Another comprehensive, thoughtful yet honest, analysis, in a captivating essay. Your voice of reason (and empathy..) is always highly appreciated, thank you, Alan!
Wow great piece! Well done. But I do have one quibble or question:
"The hostages, which should have been the top priority..." ??
I can see this as an opinion but am not sure if it rises to the level of a "should have" (unless I'm missing something).
After 10/7 and the knowledge that it was the Gilad Shalit hostage trade that released Sinwar who plotted this massacre, I can understand why Israel didn't want to get on this merry-go-round again: attack—hostages taken—hostages released for imprisoned terrorists—which leads to another attack—rinse and repeat.
At what point do you stop negotiating with terrorists? And once your neighbor has revealed itself (again) to be bloodthirsty genocidal jihadists do you decide that maybe the top priority is destroying them and their infrastructure regardless of the consequences?
I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions, but I can understand if the Israeli govt decided to prioritize the destruction of Hamas over another hostage trade.
Thanks, mate! Your point is well-made and well-taken. One of my priors for thinking through this conflict is the distinction between the value Israel places on life compared to its enemies, whether state or non-state, PLO or jihadists. The Gilad Shalit scenario is a good example, but, as you rightly point out, this comes at a cost—or at least carries a risk.
That risk remains in the number of Palestinians being released on the terms of the current ceasefire. The sentence was not meant to convey that destroying Hamas was somehow not or even less a priority as a war aim. Perhaps "a top priority" rather than "the" may have phrased it better! The point was that to Bibi's ghouls, the hostages became an afterthought, and only in rare cases (Jaffah) were hostages rescued through military means.
I certainly echo the sentiment of relief that we don't have to make these decisions! I will always think it was/is necessary to cripple Hamas' (even indefinitely). It just seems inevitable that, at some point, bargaining over lives would begin. Perhaps Israel were always stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one...
I always appreciate your wise and measured responses.
"Top priority" certainly works, I think I was just expressing the vexation I feel toward the Bring Them Home Now crowd, who have been acting as if Bibi was holding onto a packet of bus tickets and refusing to send them.
The current hostage trade will see the release of 1,700 Palestinian prisoners in total, many with blood on their hands, most with vengeance in their hearts. This may just be worse than "a rock and a hard place", but more like having your foot caught in a bear trap. Every solution will be bloody and painful.
All I hope for at this point is some measure of clarity: There will be no 2-state solution, no peace or peaceful coexistence, no letting Palis in on work visas etc. To be "Palestinian" means being the literal incarnation of Jew hate and of the Arab world's (and its allies') refusal to accept the existence of the Jewish state and desire to hobble and destroy it.
Never mind evacuating the Gazans, they should be left to sit in their own rubble like a baby in a soiled diaper, as witness to and symbol of their nation and its beliefs and priorities. Israel should disengage from these people as much as possible, build massive walls in both directions, and move on while forgetting them as best as they can. I think that's the best they can hope for.
I agree with that, I do think the idea that they could swap at any stage in the conflict and the dust would settle once again was naive, although understandable given the way that being forcibly taken captive plays on the Jewish psyche.
I share your sentiments on the need for some hard reality thinking in relation to the 2-state solution and the possibility of peaceful coexistence, work visas, and some degree of "normality".
Echoing some points in the essay, however, I also think that maintaining the West Bank is untenable; they can't formally annex it because the Jews would become a minority in their own country, and they can't hold on to it while maintaining any pretence of moral high ground. They should learn from Northern Ireland, Iraq, etc. - you can't ask a military to do police work.
In this respect, I agree with your point that they should disengage entirely; I would abandon the West Bank, per Gaza, keep that security fence up and well-fortified, maintain control of the skies, and let the PA or whoever try to make the best of it - if the Arab states want to help financially, go ahead (but we know they don't care either).
Much of this, of course, comes back to the West giving up on its delusions for what "solutions" are on the table.
I think we're pretty much aligned here, I just wanted to add that I've read that one of the reasons the Israelis feel the need to maintain a military presence in the WB is because it sits on high ground that overlooks Tel Aviv, and thus would be a juicy spot to launch missile attacks from, and also that without the WB, Israel is only 7 or 8 miles long in its middle, thus rendering it vulnerable to a military assault that could split its country in two. But I am not an expert here and have never even been to Israel, so I'm just repeating what I cannot verify.
