it will be to ever agree on anything. All parties have such compelling arguments, at least in their mind, and then you include religion.
ReplyDeleteMy only observation here (other than gratitude that someone other than just me knows that the term is "slide rule") is that (1) it's ridiculous to think that there's going to be a day when Israel can say for certain that Hamas has been eliminated -- how in any practical manner are you going to determine that? -- and (2) it's equally ridiculous to think that no one among the innocent population whose entire life and environment has been destroyed will be forming elaborate plans for revenge in the future.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, Hamas will simply recruit new members from the many whose lives have already been changed forever, providing them with the means to strike back, and the whole process will repeat indefinitely.
Great column.
ReplyDeleteHamas and Bibi have the same agenda: to prolong the horror. If a two-state solution happened tomorrow, Bibi would go on trial for corruption--and the voters of Palestine would look for a less radical government than Hamas would provide. As long as Hamas and Bibi remain in power, no progress can be made.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said
DeleteThe Hollywood/comic book solution is for both sides to unite against a common enemy, like Martians or vampires. The Biblical solution is the hand of God giving them the choice of living together in peace or not living at all. The common sense diplomatic solution is to unite as one nation, Israstine or Palesrael. I guess humanity hasn't evolved that far.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletei may have mentioned this before, but i've long said that i understood why the Israeli voters originally chose bibi as pm-they didn't. trust anyone else to defend the country. but i also said that their continued reliance on him would ultimately lead to the destruction of the country. whether it's bibi or ben givr or smotrich, all are dedicated to ripping the country apart and making sure that, in the process, they drive away their closest friends and allies. bibi does it simply to stay out of jail and strut his arrogance for all to see- the others and their ilk do it for a twisted and vile ideology. either way, their continued presence has the jewish state marching to its doom, much to the delight of its opponents who patiently await to pick up the pieces and pick over the bones.
good on you neil, for telling the truth to the Israeli ambassador.
btw, i've dropped a link to a podcast from the Times of Israel's (no firewall, but if you're interested and can afford it,, the ToI has a monthly subscription rate of $6 per month-i find it a pretty good on the ground source) Daily Briefing from monday. the interviewee is a bit more measured in his approach than i-after all, he's living it, but he's pretty close to the general view that bibi is a fucking monster. if the blog host doesn't like posting links, again, it's Times of Israel Daily Briefing from monday sept 2 -about. 20 minutes long.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/daily-briefing-sept-2-day-332-two-events-that-led-to-this-eruptive-israeli-moment/
At the risk of seeming to be whattabouting - with a year gone by I find the war to be atrocious- both the terrorism by the Palestinians and the disproportionate response and disregard for civilian casualties by Israel.
ReplyDeleteI, however, have long found the West Bank settlements atrocious and while the immediacy of the war has taken our attention away from these settlements, I have never heard a cogent argument that supports them. As a regular and respectful reader of your work - I would welcome your take.
saw this on facebook from a Miriam Markowitz The question of why we support striking Israelis, on American Labor Day, no less, but condemn American protesters against the war, has an easy answer. The Israelis are striking for the hostages, not the Palestinians. In fact there is no distinction: the Israelis are hostages in Gaza; every Gazan is a hostage to Israel. This is why it's absurd to condemn violence against the hostages while remaining silent about the Palestinians, especially as Israel escalates attacks in the West Bank. The only distinction between the hostages in Gaza and the hostages of Gaza is race. That's it. If you see it any other way, you are guilty of privileging the lives of white people over the lives of brown ones.
ReplyDeleteLast year, I lived in an Israeli community in Thailand. After October 7, I heard things that would make Nazis look egalitarian: We're going to mow the lawn in Gaza; we're going to turn it into a parking lot; the only good Arabs live in Jaffa. These were not exceptions to the rule among the people I knew. They were the commonplace reflections of a people who have embraced racism and chauvinism as their daily bread. I, a Jew and an American, was in danger in that community, and got out by the skin of my teeth, simply for disagreeing.
I can never go back there, or to Israel, the homeland other Jews promised me, because I risk becoming their hostage. This is not the Judaism I know, or democracy as we, Americans, envision it. The fabled Israeli valor turned out to be nothing more than thuggish, mafia tactics of intimidation and then violence against a lone woman. There is no honor here, and perhaps there never was.
Israel is not "the only democracy in the Middle East," a shining city on a hill, nor is it becoming more like us. It is the opposite. We are experiencing the Israelization of America through massive surveillance and techno-tribalism organized and amplified by the police state, the chilling of dissent in all forms, and the codification of nationalism as a protected status.
The hostages of Gaza deserve a ceasefire, and a lasting peace, every bit as much as the hostages in Gaza. Until this is widely recognized by both American and Israelis, we are all racists, and worse: hostage-takers ourselves.
My opposition to the war in Gaza comes from my Judaism, its tradition of fairness and humanity in the face of social pressure, even when the cost is my home, or perhaps my life. I have always considered Judaism the lodestone of my morality. It is a religion of ethics and deeds, not beliefs and bogeymen, until now. It is not just the future of the hostages in Gaza that is at stake; it is Judaism's, and we have to ask ourselves the same questions every day when we wake up, and every night when we lie down: If not now, when? If not us, who?
Racism?
DeleteTell me more please. Jews are white. Palestinians are browns. I never hear anybody look at it like this. It's about nationalism and there's the religious thing, but racism? Race is a construct to begin with and you might be able to say that African people or Asian people aren't Europeans, but there's this large difference in skin color that lends its self towards the notion of race. I don't see racism as a component of what's going on in Israel/ daza but I guess I could if you explained it to me better.
There is only one race on Earth. The human race. As far as I know dividing people by skin color is bigotry, but not a scientific notion.
This was an interesting article. Not all Jews were exactly in favor of a Jewish state
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n06/pankaj-mishra/the-shoah-after-gaza from the article. In the journals he kept from the 1960s onwards, the literary critic Alfred Kazin alternates between bafflement and scorn in charting the psycho-dramas of personal identity that helped to create Israel’s most loyal constituency abroad:
The present period of Jewish ‘success’ will some day be remembered as one of the greatest irony ... The Jews caught in a trap, the Jews murdered, and bango! Out of ashes all this inescapable lament and exploitation of the Holocaust ... Israel as the Jews’ ‘safeguard’; the Holocaust as our new Bible, more than a Book of Lamentations. From Theodore Herzl Herzl would conclude in his Diaries that “the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies”. These were not slips or errors but indeed a long-term strategy that Zionism and Israel continue to deploy to this very day.