I know I'm late to this blog post but the historical problem with it is that the Palestinians didn't start the 1967 war. Israel preemptively attacked Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt at the time. 1973 worked out great for Egypt, they stalemated with Israel, killed a lot of IDF soldiers and then got back the Sinai.
Oh, and: "But there’s no right of return coming to Slovenia or Croatia."
Last I checked, both Slovenia, Croatia, and Italy are all in the Schengen zone, so if any of the descendants of those refugees in Italy want to relocate to the place where their ancestors live, no one will stop them.
This seems like it might be important context to claims like "millions of people were displaced in Europe after World War 2 and it's not a major issue anymore." Is that really because people "got over it", or is it because the new borders were locked down by the Red Army for decades (well, more complicated Cold War politics in the specific case of Yugoslavia), and then after the Red Army retreated within 20 years most of that region had open borders, with the few remaining places not part of Shengen having their borders still locked down by Russian guns, or by NATO. Maybe all of that has something to do with how the Europeans "got over it"?
(It seems worth noting, also, that West Germany refused to recognize the Oder-Neisse border until 1970, but that's a whole other thing.)
Moving on,
"From the Turkish-Greek population transfers of 1920"
This one, I admit, has nothing resembling a Right of Return. But the relations between Turkey and Greece in the 104 years since then have hardly been a model of peace and reconciliation, despite a two-state solution effectively being implemented and the two countries spending much of that time period as part of the same military alliance.
The truly bizarre example, however, is this one:
"the departure of 99 percent Artsakh’s ethnically Armenian population just last October"
The First Nagorno-Karabach War ended with a devastating defeat for Azerbaijan, the occupation by Armenia of a large chunk of internationally recognized Azeri territory, including regions that were never part of the Soviet Nagorno-Karabach autonomous region, and the flight of hundreds of thousands of Azeris from their homes. Azerbaijan refused to recognize this outcome, spent decades building up their military and playing politics, and starting in 2020 unfreeze the conflict and managed to eventually reconquer all of the territory including the former NK autonomous region and secure a right of return for the refugees, but drive out nearly all of the Armenian population from that territory.
It's worth noting that the recent counter-ethnic cleansing has not gone uncontested internationally and the situation is still a bit up in the aid, but the important point is that your cited example came about *because Azerbaijan refused to recognize and eventually successfully reversed a military defeat*. One can certainly argue that they were in a far better position to do this than the Palestinians are: the Azeris have large natural gas reserves, a powerful patron in Turkey, and so on, but this is still among the worst examples you could possibly point to when arguing that people should just accept these sort of things as Fait Accomplis and move on.
Thank you, I needed this analysis. You do not touch on the importance of religious zeal on both sides as providing fuel to the ongoing struggle. Do you not see this eschatological viewpoint as critical to the ongoing struggle?
I don't want people for whom this issue, stopping civilian deaths in Gaza, and any US involvement/complicity in it, is priority number one to feel helpless, or told to stuff it only because electoral realities are against them. Israel-Palestine is one of only several issues committed progressives have brought up that they may see as deep moral, ethical issues that have a clear answer, and that should be beyond politics. And it sucks to be told that your choices are to not vote or vote only for a lesser of two evils for President, or any other office. This has long been an issue for the left flank of American politics, from Eugene Debs in the early 20th century, to Henry Wallace in 1948 to George McGovern in 1972 to Jesse Jackson in the 1980s and Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders in the 21st century, the marginalization and the substantial number of genuine left-liberals, left-progressives or Democratic Socialists who constitute a vital component to winning Democratic candidates and campaigns, but *never* have their full range of preferred views represented in policymaking by actual elected Democratic Presidents and elected legislative majorities.
But I have a suggested response to that genuine and reasonable frustration that I think is more productive, and not counterproductive, as would be the proposed solution of deep-sixing the reelection of President Biden, guaranteeing a President Trump, and rolling the dice, that somehow, there will be a competitive election in 2028, and somehow, Democratic politics will have been scared by Biden's defeat into accepting your views of Israel-Palestine and that there are still Palestinians alive then, after four years of Trump and Trump-enabled Netanyahu.
That solution would be to vote in this election against every Republican officeholder, by voting for their Democratic opponent, including Biden against Trump. And keeping track of Israel-Palestine related votes in Congress.
Count your friends and enemies on this issue. Look at articles like the one I linked to, below. It identifies the 16 defecting House Democrats who voted with Republicans to force President Biden to send Israel the bombs he want to deny them.
I pasted the list of those House Dems who voted the wrong way. You, and your associates most concerned with preserving Palestinian civilian lives, can best act on this information, by communicating with like minded people who live in these Representatives' districts, looking at their level of support in general and vulnerability, and the state of opinion on this issue, and urge people to make noise against arming Israel to them and their offices, and to support primarying them. And, especially if it appears it could make a difference on the margin, considering moving in to one of their districts, none of which are really hicksville, to become a constituent or even a potential candidate who can primary them or support another strongest possible primary challenger to them who is right (or righter) by your lights on the Israel-Palestine issue.
A follow-on to my comment here, specifically about the damage the Israel-Gaza war, and the protests in response, are doing to the Biden coalition and his ultimate potential vote totals:
1. Clearly the fact of it happening and going on so long brings up rifts between young and old, centrist and progressive, white and non-white in the Dem coalition, while Republicans, even if rank-and-file are not monolithically enthused about the Israeli side, are comfortable at the elite and activist engaged level to just go whole hog and constantly overbid with a pro-Israeli stance, so they love the conflict, they love that Democrats hate it, and they love attention being put to it.
