I want to drill down on one thing you've said, that you have issues with how Israel is acting in Gaza. To do this, I want to lay out my basic premises
1. There is no free press in Gaza, any reporters in Gaza are one of a) affiliated with Hamas, b) editing their stories so as not to endanger other reporters in Gaza, or c) going in with the IDF.
2. No other conflict in human history has had so many figures presented on an almost real time basis.
3. Many reports out of Gaza are simply false. For example, there was the PIJ rocket that fell on a hospital that was initially reported as an Israeli air strike. There was the recent claim that 14000 babies would starve in 48 hours if aid wasn't let through.
4. Most people have no understanding of the laws of armed conflict, including, importantly, the concept of proprotionality. Furthermore, they have no frame of reference for armed conflict.
5. Hamas has engaged, with the help of Qatar and Al Jazeera, in a public relations campaign to delegitimise Israel.
With those premises, I would ask you, what actions has Israel taken that you take issue with? That is not to say that Israel hasn't done bad things, for instance the World Food Kitchen incident. That incident was investigated by Israel, and had a senior Australian official involved and checking on that investigation, where he declared it to be a thorough investigation, and the results to be fair and at least as good as what would be expected of any western country. But what events or actions can you point to, and say, with any degree of certainty that a) this action occurred, b) this action was wrong, and c) I would expect a different action from a western, democratic country?
Again, I'm not saying that there aren't actions that fit those 3 criteria, I just don't know most of them, and I don't think most people know any of them.
So, when I say I have "concerns" or "issues" about what Israel is doing in Gaza, I basically mean two things:
1. I'm deducing that a certain percentage of the bad things I hear about are true or close to true. In any war, soldiers do things they shouldn't have done -- that's true 100% of the time. And if the military loosens their rules of engagement, that will become true more often. It's objectively true that awful things have happened -- the IDF has admitted to mistakes in some cases (and I acknowledge that the IDF at least admits its mistakes sometimes) -- but there's some circumstantial evidence that this war is not being conducted as carefully as it should be (a few times, the IDF has admitted mistakes only AFTER outcry, and statements from Israeli hard-liners don't inspire confidence).
2. I'm bothered by the fact that Netanyahu won't articulate an end-game. I accept "destroy Hamas" as a valid necessary condition for the end of this war, but since the war began, we've known that the exact moment when Hamas is "destroyed" is going to be in the eye of the beholder. Killing every last single person who is associated with Hamas in any way is not possible. And we're at a point now where the top leadership has been decimated and Hamas has been greatly reduced as a fighting force. There aren't many hostages left. When does this end? Can't Netanyahu articulate ANY goals or provide ANY description of what happens next? The main thing I've always disliked about Netanyahu is that he truly is a man without a plan, and here his "plan" seems to be to just let the war grind on indefinitely, achieving possibly nothing except more suffering.
I appreciate that you actually have real issues/concerns about Gaza. Part of my issue is that the phrase "I have issues with Israel's actions" seems to be another way of saying that Israel is doing bad things, above and beyond the bad things that occur in any war, from any combatant. I worry that by having that be the baseline discourse, it just reinforces the idea that Israel is uniquely bad or cruel or wanton.
It actually ties in nicely with the criticism of Netanyahu. I have many issues with him, I have marched in the streets against parts of his agenda, and have been furious at his hypocrisy (if you read some of his statements from the 90s they sound as though they are directly criticising his current actions!). I also have a knee jerk reaction to defend him when he gets criticised for his actions in this war. While I don't trust him and am furious that he fired Gallant, and think a different prime minister would be a better leader now (although I'd take Netanyahu over Levin any day of the week, I fucking hate that man), I think a lot of the criticism he gets is for actions any leader would have done, particularly in the early stages of the war.
I do wish there was a day after plan, but I also think that the international community is doing it's best to convince Israel there can't be one. Israel is trying to set up aid that bypasses Hamas, and is getting condemned for that! The international community could demand that Hamas stops stealing aid, and enforce that with UN peace keepers (armed ones, because Hamas is armed). You're right that there isn't any way to kill everyone affiliated with Hamas, nor would that eliminate Hamas, but a necessary condition needs to be infrastructure that Hamas doesn't profit from. If the international community could show some ability or even desire to facilitate that, it would allow Israel to envision a post war scenario, ideally without occupation (no one wants occupation, we just want a new October 7th and constant rocket fire even less).
Bottom line, I think there is a real distinction between in group discussion of the war and out group. As your piece states pretty clearly, the out group assumption is that Israel shouldn't exist, and when that's the starting point, there is no nuance that I can grant that doesn't lead to my destruction.
I think it’s safe to say that “From the River to the Sea” is going to go in the Hall of Fame of Bad Slogans on the first ballot, right next to “Defund the Police.” Both offer terrible ideas that then need to be immediately qualified by their respective sloganeers, after which recipients of the slogans think said sloganeers are either insane, full of shit, or both.
I 100% agree with you and feel so lame calling this out, but doesn’t the 75 years refer to the result of the 1948 conflict where Israel took additional land that was parceled by Britain for Palestine? I always thought it referred to that land vs all of Israel. But I may be giving them too much credit for nuance or misunderstanding history.
I want to drill down on one thing you've said, that you have issues with how Israel is acting in Gaza. To do this, I want to lay out my basic premises
1. There is no free press in Gaza, any reporters in Gaza are one of a) affiliated with Hamas, b) editing their stories so as not to endanger other reporters in Gaza, or c) going in with the IDF.
