Ultimately, I think the disagreement about Israel's strategy is a disagreement about the relative size of two groups, and also what those relative sizes *mean*.
There are two groups:
1) people who might be persuaded to support the State of Israel (as a Jewish majority state)
2) dedicated anti-Zionists who will never, ever recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel (as a Jewish majority state) no matter what Israel does, no matter who the PM is, no matter how many or how few settlers are allowed and what they do, no matter where the borders are, no matter which Nakba descendents they compensate, no matter whether or not there is a Palestinian state, no matter how nice it is. None of it matters. There is no point appeasing this group, they can only be resisted, or killed, or give up and leave. (if you're a Jew and must live in a Jewish minority state, the last neighbors you'd want would be Islamists who hate your guts... better to flee to the West and cross your fingers, again).
There are some people who think that group 2 are "too many", and others who think they are "not too many". But what does "too many" mean? It can only mean, too many to live alongside. How many is that? I think that the "terrorist's veto" (like the heckler's veto but with guns) is powerful.... any substantial group that is literally dedicated to *nothing* but ending your existence (and cares nothing for their own lives or the lives of their supposed compatriots) can render peaceful existence impossible. And that's what Islamists are like. Ten such enemies can be controlled by "policing" in an otherwise peaceful situation, but (let's say) a million cannot, no matter how much international support you have. They can only be controlled by occupation using varying degrees of violence.
Most Israelis have simply decided that the latter situation is the reality: there are too many unpersuadable group 2 anti-Zionists to think that "persuasion" is an effective survival strategy. I think they're probably right.
“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.” - Golda Meir. Some might argue this is a false dichotomy... but maybe it isn't.
I love the way you think, Matt, but you gotta get an editor (or at least a friend) to look over your posts. “What Israel Does Matters”?!?! I honestly had to read that three times before I understood it. How about, “It Matters What Israel Does”?
tselfI never thought I'd see thousands of Americans rallying in support of Palestinian rights. I don't think most know much about the last hundred years , especially how Jew and Arabs indigenous to the Levant once lived peacefully on the same land and are now at each others' throats. The starting point for young peoples' defense of the Palestinians may be Israel's unleashed response to the Hamas massacre. But Israel's disregard for Palestinian lives in 2023 has forced a lot of people to educate themselves on the history leading up to 1948. Like most people in the WEST, I assumed Israel as a state was a settled issue and supported the "two- state solution" under that framework. Israel 's action In today's war has caused a new generation to look back and question what happened 70 years ago and that is profound.
This is a good column. Count me as a member of the global audience “transfixed” by “the concrete suffering of Palestinian civilians" who would nonetheless be persuadable if Israel were to change its current course.
To be clear, I am one of those crazies who sees the Israeli state as currently constituted as being roughly on par with apartheid South Africa, morally speaking. Ultimately, I am never going to feel very warmly towards a country founded on forcing people from their homes and (as I see it) premised on ethnic-religious exclusion. But, in recent months, I've gone from feeling vague discomfort and disdain towards Israel to feeling intense hostility and rage. The more I see Gazan children dying and starving and suffering — and the more I hear arrogant proclamations that any criticism of such atrocities is antisemitic — the more angry I get.
If the war were to end and steps taken towards the imperfect solution of a Palestinian state … well, in all honesty, the issue would probably slip off my daily radar. I’m not an activist eternally dedicated to the purity of the Palestinian cause; I’m just a random American disgusted by the mass slaughter and starvation (and repression) of Palestinian people. I still might not sympathize with Israel, but I would certainly stop caring as much about the situation. Which, I’d think, is exactly what Israel’s defenders would like to happen — for the issue to simply become less salient for people like me. But instead, the strategy seems to be to pour more fuel on the fire.
"Ultimately, I am never going to feel very warmly towards a country founded on forcing people from their homes"
One could argue that the United States is also such a country.
The right to exist is the right to defend yourself. If you do not have the right to defend yourself then you do not have the right to exist. With respect, it doesn't really matter to Israel's defenders if you're "persuadable" or not, because it sounds like, at best, the degree of your support is so tepid as to be useless. Israel has the right to defend itself... as long as nobody gets hurt in the process. I'd argue that given the level of implacable enmity that Israel faces (that cannot be assuaged by anything Israel does or agrees to, short of agreeing to stop existing as a Jewish state), that's no right at all.