2. Getting to a cease-fire ASAP would be the best thing morally, objectively, and for Biden and the Dem campaigns politically
3. It would not be the best thing for Netanyahu politically, because that broadly pushes against the likelihood of it happening, or him moving good faith in that direction. And, it would not be a good thing really for pretty much any members of his coalition as currently constituted, because they face probable worse prospects in an election. And only a break-up, defection, not external protest, would force Israeli elections.
4. Additionally, Netanyahu, given his side-taking with the Republicans in the 21st century, and possibly to a degree since the 1990s, *wants* Trump to win, to get wider latitude, and he understands factors 1, 2, and 3.
5. Indeed, the *only* internal restraint/disincentive/deterrent he has on further escalation of violence on Palestinians or especially widening of the fighting w/ Hezbollah, other Iranian proxies and Hezbollah, is a) Israel Jewish public distaste for being under heavy rocket fire that compels them to move from their homes and interrupt their lives to be in shelters [and Hezbollah can produce the most of that], and b) Intensified military manpower needs that would compel reconsideration of, or exceptions to, the draft exemptions of the yeshiva students who are constituents of the ultra-religious parties in his coalition, or in the absence of that, an even more grossly disproportionate mobilization, service and casualty burden on more secular Israelis tilted so much that the less religious, more secular rightist parties in his coalition balk. [again, ground conflict with Hezbollah would impose the greatest strain of this type].
6. The protests on elite and large American university campuses focus a great deal of attention via all media outlets, opposition to Biden/US support to Israel, and since the GOP has no executive responsibilities now, it hurts them not a bit, they can play both ends.
7. Aside from the middling poor prospects of getting a ceasefire, a hopeful impending development is that we are here on May 24th, and the college school year is nearly over. The place for protest will *soon be depopulated*. Students and faculty will have their summer plans to attend to.
8. Despite this, if conditions and rews reporting from the region remain as they are, protests like these will certainly be planned for the Chicago Democratic Convention in July I think. So there will be like a 4, 5, 6 week break in the news cycle on this. Not super long, but not really short, in the news cycle.
9. In anticipation of this, the Democrats, Democratic sympathetic elected officials, and groups whose policy hopes ride on Democratic electoral victories, should make many, many thorough and rehearsed plans, and contingency plans, and contingency plans to the contingency plans, in anticipation of Israel-Palestine protests, MAGA right-wing protests attempts to create negative media spectacle outside the Democratic convention. They must do that without appearing censorious/repressive or having a visible heavy-handed law enforcement response, or without appearing to be permissive of a scene of disorder and chaos and what the low-information voter regards as anti-Americanism. The groups working for Dem victory can try to do this by planning and securing permits now for multiple days and multiple hours of large-scale outdoor orderly solidarity events about the most popular issues and groups favorable to the Democrats, instead of Israel-Palestine, to occupy the space and time. These would include: Reproductive Freedom/Abortion Rights/Women's Rights, Health Care, Medicare, the disabled, Teachers, the labor movement/Unions, Civil and Voting rights, Privacy, librarians, anti-corporate corruption, anti-judicial corruption - not Israel-Palestine stuff, not climate change stuff (any environmental stuff should be anti-pollution/safety oriented), not trans in sports stuff.
You realize, of course, that right by conquest is transitive - if Palestinians reconquer Palestine, the only rational thing for you to say is "hey, sorry, they won, suck it up, Jews."
For the record - I would be really worried if I was a Zionist, in the long view. The United States is rapidly losing its ability to dictate world affairs, and without it, Israel wouldn't exist today. The only hope is that they make peace.
You realize, of course, that right by conquest is transitive - if Palestinians reconquer Palestine, the only rational thing for you to say is "hey, sorry, they won, suck it up, Jews."
For the record - I would be really worried if I was a Zionist, in the long view. The United States is rapidly losing its ability to dictate world affairs, and without it, Israel wouldn't exist today. The only hope is that they make peace.
The widespread ethnic cleansing in Europe, the Balkans, Greece and Turkey that accompanied the breakup of the Russian, Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires resulted in profound peace.
It -worked-.
For example, after the 'population exchange' (and massacres) of 1923, Greeks and Turks stopped killing each other.
Except in Cyprus, where British colonial power preserved the old street-by-street mixture. As soon as Britain's hand weakened, they started killing each other again -- that went on until the Turkish invasion of 1974, when all the Greeks were expelled from the north and all the Turks from the south.
Result? Profound peace.
Nation-states work best with an ethnically homogenous population.
This is an excellent piece of historical context but it missed the most important, influential, and prophetic zionist voice: Ze'ev Jabotinsky. While Herzl's vision, encapsulated in Altneuland, is of a secular Ashkenazi province of the Ottoman Empire that looks more like Vienna than modern Tel Aviv, Jabotinsky's more religious and security oriented vision of "revisionist" zionism is the official ideology of the dominant Likud party. Ze'ev Jabotinsky in 1911 wrote an epic defense of the Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko. Jabotinsky defended Shevchenko and the Ukrainian nation from its Russian critics, arguing that a Russian Empire that would attempt to erase its largest and most similar ethnic minority would be unsafe for ALL its ethnic minorities. He was deeply prophetic - just as he critiqued Herzl's Zionist vision of peacefully purchasing land in a non-sovereign Ottoman territory as naive. Regardless of the merits of nationalism, it has clearly become a defining force the world over, and Jabotinsky was wise to recognize that Jews could adapt to it or be crushed beneath it. And that has become true almost everywhere. Consider the Jews of Ethiopia. A non-arab state that was not part of the anti-Israel backlash of the 40's and 50's the Jews of Ethiopia inevitably fell under existential threat by the Derg when a communist nation state replaced an aged empire. Almost all of them fled to Israel and thus survived with their traditions intact. Jabotinsky's recognition that the end of empire would put many national minorities at risk of extermination was prophetic and has served to preserve Jewish communities from every corner of the earth. Zionism may provide less benefit to those of us with the rare privilege to live in a safe and philosemitic state - but we are the exception that proves the rule.
