Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why I Rarely Argue About Israel and the Palestinians Anymore
Debating controversial issues is fun for some people; they like the fight and drama. Sometimes they actually have a dog in the fight. But frankly, I’m not a person who likes a fight, and I never have. I’m not afraid of controversy; in fact, sometimes I enjoy discussing controversial subjects when the dynamics are supportive.
But when it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, I have pretty much bowed out of those discussions, even though they are with people whom I consider to be my friends. I used to be willing to take on all challenges. It just doesn’t seem worth it anymore. Why, you may ask.
For me to enter a conflict-ridden discussion, I have to feel passionate about it. That certainly applies to Israel. I want to talk with people who I think are reasonable and count on reliable sources of information; this is where the subject gets dicey. There are hundreds if not thousands of sources that are on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I obviously believe in the veracity of the publications I read; people who disagree with me trust a whole other set of media. Positions are so polarized that even if there were room for learning, or possibly changing minds, no one is truly interested in that effort. We are simply too far apart.
The same criteria apply to almost any controversial topic: anything on the extreme political Left is most likely to differ drastically with the political Right: Wokeism, government spending, overreach by all branches of government, and the administrative state are just a few examples. The main problem, I believe, is not only are positions polarized, but we don’t believe we can learn anything meaningful from the other side. On the Right, we also question the Left’s motives, their commitment to truth, their understanding of the implications of their beliefs, and their willingness to generate practical compromises.
They only care about winning.
Which brings me back to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. We can argue about the history of the situation, the agendas of all sides, the potential for peace. But I just can’t get past one simple fact:
The Arabs/Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the sea.
No matter whether a one or two-state solution is negotiated, they are angry, feel abused and injured. And those in charge are committed to destroying Israel and the Jews.
That’s a subject I refuse to contemplate.
[photo courtesy of unsplash.com]
Published in Foreign Policy
Anti-Semitism is hard to pin down even when people try be even-handed in defining it.
The left clearly aren’t bothering with that.
Minorities of any variety should not be mistreated based on their membership in that minority. But individuals of every variety should be vilified according to their words, their deeds, and their content of their lack of character.
Eh, they’re both wrong.
But it is a matter of degree and frequency.
Look at who gets killed by each side. And where they launch their attacks from. I may not be an international lawyer, but I can tell the difference between butchery and surgery.
https://ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html
At least 10,669 Palestinians and 1,334 Israelis have been killed by someone from the other side since 2000.
I am sceptical of any data coming from B’Tselem. But I don’t doubt that far more Palestinians than Israelis have died as a result of the conflict.
But that can be a consequence of Israel’s greater efforts to protect its people, through the building of shelters and defensive systems, like Iron Dome. It can also be a consequence of the reckless launching of missiles from civilian areas.
But what the disparity in numbers also shows is that armed attacks on Israel or Israelis have been a disaster for the Palestinian people, both in terms of lives lost and the retardation of economic growth in Palestinian areas. There is an economic powerhouse right next door to a putative Palestinian State, which could drive improvements for both Israelis and Palestinians living in their respective States. The opportunities are tantalising.
But too many people – and States- are too deeply invested in the struggle to actually desire a positive outcome- or see the desired outcome as the destruction of Israel. It’s tragic.
Invader? No. Aren´t you late for a Bund meeting?
Yes, it is a classic argument of Soviet era post 67 anti-Israel smears as well.
My guess? He´s really as ignorant as he makes himself seem.
Except, Japan was not calling for that either.
Still no good.
Jerry also it ores the Palestinians did not want a Palestinian state. It was offered and they rejected it.
And by the way, of course they did. A Palestinian state attacking Israel would stop being terror and start being an act of war. Once that state attacked Israel, Israel would be under the laws of war allowed to retaliate.
He is about being against Israel.
It could be a lot of things, sure.
Neither people seems to have that many stellar choices. But in the end, they have to make them.
Must Palestine die for Israel to live? Or at least be redefined into what is convenient but no longer real or itself? And similarly Israel for Palestine to live?
Perhaps – which is what makes it a tragedy. I don’t see any happy endings, even ‘winning’ comes at a cost.
🙄🤣
If the Palestinians were led by people who valued human life, including both their own Palestinian people and the people of Israel, there wouldn’t be a conflict between Palestine and Israel.
Instead two free and democratic societies would be next to each other, much like Italy is next to France, much like Sweden is next to Finland.
The conflict exists because some people don’t value freedom, human rights and democracy. The Israelis do, but their adversaries do not.
It’s the same in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Freedom, democracy and human rights on one side (Ukraine) and dictatorship and a desire to subjugate on the other side (Russia).