Either way, between the eternal war bw Israel/Palestine, the global Left's campaign to paint Israel as the world's most evil pariah state, and now the schism between secular Israelis and the orthodox ones who see the WB (Judea and Samaria) as theirs for the rightful taking, there are multiple Gordian knots here that won't be cut anytime soon. I do feel sympathy for these people, Jews seem to always be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Hi Isabelle, thank you so much for your kind words, I appreciate it.
The "especially being from Ireland" part also saddened me, I share your despondence at the way that Irish people have reacted. It is largely born out of their own misplaced sense of Ireland's colonial past judged through the recent lens of The Troubles in Northern Ireland which sees them identify with the Palestinians.
As I tend to point out, however, another interpretation of our history should see an analogy with the long road to Jewish self-determination; unfortunately, this tends to fall on deaf ears. They are rather blind to the links between Marxist-inspired terrorism between the IRA and the PLO.
Of course, when I ask them, "Was it 'legitimate resistance' for the IRA to blow up pubs full of civilians in England?", they tend to baulk and come up with some specious distinction, muttering about how "that was different". Except, it isn't.
To your question about my knowledge of the conflict, well...my degree is in history, with an emphasis on modern history, and I have just always found the Middle East to be fascinating. I would say I also read a lot of Israeli writers and pay more attention to domestic conversations within Israel than many in the West would.
I'm sorry to hear Dr Grimes blocked you; I wouldn't have expected that. Hopefully, you can find some sanity in the writing here :)
Thank you! It does provide a measure of sanity. If you were ever tempted to write an essay specifically on the false parallels drawn by Irish people between their plight over land, the IRA, and the Northern Ireland situation, I’d be very (very!) eager to read it (and to brandish it in the face of my more tiresome relatives).
They might actually be more open to hearing it from a fellow Irishman rather than instantly dismissing it as Zionist propaganda, which is what tends to happen when it comes from a Jew like me with family in Israel. Or maybe not, but one can hope...
Another comprehensive, thoughtful yet honest, analysis, in a captivating essay. Your voice of reason (and empathy..) is always highly appreciated, thank you, Alan!
Thanks, Mel, I'm glad it resonated!
Wow great piece! Well done. But I do have one quibble or question:
"The hostages, which should have been the top priority..." ??
I can see this as an opinion but am not sure if it rises to the level of a "should have" (unless I'm missing something).
After 10/7 and the knowledge that it was the Gilad Shalit hostage trade that released Sinwar who plotted this massacre, I can understand why Israel didn't want to get on this merry-go-round again: attack—hostages taken—hostages released for imprisoned terrorists—which leads to another attack—rinse and repeat.
At what point do you stop negotiating with terrorists? And once your neighbor has revealed itself (again) to be bloodthirsty genocidal jihadists do you decide that maybe the top priority is destroying them and their infrastructure regardless of the consequences?
I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions, but I can understand if the Israeli govt decided to prioritize the destruction of Hamas over another hostage trade.
Thanks!
Thanks, mate! Your point is well-made and well-taken. One of my priors for thinking through this conflict is the distinction between the value Israel places on life compared to its enemies, whether state or non-state, PLO or jihadists. The Gilad Shalit scenario is a good example, but, as you rightly point out, this comes at a cost—or at least carries a risk.
That risk remains in the number of Palestinians being released on the terms of the current ceasefire. The sentence was not meant to convey that destroying Hamas was somehow not or even less a priority as a war aim. Perhaps "a top priority" rather than "the" may have phrased it better! The point was that to Bibi's ghouls, the hostages became an afterthought, and only in rare cases (Jaffah) were hostages rescued through military means.
I certainly echo the sentiment of relief that we don't have to make these decisions! I will always think it was/is necessary to cripple Hamas' (even indefinitely). It just seems inevitable that, at some point, bargaining over lives would begin. Perhaps Israel were always stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one...
I always appreciate your wise and measured responses.
"Top priority" certainly works, I think I was just expressing the vexation I feel toward the Bring Them Home Now crowd, who have been acting as if Bibi was holding onto a packet of bus tickets and refusing to send them.