"The UN Partition plan presented in 1948 assigned half the land to the proposed Jewish state, even though Jews were easily less than half the population"
The UN Partition plan didn't divide Arabs and Jews into different states, though. The Arab state would have been 99% Arab and <1% Jewish while the Jewish state would have been 55% Jewish and 45% Arab, with more Jewish immigration to follow. This common anti '47 partition plan talking point is misleading at best.
I've thought more about why I'm a bog standard American Jewish Zionist. I support two states, hate Bibi, thought retaliation for 10/7 was inevitable, expected Israel to massively overreach, and think Israel has effectively lost the war.
For me, it really does come down to the idea that if things got bad enough, I would have somewhere to go. Israel apparently considered ending Jewish right of return, and if they did, I'd lose a lot my emotional attachment.
More generally, I think people don't realize just how extensive the history of Jewish expulsion was. The Holocaust carries especial weight because of the efficiency and sadism involved, but from a purely practical perspective, we lost 30% of our global population. We only just recently regained our numbers from 1939.
We are 16 million people in a world of 8 billion. Half of us live in Israel, and basically the other half live in America. Zionism gained steam in the late 19th century because Jews were being regularly massacred in Russia and Eastern Europe. Jews were not just persecuted prior to and during the Holocaust in Europe, but *after* as well. Most people also seem unaware of Jewish persecution across the entire Middle East and North Africa.
I think given these facts, Jews deserve an answer about how we will be safe if we switch from a country that's 80% Jewish to 30% Jewish, as full Palestinian RoR would likely trigger. I think in that case, we could reasonably expect a war in which, say, 10% of us died (it's also very possible that there would be a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians).
I write this all because I've noticed that anti-Zionists tend to focus on fairness, and Zionists tend to focus on real world results. Zionists are also sensitive to latent antisemitism, and I think reasonably ask why four generations of Palestinians would be allowed to return when only one generation's RoR is internationally recognized, and why it's taken for granted that Jews will never get RoR in any of the dozens of countries we've been expelled from. What makes this case so different? Why are wealthy Arab nations not willing to give reparations to Israeli Jews if it made it easier to get an independent Palestine? If the concern is genuinely for Palestinian wellbeing, why is there no interest in their rights in Lebanon and Jordan, where nearly half of them live?
Anti-Zionist see this as whataboutism, while Zionists ask why the conflict in I/P is cast so narrowly, with all the burden and blame placed on Jews.
That chart is crazy. I had no idea the Mormons were THAT unpopular. That being said, a couple of my super religious friends back in high school were absolutely appalled by Mormonism. Very anecdotal but perhaps tracks with that chart MY shared. Wow.
Agreed. Again, totally anecdotal but growing up in the upper Midwest and attending a smaller state school for college; I had some friends and acquaintances that I would classify as from an evangelical and/or "born again" Christian background. Almost to a T, they found Mormonism absolutely repulsive in a way that was pretty shocking to me. They didn't really like Catholics or Muslims either but they would be more guarded about that as if they knew being openly Islamophobic or anti-Catholic would be socially unacceptable to most normies. They had no such qualms with being openly disdainful of Mormons. It was strange and I never really got it. My shoot-from-the-hip speculative analysis is that they are resentful of an alternative version of the gospel when they view the Bible as "God's word."
"But it’s still the case that anti-Zionism, rather than anything that Israel did, is the reason that the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli rule."
Did you really slip that in without backing it up in any way? Because the actual historical evidence is quite clear and overwhelming that the 1967 war was not in the least bit "defensive" and was instead an Israeli war of aggression. American and Israeli intelligence sources agreed that the Arab states had no intention of attacking, and that if they were to attack, to quote Lyndon B Johnson, Israel would "whip the hell out of them."
First, were the Egyptians and Syrians planning on attacking Israel first?
Second, was the Six Day War an aggressive war of expansion waged by Israel?
Third, even if the Six Day War was an aggressive war of expansion waged by Israel, would it have happened if not for anti-Zionism?
I think it's very likely that the answer to the first question is "no" but the answer to the second question is also "no," and to the third question is also "no." Just because the UAR wasn't in fact planning to actually invade, didn't mean that Israel wasn't justified in thinking that they were. And even if Israel did not think the UAR was going to invade, and decided to take advantage of the anti-Zionist provocations instead, doesn't mean that the Six Day War would have happened if not for those Anti-Zionist provocations.
Consider the events that led up to the 6 day war.
On May 14, Egypt moves troops into the Sinai Peninsula along the border with Israel. On May 19 Egypt expels the UN peacekeepers who are supposed to police the buffer zone so Israel and Egypt don't go to war. Egypt pulls back its troops from Yemen and moves them to the border. On May 23, Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, closing off Israel from 90% of its oil supply, an act that Israel had consistently and like, the day before, told Egypt would be considered a casus belli. On May 30, Egypt and Jordan sign a defense pact, and Egypt assumes operational control over the Jordanian Army. Jordan and Iraq start putting troops on Israel's border with Jordan. Syria's entire army is placed along the border with Israel. At this point in time Israel is surrounded on all sides by fully mobilized armies of enemy states and Nasser, the man in operational control of all of them, has gotten rid of the peacekeepers. None of this was precipitated by Israel announcing an intent to invade these countries or amassing its own troops on the borders. Israel was reasonably justified in believing it was going to be attacked. (In 1973, Israel, presented with a fairly similar scenario concluded that it would not be attacked, but then it was.) Whether or not Nasser actually intended to invade, he certainly took a lot of actions that looked that way and made little sense otherwise. If he was afraid of invasion, why dismiss the UN peacekeepers? If he thought Israel was looking for pretexts for war, why flagrantly cross a specific red line Israel had set out (do not close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping)?
