At Outside the Beltway James Joyner laments over the lack of alternatives that are both workable and benign in Israel’s war with Hamas, largely following Ezra Klein’s podcast:
I’m not hopeful that any strategy will solve what, for 75 years, has been an intractable problem. But, ultimately, unless Israel is willing to kill every Palestinian man, woman, and child—and they clearly* aren’t—then, ultimately, some political solution is the only conceivable solution.
The problem, of course, is that it’s simply unthinkable that Israel’s government—or any democratically elected government whose population has been attacked in such a brutal and horrifying fashion—would respond in that fashion, at least in the short term. As much as I think Netanyahu is a thug whose policies have set back the cause of peace for decades, there’s simply no way that even the most beneficent Israeli leader could persuade his people right now to respond to mass atrocities by turning the other cheek and seeking to build a bridge to the future with the Palestinian people.
With the exception of the first comment, Michael Reynolds’s, in the ensuing thread most of the comments reflect comforting nostrums. Neither the post nor the comments really come to terms with the underlying problem. There is no resolution that will be effective in securing Israel against terrorist attacks short of exterminating the other party.
Let’s not mince words. A “one-state solution” can only have one outcome: a unified Palestine that is not liberal or democratic and in which Jews are at best a persecuted minority. Why? Because the Palestinians either outnumber the Israeli Jews already or will soon and their population is growing faster. Gaza’s experience has been tersely expressed (in another context) as “one man, one vote, one time”.
A “two-state solution” is unworkable and won’t result in an end to terrorist attacks against Israel. The West Bank settlements aren’t the problem. A Jewish state of Israel is the problem. Take the banner flown by pro-Palestinian demonstrators seriously: “From the River to the Sea Palestine Will Be Free”. There is no room for a Jewish state of Israel in that goal.
The above is why I take the position that I do. We should support Israel. Israel as presently constituted is a liberal, democratic state that is multi-ethnic and multi-confessional. Our efforts WRT to Israel should be dedicated to keeping it that way. However, the objectives of the most radical faction of Israelis, sometimes referred to as “the ultra-conservative”, is not particularly well-aligned with U. S. interests in the Middle East. Therefore, we should support the Israelis with reservations rather than unconditionally.
The Palestinians have a similar problem. The agenda is dictated by the most extreme faction of Palestinians. As a result a Palestinian state while being unworkable would not be stable or a liberal democracy and would likewise not be aligned with U. S. interests in the Middle East. I for one would find U. S. support of a Palestinian state deeply problematic.
Pragmatically, we should support Israel. It’s the only stable democracy in the area and they have nukes. That said, they are a terrible ally, really a client state. They haven’t done much for the US. On top of that, Netanyahu has interfered in US politics more than any other foreign leader that I can think of. His appeal to the right in the uS has gained him strong support among the evangelicals, sort of, but eroded support on the left. On top of that he has shown himself to be corrupt and surprisingly incompetent.
However, the Palestinians are worse. So we support them but I wish it could be conditional and wish we had better options.
Steve
Your comment is a pretty effective statement of my views. Furthermore, Israel has attacked the U. S. military more recently than any other U. S. “ally” to my knowledge (1967).