It’s the same in the demarcation between South Korea and North Korea.
Life is a tragedy. But, for many the tragedy is self-inflicted. I think the Palestinian reaction to their circumstances is more than half the problem. They could assimilate where they are — whether in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. But, no, they foster bitterness and grievance (a leftwing feature, btw) and ruin their own lives by that means. It’s the same with blacks in America.
The only good lesson I took away from 12 years of post-Vatican II CCD (Catholic Sunday school) was this: it’s not what happens to you in life that matters. It’s how you choose to respond. Palestinians have responded poorly. Palestinians hurt worst.
And those Palestinians who desire freedom, democracy and human rights are subject to persecution in the Palestinian territories.
It’s like trying to be supportive of a free press in North Korea. There are North Koreans who support freedom of the press. But if they try to act on their beliefs they end up dead or in prison.
So, I don’t think we need to commit to the idea that Palestinians are monolithic in their beliefs, only that the sensible Palestinians are intimidated and rendered ineffective by other Palestinians.
Good point.
I was thinking about this in the other thread, when it was commented that a moderate Palestinian movement was started 18 times, and 18 times the leaders were killed, with the implication being the Israelis assassinated them. But, that is counter-intuitive, isn’t it? Why would Israelis want radicals leading the Palestinian people? I think it much more probable that Islamist power seekers took out their competition.
This is always the problem with concentrations of power. The most ruthless find a way to rise to the top (warning to America — probably too late).
My neighbors are from Israel and glad to be out. They are politically middle of the road. They don’t like Netanyahu and from what I’ve heard on our Rico podcasts by our own Jewish journalists they don’t either. I was surprised by this. I’ve talked to people recently who visited the holy sites and said it is very divisive, meaning the secular Jews vs. the Orthodox, no one like the Christians – it’s a mess. Then add the Palestinian problem.
Thanks for weighing in, FSC. I’m not sure whom you’re listening to, but I follow Caroline Glick. The Left in Israel is doing a great job of discounting the Right, including a trial they’ve been conducting against Netanyahu for years–and have found nothing. The Knesset did go too far on the degree to which they wanted to change the judiciary, but if you knew the background on the judiciary, they have been using powers that they haven’t been given. It sounds much like the Left and Right in this country. And you’re right: it’s a mess.
If Palestine were an actual state, with all the rights and privileges accorded a state, the moment it launched an attack on Israel, it would be an act of war, not terror. Israel would have ever right to declare war on Palestine and retaliate.
They don’t want to be a state.
I think their primary goal is to get rid of Israel. They’ve said so in their mission statements.
They refused it when it was offered.
It comes down to the fact that Israel seems to be negotiating with itself. At some point, they must realize there is no point.
There’s no negotiating going on at this time. Even if Israel wanted to negotiate, the Palestinians refuse. Many people are seriously considering the one-state solution. Caroline Glick’s book is well-researched and shows how it would work.
Years ago I ranked anti-semitism in the following order, and I think it still holds true:
1) Muslim Islamists
2) Political leftists
3) African Americans
4) Neo-Nazis
5) Self-hating Jews (see #2)
Interesting list, cdor. It sounds like you’re ranking groups according to their hatred of Jews. It would be hard for me to dispute it.
Edit: I’m not sure if I’d put African Americans so high on the list; I just wonder if they hate us as much as they once did.
Palestinians have a State. It’s called Jordan. The political leaders of the Palestinians all call for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and the annihilation of all of the Jews within it. Not a very good starting point for negotiation if one happens to be an Israeli Jew.
They may not have made “official calls” for the destruction of China, Korea, and Southeast Asia, but they were carrying out a genocidal campaign that killed tens of millions of people long before our entry into World War II. That was far greater destruction and death than anything modern Arabs have accomplished in total so far.
Keep in mind also: All of their propaganda, going back decades now, praises killing Jews. Not Israelis. Not Likudists. Not Zionists. Jews.
Fascinating list. I also would put African Americans lower on the list. Also, there is a great overlap between Political Leftists and Self-Hating Jews, who might be considered to be nearly 100% in the former camp.
I think people who view “the West” as essentially imperialist will always view any conflict between a “western” nation and a non-western nation/group through the lens of sympathy with the non-western nation/group.
The political leftist is unable to consider the possibility that the western nation is the nation that protects the human rights that the political leftist claims to support and is also unable to consider that the non-western nation/group is an obstacle to the advancement of human rights.
Instead, because of some bad thing that western nations did in times past, they must be doing something bad today.
This is my empirical judgment and not based on statistical proof. But I think it’s pretty darn close to being on the money. I did put #5 as a sub-group to #2.