Whether or not Nasser actually intended to invade, Israel did not dupe its enemies into taking of all these actions.
And in fact, Israelis appear by all indications to have believed they were under threat of imminent attack. The entire army was mobilized, all the reservists were called up, and then, instead of invading, they just sat around waiting while Eshkol tried desperately to achieve a diplomatic resolution. The economy ground to a halt. The Israelis were digging mass graves in Tel Aviv parks in anticipation of the casualties. The people demanded that Eshkol form a national unity government to deal with the crisis. Eshkol was forced to give up his role as Minister of Defense and hand it to a political rival outside of his party. And then, once the war started, the Israelis refrained from attacking Jordan and Syria until they moved first, even after they specifically warned those countries that if they attacked Israel first, then Israel would invade. Israel never attacked Lebanon at all. These are not the actions of a country masterminding a war of aggression.
And even if you want to say that Israel actually knew in its heart of hearts 100% that Nasser didn't actually pose a threat and was just posturing, and that Israel nevertheless realized they could take advantage of this situation for the purposes of expanding their borders, Matt's point is still correct - Israel could not have launched the war if not for Nasser's posturing - the massing troops along the border, the inflammatory threats, the dismissing the peacekeepers, the closing of the strait, the defense agreement with Jordan, all of which are attributable to anti-Zionism. If Nasser had just been chill then the war would not have happened, Gaza and the West Bank would not have fallen under Israeli control and there'd be no settlements at all.
"Just because the UAR wasn't in fact planning to actually invade, didn't mean that Israel wasn't justified in thinking that they were."
They didn't think that the UAR was going to attack. Furthermore, both US and Israeli intelligence were certain that if the UAR attacked they would be quickly defeated. Here's a link to the article again:
"On May 19 Egypt expels the UN peacekeepers who are supposed to police the buffer zone so Israel and Egypt don't go to war."
Israel could have simply asked the UN peacekeepers to deploy to their side of the border, but they didn't.
"On May 23, Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, closing off Israel from 90% of its oil supply, an act that Israel had consistently and like, the day before, told Egypt would be considered a casus belli."
Nasser offered to have the ICJ adjudicate the Straits of Tirhan issue but Israel declined.
Also, the importance of the Straits of Tirhan for Israeli shipping has been grossly exaggerated, but that would take a while to get into.
"Whether or not Nasser actually intended to invade, he certainly took a lot of actions that looked that way and made little sense otherwise. If he was afraid of invasion, why dismiss the UN peacekeepers?"
The Soviets had warned Nasser that Israel was preparing to attack to Syria. No one denies this. The only question is whether the Soviets were lying or not, but that's irrelevant to Nasser's actions.
"And in fact, Israelis appear by all indications to have believed they were under threat of imminent attack."
"And then, once the war started, the Israelis refrained from attacking Jordan and Syria until they moved first, even after they specifically warned those countries that if they attacked Israel first, then Israel would invade."
As you previously stated, Egypt had signed a defense pact with Jordan. It was hardly shocking than an attack on Egypt would very likely result in a Jordanian attack on Israel, giving Israel a pretext to conquer the West Bank.
"Matt's point is still correct - Israel could not have launched the war if not for Nasser's posturing - the massing troops along the border, the inflammatory threats, the dismissing the peacekeepers, the closing of the strait, the defense agreement with Jordan, all of which are attributable to anti-Zionism."
If you define "anti-Zionism" broadly enough to include "not wanting a neighboring allied country to be invaded by Israel, only 11 years after your own country was invaded by Israel" then yes, I suppose you could make that argument. But I think a lot of people would consider that statement highly misleading.
Anyone who claims that Israel was the aggressor is not making a serious argument. It's like claiming that deep down, Bibi really wants an independent Palestinian state. Just totally noncredible.
"Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim."
Just one of many statements from the article that I linked backed by abundant historical evidence.
It's written by a nutjob who also appears to be something of a COVID denialist. Which is why you have to link to an article from twenty years ago arguing against a well established consensus.
No, because I've had a number of these disagreements, and they always fall to Brandolini's Law.
It is, in fact, very easy to find a single person who presents a highly misleading and selective reading of the facts to come to a totally ahistorical conclusion. The burden is on you to explain why this person is worth listening to, given that his conclusions are so wildly out of line with everyone else.
Well researched, thank you. I had wondered about the longevity of Palestinian refugee camps and what it does to the younger generations to know nothing else.
To me Zionism describes an ideology—that in principle a Jewish homeland in the Levant is a good thing that should be striven for.
I reject the idea that you are a Zionist if you think (I) a religious ethnostate is in principle bad and not good but (II) we’ve got one anyway, and I support its continued existence against its many hostile neighbors, who also have state structures I think are bad, but are also much worse countries.
I know I'm late to this blog post but the historical problem with it is that the Palestinians didn't start the 1967 war. Israel preemptively attacked Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt at the time. 1973 worked out great for Egypt, they stalemated with Israel, killed a lot of IDF soldiers and then got back the Sinai.
Oh, and: "But there’s no right of return coming to Slovenia or Croatia."
Last I checked, both Slovenia, Croatia, and Italy are all in the Schengen zone, so if any of the descendants of those refugees in Italy want to relocate to the place where their ancestors live, no one will stop them.