I mean, just say "Israel shouldn't exist, period". It's quicker to type.
The US is absolutely such a country. The similarity between the crimes committed throughout American history and the crimes being committed in Palestine now is part of why I (an American) feel so furious about the current situation.
This isn't meant as a gotcha, but... since the US is founded on the same sort of land theft as Israel is, does the US have a right to exist? If not, (and assuming you are not Native American) shouldn't you go back to where your ancestors are from? (Europe, Africa, or Asia).
In trying to think it through, I wonder if differences in "moral status" (if any) between Israel and the US depend on time passed + numbers of displaced people + amount of land onto which they can be displaced (Indian reserves are at least a lot bigger than Gaza) + citizenship status (or lack thereof) of the displaced people + number of surrounding countries which are hostile. (Of course, many Jews argue that they were there first, that they are the *decolonizers*, not the *colonizers*).
(I'm Canadian so am in the very same boat. I have Dutch ancestry, and in visiting that country, I admit that I did find it refreshing to realize: "there's nobody arguing about stolen land here" The Dutch literally reclaimed some of the country from the North Sea... it's definitely theirs!)
Well, I don't think Jews in Israel should go back to where their ancestors are from. I don't think that would be a good or just solution for Israel-Palestine, or the US, Canada, South Africa, Chile or anywhere else founded on colonialism. Human history is a litany of peoples migrating and settling in different places, typically displacing someone else in the process. Trying to rewind that history to some arbitrary point would be absurd and lead to all sorts of nightmarish scenarios. So, no, I don't think white Americans should pack up and move to Europe; I don't think European-descended Jews living in Israel should, either. But I think the US does owe a massive moral debt to Native American people who were robbed of their land and heritage, and I think Israel has a similar debt towards Palestinians. I can't pretend to know how to go about repaying that debt, but in Israel the opposite is happening: The process of ethnic cleansing and theft is still actively happening today.
(Also: I don't think the US has a "right to exist" any more than Israel does — or, for that matter, France or Brazil or Pakistan. While principles of state sovereignty are useful for maintaining international stability, I think it's strange to think of political entities having "rights" in any coherent way when the historical terms upon which those states were created were often so arbitrary and unjust.)
There is much I agree with here, but our collective decision to call what is going on in Gaza a "war" seems a bit odd. Is there a Palestinian government or army waging the war (with the full panoply of modern weapons) or are there just a handful of insurgents?
The Carnegie Endowment's conversation this morning with Ehud Barak provides some encouragement that there are thoughtful, humane people in Israeli leadership who see the need for a viable path forward to a two-state solution:
I feel bad for Israel. Like, no one trills over the Armenians who got kicked out of NK. Even now, you have the Azeri president literally bragging about “cleansing” them. Given this double standard, I feel like Netanyahu is right to give up on international public opinion. Like, what are they supposed to concede? And why would the Palestinians not throw that concession back in their face, like they always have? I just don’t see what goods Tom Freedman would deliver to justify the risks from not crushing Gaza. He’s a has-been.
Also remember that a proportion of the Armenians (not all) living in Nagorno Karabakh were settlers: Armenian citizens who moved to a military occupied area, presumably against the Geneva Convention. But no one talks about that, and people call their removal “ethnic cleansing.”
So, here's the thing. Despite being one of the resident left-leaning people here, I don't really care that deeply about I/P. It seems to be two reactionary populations fighting one another, and I have no sympathy for either side really. Matt's view he's stated that there's no reason to continue to give military aid to Israel, which by all measures is a healthy developed economy is pretty much my view.
But, the other reality is the Western world, and specifically, liberal-minded (small l) people think civilian casualties are pretty terrible, and should be avoided at all costs. Even the Russian's have done their best to hide the terrible things they're doing in the occupied portions of Ukraine, and the biggest blowback Ukraine has got has been for what's seen as reprisals against normal citizens. Unfortunately for Russia, Ukraine really isn't bombing Russia, so there's no civilian deaths to propagandize from.
So, yeah, the reality is large portions of the modern developed world, even putting aside the inherent tensions don't believe you get to kill civilians at a 10-30x ratio in response to a terrorist attack. Now, I know the response will be, "if Mexico was sending bombs into and doing terrorist attacks in border towns..."
