18. I couldn’t agree less. States are handed on a silver platter as a political tool (ie Jordan) but they should be earned. The Jews built their part of Palestine into a successful proto-state long before 1948. And let alone that the “Palestinians” have done everything possible to scuttle a dozen efforts to get them a state. The PA is only marginally better than Hamas, so who is going to govern said Palestinian state? And should Israel accept its formation given that “Palestinians” still profess to want to destroy Israel? It does indeed send a message that terrorism will force decent people to give you want you want. Totally the wrong path.
What counter-arguments or points of clarification to what you’ve just stated do you think — while obviously not changing your mind— are reasonable or at least worth considering?
I come at it differently. The need to strike 'fairness' is an impossibility given the warring conceptions of the past. I also take very seriously the notion that October 7 could be interpreted as a reward, and have spent a lot of time on this idea.
If we get ultra-rational about things, and place competing notions of fairness to one side, we get the opportunity to instead focus on strategy.
Strategically speaking, I am of the opinion that all states benefit from the stability of their neighbours. The best way to guarantee continued instability in Israel is to put 'fairness' as a higher priority than security.
The idea that a Palestinian state would be a loving neighbour any time soon is naive. The idea that a Palestinian state would even be governed by an entity that doesn't still focus on Israel's annihilation may too also be naive. These issues are already a fixture, so the idea that allowing for a Palestinian state to be formally established and recognised does not pose any greater threat than the already-existing threat.
The benefits of a recognised Palestinian state is that they become beholden to laws and oversight that they are currently not beholden to.
In my opinion, the strategic benefit of allowing for the establishment of a state outweighs fairness arguments. The infrastructure and organisation necessary to establish a state may refocus the primary objective from WAR to self-preservation. And even if that is not the case, Israel remains no worse off for having a neighbour beholden to international law.
Breaking the cycle of violence involves concessions that might seem monstrous. Failing to break the cycle of violence guarantees an ever-worsening state of affairs.
The one thing about this opinion that I'm still in two minds about is the extent to which international bodies would actually hold a state of Palestine to the same standards as they hold Israel to. I remain doubtful.
The opportunity for Israel-friendly(ish) Gulf States to refocus Palestinian territories from being IRI lackies to something with a real future is also something that demands serious consideration. The Iranian sphere of influence is dwindling, and there is serious scope for a slow and inter-generational shift away from fighting over land. It may sound insanely optimistic, but even the worst cast scenario under a recognised Palestinian state seems no worse than the current circumstances.
Simple answer: that was the point of the Oslo Accords, which failed because the Palestinians aren’t prepared to govern themselves, both because of their focus on destroying Israel, and because of internal tribal conflict and extreme corruption. Handing statehood to them now will have the same result - until they have complete societal change, or perhaps a non-statehood arrangement like a confederation of tribes.
I like this piece a lot. I published this a few days ago. https://open.substack.com/pub/natashacica/p/all-animals-must-be-equal?r=3bw11&utm_medium=ios
18. I couldn’t agree less. States are handed on a silver platter as a political tool (ie Jordan) but they should be earned. The Jews built their part of Palestine into a successful proto-state long before 1948. And let alone that the “Palestinians” have done everything possible to scuttle a dozen efforts to get them a state. The PA is only marginally better than Hamas, so who is going to govern said Palestinian state? And should Israel accept its formation given that “Palestinians” still profess to want to destroy Israel? It does indeed send a message that terrorism will force decent people to give you want you want. Totally the wrong path.
What counter-arguments or points of clarification to what you’ve just stated do you think — while obviously not changing your mind— are reasonable or at least worth considering?
That’s for you to come up with. I stand by my statements and I’m open to reasoned, fact-based counter-arguments.
I come at it differently. The need to strike 'fairness' is an impossibility given the warring conceptions of the past. I also take very seriously the notion that October 7 could be interpreted as a reward, and have spent a lot of time on this idea.
If we get ultra-rational about things, and place competing notions of fairness to one side, we get the opportunity to instead focus on strategy.
Strategically speaking, I am of the opinion that all states benefit from the stability of their neighbours. The best way to guarantee continued instability in Israel is to put 'fairness' as a higher priority than security.
The idea that a Palestinian state would be a loving neighbour any time soon is naive. The idea that a Palestinian state would even be governed by an entity that doesn't still focus on Israel's annihilation may too also be naive. These issues are already a fixture, so the idea that allowing for a Palestinian state to be formally established and recognised does not pose any greater threat than the already-existing threat.
The benefits of a recognised Palestinian state is that they become beholden to laws and oversight that they are currently not beholden to.
In my opinion, the strategic benefit of allowing for the establishment of a state outweighs fairness arguments. The infrastructure and organisation necessary to establish a state may refocus the primary objective from WAR to self-preservation. And even if that is not the case, Israel remains no worse off for having a neighbour beholden to international law.
Breaking the cycle of violence involves concessions that might seem monstrous. Failing to break the cycle of violence guarantees an ever-worsening state of affairs.
The one thing about this opinion that I'm still in two minds about is the extent to which international bodies would actually hold a state of Palestine to the same standards as they hold Israel to. I remain doubtful.
The opportunity for Israel-friendly(ish) Gulf States to refocus Palestinian territories from being IRI lackies to something with a real future is also something that demands serious consideration. The Iranian sphere of influence is dwindling, and there is serious scope for a slow and inter-generational shift away from fighting over land. It may sound insanely optimistic, but even the worst cast scenario under a recognised Palestinian state seems no worse than the current circumstances.
Simple answer: that was the point of the Oslo Accords, which failed because the Palestinians aren’t prepared to govern themselves, both because of their focus on destroying Israel, and because of internal tribal conflict and extreme corruption. Handing statehood to them now will have the same result - until they have complete societal change, or perhaps a non-statehood arrangement like a confederation of tribes.