This seems like it might be important context to claims like "millions of people were displaced in Europe after World War 2 and it's not a major issue anymore." Is that really because people "got over it", or is it because the new borders were locked down by the Red Army for decades (well, more complicated Cold War politics in the specific case of Yugoslavia), and then after the Red Army retreated within 20 years most of that region had open borders, with the few remaining places not part of Shengen having their borders still locked down by Russian guns, or by NATO. Maybe all of that has something to do with how the Europeans "got over it"?
(It seems worth noting, also, that West Germany refused to recognize the Oder-Neisse border until 1970, but that's a whole other thing.)
Moving on,
"From the Turkish-Greek population transfers of 1920"
This one, I admit, has nothing resembling a Right of Return. But the relations between Turkey and Greece in the 104 years since then have hardly been a model of peace and reconciliation, despite a two-state solution effectively being implemented and the two countries spending much of that time period as part of the same military alliance.
The truly bizarre example, however, is this one:
"the departure of 99 percent Artsakh’s ethnically Armenian population just last October"
The First Nagorno-Karabach War ended with a devastating defeat for Azerbaijan, the occupation by Armenia of a large chunk of internationally recognized Azeri territory, including regions that were never part of the Soviet Nagorno-Karabach autonomous region, and the flight of hundreds of thousands of Azeris from their homes. Azerbaijan refused to recognize this outcome, spent decades building up their military and playing politics, and starting in 2020 unfreeze the conflict and managed to eventually reconquer all of the territory including the former NK autonomous region and secure a right of return for the refugees, but drive out nearly all of the Armenian population from that territory.
It's worth noting that the recent counter-ethnic cleansing has not gone uncontested internationally and the situation is still a bit up in the aid, but the important point is that your cited example came about *because Azerbaijan refused to recognize and eventually successfully reversed a military defeat*. One can certainly argue that they were in a far better position to do this than the Palestinians are: the Azeris have large natural gas reserves, a powerful patron in Turkey, and so on, but this is still among the worst examples you could possibly point to when arguing that people should just accept these sort of things as Fait Accomplis and move on.
Thank you, I needed this analysis. You do not touch on the importance of religious zeal on both sides as providing fuel to the ongoing struggle. Do you not see this eschatological viewpoint as critical to the ongoing struggle?
One other thing to add. That 1878 European map is beautiful. Whoever does those for Wikipedia is doing amazing work!
I don't want people for whom this issue, stopping civilian deaths in Gaza, and any US involvement/complicity in it, is priority number one to feel helpless, or told to stuff it only because electoral realities are against them. Israel-Palestine is one of only several issues committed progressives have brought up that they may see as deep moral, ethical issues that have a clear answer, and that should be beyond politics. And it sucks to be told that your choices are to not vote or vote only for a lesser of two evils for President, or any other office. This has long been an issue for the left flank of American politics, from Eugene Debs in the early 20th century, to Henry Wallace in 1948 to George McGovern in 1972 to Jesse Jackson in the 1980s and Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders in the 21st century, the marginalization and the substantial number of genuine left-liberals, left-progressives or Democratic Socialists who constitute a vital component to winning Democratic candidates and campaigns, but *never* have their full range of preferred views represented in policymaking by actual elected Democratic Presidents and elected legislative majorities.
But I have a suggested response to that genuine and reasonable frustration that I think is more productive, and not counterproductive, as would be the proposed solution of deep-sixing the reelection of President Biden, guaranteeing a President Trump, and rolling the dice, that somehow, there will be a competitive election in 2028, and somehow, Democratic politics will have been scared by Biden's defeat into accepting your views of Israel-Palestine and that there are still Palestinians alive then, after four years of Trump and Trump-enabled Netanyahu.
That solution would be to vote in this election against every Republican officeholder, by voting for their Democratic opponent, including Biden against Trump. And keeping track of Israel-Palestine related votes in Congress.
Count your friends and enemies on this issue. Look at articles like the one I linked to, below. It identifies the 16 defecting House Democrats who voted with Republicans to force President Biden to send Israel the bombs he want to deny them.
I pasted the list of those House Dems who voted the wrong way. You, and your associates most concerned with preserving Palestinian civilian lives, can best act on this information, by communicating with like minded people who live in these Representatives' districts, looking at their level of support in general and vulnerability, and the state of opinion on this issue, and urge people to make noise against arming Israel to them and their offices, and to support primarying them. And, especially if it appears it could make a difference on the margin, considering moving in to one of their districts, none of which are really hicksville, to become a constituent or even a potential candidate who can primary them or support another strongest possible primary challenger to them who is right (or righter) by your lights on the Israel-Palestine issue.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/these-16-house-democrats-voted-to-force-biden-to-deliver-withheld-aid-to-israel/ar-BB1mwEiO?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=ca208e69f43a4d14b281aa462654ef66&ei=131
Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania
Angie Craig of Minnesota
Henry Cuellar of Texas
Don Davis of North Carolina
Lois Frankel of Florida
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez
Jared Golden of Maine
Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey
Greg Landsman of Ohio
Jared Moskowitz of Florida
Frank Pallone of New Jersey
Mary Peltola of Alaska
David Scott of Georgia
Darren Soto of Florida
Tom Suozzi of New York
Ritchie Torres of New York
A follow-on to my comment here, specifically about the damage the Israel-Gaza war, and the protests in response, are doing to the Biden coalition and his ultimate potential vote totals:
1. Clearly the fact of it happening and going on so long brings up rifts between young and old, centrist and progressive, white and non-white in the Dem coalition, while Republicans, even if rank-and-file are not monolithically enthused about the Israeli side, are comfortable at the elite and activist engaged level to just go whole hog and constantly overbid with a pro-Israeli stance, so they love the conflict, they love that Democrats hate it, and they love attention being put to it.