But, I think even in that situation, if the US turned various Mexican border cities into rubble and were killing massive amounts of civilians, large portions of the US population would turn against that project pretty quickly.
Now, the pro-Israel folks or Israeli citizens can disagree, and say they'll go on their own, and my response would be, "OK, good luck, but don't expect US backing."
I'd also point out that if Israel actually cared about Hamas leadership so deeply they were willing to do anything, they'd be bombing Qatar right now, not Gaza, where even probably most of the actual Hamas members there have little connection to what happened on 10/7. If instead of immediately going after Gaza, Israel demanded Qatar handed over Hamas leadership, a lot of the previously 100% pro-Israel folks who have turned against Israel in recent months might still be on their side.
Plus, as noted, continue to put into office far-right reactionary leaders who ally with fascists and reactionaries in the US, don't be shocked liberals in the US become less friendly to you, and less willing to give you a blank check.
"if the US turned various Mexican border cities into rubble and were killing massive amounts of civilians, large portions of the US population would turn against that project pretty quickly"
Assertion sorely in need of evidence. I think, if a bunch of Mexican terrorists tortured/raped/murdered hundreds of unarmed American civilians AND threatened to do it again, repeatedly, the overwhelming response from the American public would be "bomb those MFers to the stone age."
I think if the US Army was acting like the IDF currently is, there was the video of the aftermath of bombing like there is for Gaza, the actual terrorist leaders were living it up in Cuba instead of Mexico, and there's no clear path to actual victory, I think you'd see a fairly clear turn against the overwhelming force being pushed, even if people still wanted to get the terrorists responsible.
Yes, there'd be a big initial support obviously, but without decades of the bunker mentality Israel is under, I think there would be pretty quick pushback if the US acted like Israel has for the past nearly six months.
Maybe I'm entirely wrong, and again, I don't care that deeply about this, but the reactions of the US populace to US military actions during other wars and so on, along with the general reaction to other armies going past what's seen as reasonable, even ones we're allied too lead me to that conclusion.
Ironically, the fact the US military is more well-trained (conscription is bad, folks - I understand why Israel has to do that, but well...) and the top brass of the US military seems to be better at their jobs than Israeli military means there likely wouldn't be the same bad ideas put forth.
The US went to war with a nation on the other side of the globe and did a 20 year occupation and killed tens of thousands of civilians because that country was harboring a terrorist involved in a single terror attack by allowing him to hide out in a cave. The US also overthrew an entire government that had no connection to the attack and did another decade long occupation just ‘cause.
Hamas is right on Israel’s border. It not only has organized suicide bombings for decades, it sent rockets to Israeli population center nearly every year for nearly two decades. Israel avoided all out war with Hamas for this whole time, just doing limited retaliatory strikes at very limited targets, even though Israel continued to get rockets launched at its cities each year. Israel literally invented a way to shoot rockets out of the sky so they could try to live with the rockets and avoid all out war with Gaza.
“Israel is the target of a global campaign of delegitimization that casts the basic Zionist premise of a Jewish state as equivalent to apartheid South Africa.” I wonder how this delegitimization campaign holds up if South Africa falls apart. Presumably, the core will switch back to Algeria as the model for Palestinian liberation. But if the Rainbow Nation ends up like Haiti, it might loose its appeal as model. Certainly, the West would look stupid for helping topple apartheid.
I think Matt’s overall point that Israel’s actions can meaningfully change public perception of it is correct, but the implied conclusion that Israel somehow could reasonably have conducted a war against Hamas in a way that avoided the current rancor is not correct. Matt often makes the point that Joe Biden has been punished savagely and unfairly for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and I think this is a very similar situation. The public (quite rightfully) hates to see news coverage about civilians getting killed, and does not particularly care why it happened. I truly do not think it would make a meaningful difference to the public if half as many civilians were killed. (I don’t think I should need to say this, but obviously this does not lessen the obligation of the IDF to minimize harm to civilians!)
Ultimately, I think the disagreement about Israel's strategy is a disagreement about the relative size of two groups, and also what those relative sizes *mean*.
