Another fantastic article It also amazes me how these are the same people who will accuse pro-Israel Jews or pro-Israel politicians of "dual loyalty" and being "traitors." Rashida Tlaib, I'm looking at you.
The standard progressive framing is to highlight the demands the Palestinians make which most everyone agrees with (including Israel)-- A Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank.
Then the next step in the framing is to blame Israel for not unilaterally granting these things. There are two key omissions-
1) The Palestinians have other, less reasonable, demands and are officially at war with Israel over those demands. The fact they are always losing that war causes outsiders to project onto them that they want the war to end. More projection.
2) Israel can't just "give" Palestinians a state. They can move their military off of territory, but what comes after is up to the Palestinians, and there is very little reason to think what would emerge would look anything like "a state".
3) Palestinian political violence is legendary. It did not start on 10/7. It has been incessant and deeply popular among Palestinians. It predates the establishment of Israel, occupation, refugees, etc. and is oriented against Jewish sovereignty per se. By ignoring this, we place the conflict as being fundamentally about Israeli oppression, rather than the true cause of Palestinian rejectionism.
The Palestinians could have had a state many times over if they were willing to accept the Jews keeping their state.
Another fantastic article It also amazes me how these are the same people who will accuse pro-Israel Jews or pro-Israel politicians of "dual loyalty" and being "traitors." Rashida Tlaib, I'm looking at you.
There are so few introspective thinkers and clear voices like yours. In any community.
The standard progressive framing is to highlight the demands the Palestinians make which most everyone agrees with (including Israel)-- A Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank.
Then the next step in the framing is to blame Israel for not unilaterally granting these things. There are two key omissions-
1) The Palestinians have other, less reasonable, demands and are officially at war with Israel over those demands. The fact they are always losing that war causes outsiders to project onto them that they want the war to end. More projection.
2) Israel can't just "give" Palestinians a state. They can move their military off of territory, but what comes after is up to the Palestinians, and there is very little reason to think what would emerge would look anything like "a state".
3) Palestinian political violence is legendary. It did not start on 10/7. It has been incessant and deeply popular among Palestinians. It predates the establishment of Israel, occupation, refugees, etc. and is oriented against Jewish sovereignty per se. By ignoring this, we place the conflict as being fundamentally about Israeli oppression, rather than the true cause of Palestinian rejectionism.
The Palestinians could have had a state many times over if they were willing to accept the Jews keeping their state.