2. Getting to a cease-fire ASAP would be the best thing morally, objectively, and for Biden and the Dem campaigns politically
3. It would not be the best thing for Netanyahu politically, because that broadly pushes against the likelihood of it happening, or him moving good faith in that direction. And, it would not be a good thing really for pretty much any members of his coalition as currently constituted, because they face probable worse prospects in an election. And only a break-up, defection, not external protest, would force Israeli elections.
4. Additionally, Netanyahu, given his side-taking with the Republicans in the 21st century, and possibly to a degree since the 1990s, *wants* Trump to win, to get wider latitude, and he understands factors 1, 2, and 3.
5. Indeed, the *only* internal restraint/disincentive/deterrent he has on further escalation of violence on Palestinians or especially widening of the fighting w/ Hezbollah, other Iranian proxies and Hezbollah, is a) Israel Jewish public distaste for being under heavy rocket fire that compels them to move from their homes and interrupt their lives to be in shelters [and Hezbollah can produce the most of that], and b) Intensified military manpower needs that would compel reconsideration of, or exceptions to, the draft exemptions of the yeshiva students who are constituents of the ultra-religious parties in his coalition, or in the absence of that, an even more grossly disproportionate mobilization, service and casualty burden on more secular Israelis tilted so much that the less religious, more secular rightist parties in his coalition balk. [again, ground conflict with Hezbollah would impose the greatest strain of this type].
6. The protests on elite and large American university campuses focus a great deal of attention via all media outlets, opposition to Biden/US support to Israel, and since the GOP has no executive responsibilities now, it hurts them not a bit, they can play both ends.
7. Aside from the middling poor prospects of getting a ceasefire, a hopeful impending development is that we are here on May 24th, and the college school year is nearly over. The place for protest will *soon be depopulated*. Students and faculty will have their summer plans to attend to.
8. Despite this, if conditions and rews reporting from the region remain as they are, protests like these will certainly be planned for the Chicago Democratic Convention in July I think. So there will be like a 4, 5, 6 week break in the news cycle on this. Not super long, but not really short, in the news cycle.
9. In anticipation of this, the Democrats, Democratic sympathetic elected officials, and groups whose policy hopes ride on Democratic electoral victories, should make many, many thorough and rehearsed plans, and contingency plans, and contingency plans to the contingency plans, in anticipation of Israel-Palestine protests, MAGA right-wing protests attempts to create negative media spectacle outside the Democratic convention. They must do that without appearing censorious/repressive or having a visible heavy-handed law enforcement response, or without appearing to be permissive of a scene of disorder and chaos and what the low-information voter regards as anti-Americanism. The groups working for Dem victory can try to do this by planning and securing permits now for multiple days and multiple hours of large-scale outdoor orderly solidarity events about the most popular issues and groups favorable to the Democrats, instead of Israel-Palestine, to occupy the space and time. These would include: Reproductive Freedom/Abortion Rights/Women's Rights, Health Care, Medicare, the disabled, Teachers, the labor movement/Unions, Civil and Voting rights, Privacy, librarians, anti-corporate corruption, anti-judicial corruption - not Israel-Palestine stuff, not climate change stuff (any environmental stuff should be anti-pollution/safety oriented), not trans in sports stuff.
This is a defensible, long-term historical interpretation, brought up to the current date.
Good job with it, and written in accessible, non-jargon-y language.
You realize, of course, that right by conquest is transitive - if Palestinians reconquer Palestine, the only rational thing for you to say is "hey, sorry, they won, suck it up, Jews."
For the record - I would be really worried if I was a Zionist, in the long view. The United States is rapidly losing its ability to dictate world affairs, and without it, Israel wouldn't exist today. The only hope is that they make peace.
You realize, of course, that right by conquest is transitive - if Palestinians reconquer Palestine, the only rational thing for you to say is "hey, sorry, they won, suck it up, Jews."
For the record - I would be really worried if I was a Zionist, in the long view. The United States is rapidly losing its ability to dictate world affairs, and without it, Israel wouldn't exist today. The only hope is that they make peace.
The widespread ethnic cleansing in Europe, the Balkans, Greece and Turkey that accompanied the breakup of the Russian, Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires resulted in profound peace.
It -worked-.
For example, after the 'population exchange' (and massacres) of 1923, Greeks and Turks stopped killing each other.
Except in Cyprus, where British colonial power preserved the old street-by-street mixture. As soon as Britain's hand weakened, they started killing each other again -- that went on until the Turkish invasion of 1974, when all the Greeks were expelled from the north and all the Turks from the south.
Result? Profound peace.
Nation-states work best with an ethnically homogenous population.
This is an excellent piece of historical context but it missed the most important, influential, and prophetic zionist voice: Ze'ev Jabotinsky. While Herzl's vision, encapsulated in Altneuland, is of a secular Ashkenazi province of the Ottoman Empire that looks more like Vienna than modern Tel Aviv, Jabotinsky's more religious and security oriented vision of "revisionist" zionism is the official ideology of the dominant Likud party. Ze'ev Jabotinsky in 1911 wrote an epic defense of the Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko. Jabotinsky defended Shevchenko and the Ukrainian nation from its Russian critics, arguing that a Russian Empire that would attempt to erase its largest and most similar ethnic minority would be unsafe for ALL its ethnic minorities. He was deeply prophetic - just as he critiqued Herzl's Zionist vision of peacefully purchasing land in a non-sovereign Ottoman territory as naive. Regardless of the merits of nationalism, it has clearly become a defining force the world over, and Jabotinsky was wise to recognize that Jews could adapt to it or be crushed beneath it. And that has become true almost everywhere. Consider the Jews of Ethiopia. A non-arab state that was not part of the anti-Israel backlash of the 40's and 50's the Jews of Ethiopia inevitably fell under existential threat by the Derg when a communist nation state replaced an aged empire. Almost all of them fled to Israel and thus survived with their traditions intact. Jabotinsky's recognition that the end of empire would put many national minorities at risk of extermination was prophetic and has served to preserve Jewish communities from every corner of the earth. Zionism may provide less benefit to those of us with the rare privilege to live in a safe and philosemitic state - but we are the exception that proves the rule.