The current hostage trade will see the release of 1,700 Palestinian prisoners in total, many with blood on their hands, most with vengeance in their hearts. This may just be worse than "a rock and a hard place", but more like having your foot caught in a bear trap. Every solution will be bloody and painful.
All I hope for at this point is some measure of clarity: There will be no 2-state solution, no peace or peaceful coexistence, no letting Palis in on work visas etc. To be "Palestinian" means being the literal incarnation of Jew hate and of the Arab world's (and its allies') refusal to accept the existence of the Jewish state and desire to hobble and destroy it.
Never mind evacuating the Gazans, they should be left to sit in their own rubble like a baby in a soiled diaper, as witness to and symbol of their nation and its beliefs and priorities. Israel should disengage from these people as much as possible, build massive walls in both directions, and move on while forgetting them as best as they can. I think that's the best they can hope for.
Cheers and thanks again for the great piece.
I agree with that, I do think the idea that they could swap at any stage in the conflict and the dust would settle once again was naive, although understandable given the way that being forcibly taken captive plays on the Jewish psyche.
I share your sentiments on the need for some hard reality thinking in relation to the 2-state solution and the possibility of peaceful coexistence, work visas, and some degree of "normality".
Echoing some points in the essay, however, I also think that maintaining the West Bank is untenable; they can't formally annex it because the Jews would become a minority in their own country, and they can't hold on to it while maintaining any pretence of moral high ground. They should learn from Northern Ireland, Iraq, etc. - you can't ask a military to do police work.
In this respect, I agree with your point that they should disengage entirely; I would abandon the West Bank, per Gaza, keep that security fence up and well-fortified, maintain control of the skies, and let the PA or whoever try to make the best of it - if the Arab states want to help financially, go ahead (but we know they don't care either).
Much of this, of course, comes back to the West giving up on its delusions for what "solutions" are on the table.
Thanks again for your valued input!
I think we're pretty much aligned here, I just wanted to add that I've read that one of the reasons the Israelis feel the need to maintain a military presence in the WB is because it sits on high ground that overlooks Tel Aviv, and thus would be a juicy spot to launch missile attacks from, and also that without the WB, Israel is only 7 or 8 miles long in its middle, thus rendering it vulnerable to a military assault that could split its country in two. But I am not an expert here and have never even been to Israel, so I'm just repeating what I cannot verify.
Either way, between the eternal war bw Israel/Palestine, the global Left's campaign to paint Israel as the world's most evil pariah state, and now the schism between secular Israelis and the orthodox ones who see the WB (Judea and Samaria) as theirs for the rightful taking, there are multiple Gordian knots here that won't be cut anytime soon. I do feel sympathy for these people, Jews seem to always be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Cheers! Always enjoy your work
Hi Isabelle, thank you so much for your kind words, I appreciate it.
The "especially being from Ireland" part also saddened me, I share your despondence at the way that Irish people have reacted. It is largely born out of their own misplaced sense of Ireland's colonial past judged through the recent lens of The Troubles in Northern Ireland which sees them identify with the Palestinians.
As I tend to point out, however, another interpretation of our history should see an analogy with the long road to Jewish self-determination; unfortunately, this tends to fall on deaf ears. They are rather blind to the links between Marxist-inspired terrorism between the IRA and the PLO.
Of course, when I ask them, "Was it 'legitimate resistance' for the IRA to blow up pubs full of civilians in England?", they tend to baulk and come up with some specious distinction, muttering about how "that was different". Except, it isn't.
To your question about my knowledge of the conflict, well...my degree is in history, with an emphasis on modern history, and I have just always found the Middle East to be fascinating. I would say I also read a lot of Israeli writers and pay more attention to domestic conversations within Israel than many in the West would.
I'm sorry to hear Dr Grimes blocked you; I wouldn't have expected that. Hopefully, you can find some sanity in the writing here :)
Thank you! It does provide a measure of sanity. If you were ever tempted to write an essay specifically on the false parallels drawn by Irish people between their plight over land, the IRA, and the Northern Ireland situation, I’d be very (very!) eager to read it (and to brandish it in the face of my more tiresome relatives).
They might actually be more open to hearing it from a fellow Irishman rather than instantly dismissing it as Zionist propaganda, which is what tends to happen when it comes from a Jew like me with family in Israel. Or maybe not, but one can hope...