2. No other conflict in human history has had so many figures presented on an almost real time basis.
3. Many reports out of Gaza are simply false. For example, there was the PIJ rocket that fell on a hospital that was initially reported as an Israeli air strike. There was the recent claim that 14000 babies would starve in 48 hours if aid wasn't let through.
4. Most people have no understanding of the laws of armed conflict, including, importantly, the concept of proprotionality. Furthermore, they have no frame of reference for armed conflict.
5. Hamas has engaged, with the help of Qatar and Al Jazeera, in a public relations campaign to delegitimise Israel.
With those premises, I would ask you, what actions has Israel taken that you take issue with? That is not to say that Israel hasn't done bad things, for instance the World Food Kitchen incident. That incident was investigated by Israel, and had a senior Australian official involved and checking on that investigation, where he declared it to be a thorough investigation, and the results to be fair and at least as good as what would be expected of any western country. But what events or actions can you point to, and say, with any degree of certainty that a) this action occurred, b) this action was wrong, and c) I would expect a different action from a western, democratic country?
Again, I'm not saying that there aren't actions that fit those 3 criteria, I just don't know most of them, and I don't think most people know any of them.
You points are well-taken, and I'll note that in this episode I said that I have a hard time knowing what's actually happening in Gaza. Also, about a year ago, I did a whole episode about how I struggle to assess the rightness or wrongness of any individual act of war due to a lack of information (https://www.imightbewrong.org/p/imbw-audio-my-thoughts-on-gaza-delivered?utm_source=publication-search).
So, when I say I have "concerns" or "issues" about what Israel is doing in Gaza, I basically mean two things:
1. I'm deducing that a certain percentage of the bad things I hear about are true or close to true. In any war, soldiers do things they shouldn't have done -- that's true 100% of the time. And if the military loosens their rules of engagement, that will become true more often. It's objectively true that awful things have happened -- the IDF has admitted to mistakes in some cases (and I acknowledge that the IDF at least admits its mistakes sometimes) -- but there's some circumstantial evidence that this war is not being conducted as carefully as it should be (a few times, the IDF has admitted mistakes only AFTER outcry, and statements from Israeli hard-liners don't inspire confidence).
2. I'm bothered by the fact that Netanyahu won't articulate an end-game. I accept "destroy Hamas" as a valid necessary condition for the end of this war, but since the war began, we've known that the exact moment when Hamas is "destroyed" is going to be in the eye of the beholder. Killing every last single person who is associated with Hamas in any way is not possible. And we're at a point now where the top leadership has been decimated and Hamas has been greatly reduced as a fighting force. There aren't many hostages left. When does this end? Can't Netanyahu articulate ANY goals or provide ANY description of what happens next? The main thing I've always disliked about Netanyahu is that he truly is a man without a plan, and here his "plan" seems to be to just let the war grind on indefinitely, achieving possibly nothing except more suffering.
I appreciate that you actually have real issues/concerns about Gaza. Part of my issue is that the phrase "I have issues with Israel's actions" seems to be another way of saying that Israel is doing bad things, above and beyond the bad things that occur in any war, from any combatant. I worry that by having that be the baseline discourse, it just reinforces the idea that Israel is uniquely bad or cruel or wanton.
It actually ties in nicely with the criticism of Netanyahu. I have many issues with him, I have marched in the streets against parts of his agenda, and have been furious at his hypocrisy (if you read some of his statements from the 90s they sound as though they are directly criticising his current actions!). I also have a knee jerk reaction to defend him when he gets criticised for his actions in this war. While I don't trust him and am furious that he fired Gallant, and think a different prime minister would be a better leader now (although I'd take Netanyahu over Levin any day of the week, I fucking hate that man), I think a lot of the criticism he gets is for actions any leader would have done, particularly in the early stages of the war.
I do wish there was a day after plan, but I also think that the international community is doing it's best to convince Israel there can't be one. Israel is trying to set up aid that bypasses Hamas, and is getting condemned for that! The international community could demand that Hamas stops stealing aid, and enforce that with UN peace keepers (armed ones, because Hamas is armed). You're right that there isn't any way to kill everyone affiliated with Hamas, nor would that eliminate Hamas, but a necessary condition needs to be infrastructure that Hamas doesn't profit from. If the international community could show some ability or even desire to facilitate that, it would allow Israel to envision a post war scenario, ideally without occupation (no one wants occupation, we just want a new October 7th and constant rocket fire even less).
Bottom line, I think there is a real distinction between in group discussion of the war and out group. As your piece states pretty clearly, the out group assumption is that Israel shouldn't exist, and when that's the starting point, there is no nuance that I can grant that doesn't lead to my destruction.
Also, it sucks that you and your family are also experiencing this stuff so close to home. Goes without saying, but saying it anyways.
Thanks, but we'll be okay. Can't let one angry nut (or a handful of angry nuts) run your life.
Looking forward to CHH on Monday!
Hope she doesn't talk too fast and for God's sake please don't ask her to do impressions!
I think it’s safe to say that “From the River to the Sea” is going to go in the Hall of Fame of Bad Slogans on the first ballot, right next to “Defund the Police.” Both offer terrible ideas that then need to be immediately qualified by their respective sloganeers, after which recipients of the slogans think said sloganeers are either insane, full of shit, or both.
Today's secret word is "frozen corpse."
I 100% agree with you and feel so lame calling this out, but doesn’t the 75 years refer to the result of the 1948 conflict where Israel took additional land that was parceled by Britain for Palestine? I always thought it referred to that land vs all of Israel. But I may be giving them too much credit for nuance or misunderstanding history.