"The UN Partition plan presented in 1948 assigned half the land to the proposed Jewish state, even though Jews were easily less than half the population"
The UN Partition plan didn't divide Arabs and Jews into different states, though. The Arab state would have been 99% Arab and <1% Jewish while the Jewish state would have been 55% Jewish and 45% Arab, with more Jewish immigration to follow. This common anti '47 partition plan talking point is misleading at best.
I've thought more about why I'm a bog standard American Jewish Zionist. I support two states, hate Bibi, thought retaliation for 10/7 was inevitable, expected Israel to massively overreach, and think Israel has effectively lost the war.
For me, it really does come down to the idea that if things got bad enough, I would have somewhere to go. Israel apparently considered ending Jewish right of return, and if they did, I'd lose a lot my emotional attachment.
More generally, I think people don't realize just how extensive the history of Jewish expulsion was. The Holocaust carries especial weight because of the efficiency and sadism involved, but from a purely practical perspective, we lost 30% of our global population. We only just recently regained our numbers from 1939.
We are 16 million people in a world of 8 billion. Half of us live in Israel, and basically the other half live in America. Zionism gained steam in the late 19th century because Jews were being regularly massacred in Russia and Eastern Europe. Jews were not just persecuted prior to and during the Holocaust in Europe, but *after* as well. Most people also seem unaware of Jewish persecution across the entire Middle East and North Africa.
I think given these facts, Jews deserve an answer about how we will be safe if we switch from a country that's 80% Jewish to 30% Jewish, as full Palestinian RoR would likely trigger. I think in that case, we could reasonably expect a war in which, say, 10% of us died (it's also very possible that there would be a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians).
I write this all because I've noticed that anti-Zionists tend to focus on fairness, and Zionists tend to focus on real world results. Zionists are also sensitive to latent antisemitism, and I think reasonably ask why four generations of Palestinians would be allowed to return when only one generation's RoR is internationally recognized, and why it's taken for granted that Jews will never get RoR in any of the dozens of countries we've been expelled from. What makes this case so different? Why are wealthy Arab nations not willing to give reparations to Israeli Jews if it made it easier to get an independent Palestine? If the concern is genuinely for Palestinian wellbeing, why is there no interest in their rights in Lebanon and Jordan, where nearly half of them live?
Anti-Zionist see this as whataboutism, while Zionists ask why the conflict in I/P is cast so narrowly, with all the burden and blame placed on Jews.
That chart is crazy. I had no idea the Mormons were THAT unpopular. That being said, a couple of my super religious friends back in high school were absolutely appalled by Mormonism. Very anecdotal but perhaps tracks with that chart MY shared. Wow.
With this sort of question, it’s really hard to separate actual dislike from feeling that the dislike is culturally acceptable.
Agreed. Again, totally anecdotal but growing up in the upper Midwest and attending a smaller state school for college; I had some friends and acquaintances that I would classify as from an evangelical and/or "born again" Christian background. Almost to a T, they found Mormonism absolutely repulsive in a way that was pretty shocking to me. They didn't really like Catholics or Muslims either but they would be more guarded about that as if they knew being openly Islamophobic or anti-Catholic would be socially unacceptable to most normies. They had no such qualms with being openly disdainful of Mormons. It was strange and I never really got it. My shoot-from-the-hip speculative analysis is that they are resentful of an alternative version of the gospel when they view the Bible as "God's word."
"But it’s still the case that anti-Zionism, rather than anything that Israel did, is the reason that the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli rule."
Did you really slip that in without backing it up in any way? Because the actual historical evidence is quite clear and overwhelming that the 1967 war was not in the least bit "defensive" and was instead an Israeli war of aggression. American and Israeli intelligence sources agreed that the Arab states had no intention of attacking, and that if they were to attack, to quote Lyndon B Johnson, Israel would "whip the hell out of them."
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/
Which makes this statement completely false.
I think there's three separate questions.
First, were the Egyptians and Syrians planning on attacking Israel first?
Second, was the Six Day War an aggressive war of expansion waged by Israel?
Third, even if the Six Day War was an aggressive war of expansion waged by Israel, would it have happened if not for anti-Zionism?
I think it's very likely that the answer to the first question is "no" but the answer to the second question is also "no," and to the third question is also "no." Just because the UAR wasn't in fact planning to actually invade, didn't mean that Israel wasn't justified in thinking that they were. And even if Israel did not think the UAR was going to invade, and decided to take advantage of the anti-Zionist provocations instead, doesn't mean that the Six Day War would have happened if not for those Anti-Zionist provocations.
Consider the events that led up to the 6 day war.
On May 14, Egypt moves troops into the Sinai Peninsula along the border with Israel. On May 19 Egypt expels the UN peacekeepers who are supposed to police the buffer zone so Israel and Egypt don't go to war. Egypt pulls back its troops from Yemen and moves them to the border. On May 23, Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, closing off Israel from 90% of its oil supply, an act that Israel had consistently and like, the day before, told Egypt would be considered a casus belli. On May 30, Egypt and Jordan sign a defense pact, and Egypt assumes operational control over the Jordanian Army. Jordan and Iraq start putting troops on Israel's border with Jordan. Syria's entire army is placed along the border with Israel. At this point in time Israel is surrounded on all sides by fully mobilized armies of enemy states and Nasser, the man in operational control of all of them, has gotten rid of the peacekeepers. None of this was precipitated by Israel announcing an intent to invade these countries or amassing its own troops on the borders. Israel was reasonably justified in believing it was going to be attacked. (In 1973, Israel, presented with a fairly similar scenario concluded that it would not be attacked, but then it was.) Whether or not Nasser actually intended to invade, he certainly took a lot of actions that looked that way and made little sense otherwise. If he was afraid of invasion, why dismiss the UN peacekeepers? If he thought Israel was looking for pretexts for war, why flagrantly cross a specific red line Israel had set out (do not close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping)?
Whether or not Nasser actually intended to invade, Israel did not dupe its enemies into taking of all these actions.
And in fact, Israelis appear by all indications to have believed they were under threat of imminent attack. The entire army was mobilized, all the reservists were called up, and then, instead of invading, they just sat around waiting while Eshkol tried desperately to achieve a diplomatic resolution. The economy ground to a halt. The Israelis were digging mass graves in Tel Aviv parks in anticipation of the casualties. The people demanded that Eshkol form a national unity government to deal with the crisis. Eshkol was forced to give up his role as Minister of Defense and hand it to a political rival outside of his party. And then, once the war started, the Israelis refrained from attacking Jordan and Syria until they moved first, even after they specifically warned those countries that if they attacked Israel first, then Israel would invade. Israel never attacked Lebanon at all. These are not the actions of a country masterminding a war of aggression.
And even if you want to say that Israel actually knew in its heart of hearts 100% that Nasser didn't actually pose a threat and was just posturing, and that Israel nevertheless realized they could take advantage of this situation for the purposes of expanding their borders, Matt's point is still correct - Israel could not have launched the war if not for Nasser's posturing - the massing troops along the border, the inflammatory threats, the dismissing the peacekeepers, the closing of the strait, the defense agreement with Jordan, all of which are attributable to anti-Zionism. If Nasser had just been chill then the war would not have happened, Gaza and the West Bank would not have fallen under Israeli control and there'd be no settlements at all.
"Just because the UAR wasn't in fact planning to actually invade, didn't mean that Israel wasn't justified in thinking that they were."
They didn't think that the UAR was going to attack. Furthermore, both US and Israeli intelligence were certain that if the UAR attacked they would be quickly defeated. Here's a link to the article again:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/
"On May 19 Egypt expels the UN peacekeepers who are supposed to police the buffer zone so Israel and Egypt don't go to war."
Israel could have simply asked the UN peacekeepers to deploy to their side of the border, but they didn't.
"On May 23, Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, closing off Israel from 90% of its oil supply, an act that Israel had consistently and like, the day before, told Egypt would be considered a casus belli."
Nasser offered to have the ICJ adjudicate the Straits of Tirhan issue but Israel declined.
Also, the importance of the Straits of Tirhan for Israeli shipping has been grossly exaggerated, but that would take a while to get into.
"Whether or not Nasser actually intended to invade, he certainly took a lot of actions that looked that way and made little sense otherwise. If he was afraid of invasion, why dismiss the UN peacekeepers?"
The Soviets had warned Nasser that Israel was preparing to attack to Syria. No one denies this. The only question is whether the Soviets were lying or not, but that's irrelevant to Nasser's actions.
"And in fact, Israelis appear by all indications to have believed they were under threat of imminent attack."
Except that copious documentation of internal discussions reveals that the Israeli leadership thought no such thing at the time. Again, the article: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/
"And then, once the war started, the Israelis refrained from attacking Jordan and Syria until they moved first, even after they specifically warned those countries that if they attacked Israel first, then Israel would invade."
As you previously stated, Egypt had signed a defense pact with Jordan. It was hardly shocking than an attack on Egypt would very likely result in a Jordanian attack on Israel, giving Israel a pretext to conquer the West Bank.
"Matt's point is still correct - Israel could not have launched the war if not for Nasser's posturing - the massing troops along the border, the inflammatory threats, the dismissing the peacekeepers, the closing of the strait, the defense agreement with Jordan, all of which are attributable to anti-Zionism."
If you define "anti-Zionism" broadly enough to include "not wanting a neighboring allied country to be invaded by Israel, only 11 years after your own country was invaded by Israel" then yes, I suppose you could make that argument. But I think a lot of people would consider that statement highly misleading.
Anyone who claims that Israel was the aggressor is not making a serious argument. It's like claiming that deep down, Bibi really wants an independent Palestinian state. Just totally noncredible.
"Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim."
Just one of many statements from the article that I linked backed by abundant historical evidence.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/
It's written by a nutjob who also appears to be something of a COVID denialist. Which is why you have to link to an article from twenty years ago arguing against a well established consensus.
Ad hominem and appeal to authority. Yawn. Do you have any actual evidence to present?
No, because I've had a number of these disagreements, and they always fall to Brandolini's Law.
It is, in fact, very easy to find a single person who presents a highly misleading and selective reading of the facts to come to a totally ahistorical conclusion. The burden is on you to explain why this person is worth listening to, given that his conclusions are so wildly out of line with everyone else.
So no, no evidence, just posturing.
I don't think this conversation is worth pursuing any further.
Well researched, thank you. I had wondered about the longevity of Palestinian refugee camps and what it does to the younger generations to know nothing else.
To me Zionism describes an ideology—that in principle a Jewish homeland in the Levant is a good thing that should be striven for.
I reject the idea that you are a Zionist if you think (I) a religious ethnostate is in principle bad and not good but (II) we’ve got one anyway, and I support its continued existence against its many hostile neighbors, who also have state structures I think are bad, but are also much worse countries.