There are two groups:
1) people who might be persuaded to support the State of Israel (as a Jewish majority state)
2) dedicated anti-Zionists who will never, ever recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel (as a Jewish majority state) no matter what Israel does, no matter who the PM is, no matter how many or how few settlers are allowed and what they do, no matter where the borders are, no matter which Nakba descendents they compensate, no matter whether or not there is a Palestinian state, no matter how nice it is. None of it matters. There is no point appeasing this group, they can only be resisted, or killed, or give up and leave. (if you're a Jew and must live in a Jewish minority state, the last neighbors you'd want would be Islamists who hate your guts... better to flee to the West and cross your fingers, again).
There are some people who think that group 2 are "too many", and others who think they are "not too many". But what does "too many" mean? It can only mean, too many to live alongside. How many is that? I think that the "terrorist's veto" (like the heckler's veto but with guns) is powerful.... any substantial group that is literally dedicated to *nothing* but ending your existence (and cares nothing for their own lives or the lives of their supposed compatriots) can render peaceful existence impossible. And that's what Islamists are like. Ten such enemies can be controlled by "policing" in an otherwise peaceful situation, but (let's say) a million cannot, no matter how much international support you have. They can only be controlled by occupation using varying degrees of violence.
Most Israelis have simply decided that the latter situation is the reality: there are too many unpersuadable group 2 anti-Zionists to think that "persuasion" is an effective survival strategy. I think they're probably right.
“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.” - Golda Meir. Some might argue this is a false dichotomy... but maybe it isn't.
There's no need to use Mexico to conjure a hypothetical.
Three words: "Pearl Harbor. Hiroshima."
I love the way you think, Matt, but you gotta get an editor (or at least a friend) to look over your posts. “What Israel Does Matters”?!?! I honestly had to read that three times before I understood it. How about, “It Matters What Israel Does”?
tselfI never thought I'd see thousands of Americans rallying in support of Palestinian rights. I don't think most know much about the last hundred years , especially how Jew and Arabs indigenous to the Levant once lived peacefully on the same land and are now at each others' throats. The starting point for young peoples' defense of the Palestinians may be Israel's unleashed response to the Hamas massacre. But Israel's disregard for Palestinian lives in 2023 has forced a lot of people to educate themselves on the history leading up to 1948. Like most people in the WEST, I assumed Israel as a state was a settled issue and supported the "two- state solution" under that framework. Israel 's action In today's war has caused a new generation to look back and question what happened 70 years ago and that is profound.
This is a good column. Count me as a member of the global audience “transfixed” by “the concrete suffering of Palestinian civilians" who would nonetheless be persuadable if Israel were to change its current course.
To be clear, I am one of those crazies who sees the Israeli state as currently constituted as being roughly on par with apartheid South Africa, morally speaking. Ultimately, I am never going to feel very warmly towards a country founded on forcing people from their homes and (as I see it) premised on ethnic-religious exclusion. But, in recent months, I've gone from feeling vague discomfort and disdain towards Israel to feeling intense hostility and rage. The more I see Gazan children dying and starving and suffering — and the more I hear arrogant proclamations that any criticism of such atrocities is antisemitic — the more angry I get.
If the war were to end and steps taken towards the imperfect solution of a Palestinian state … well, in all honesty, the issue would probably slip off my daily radar. I’m not an activist eternally dedicated to the purity of the Palestinian cause; I’m just a random American disgusted by the mass slaughter and starvation (and repression) of Palestinian people. I still might not sympathize with Israel, but I would certainly stop caring as much about the situation. Which, I’d think, is exactly what Israel’s defenders would like to happen — for the issue to simply become less salient for people like me. But instead, the strategy seems to be to pour more fuel on the fire.
"Ultimately, I am never going to feel very warmly towards a country founded on forcing people from their homes"
One could argue that the United States is also such a country.
The right to exist is the right to defend yourself. If you do not have the right to defend yourself then you do not have the right to exist. With respect, it doesn't really matter to Israel's defenders if you're "persuadable" or not, because it sounds like, at best, the degree of your support is so tepid as to be useless. Israel has the right to defend itself... as long as nobody gets hurt in the process. I'd argue that given the level of implacable enmity that Israel faces (that cannot be assuaged by anything Israel does or agrees to, short of agreeing to stop existing as a Jewish state), that's no right at all.
I mean, just say "Israel shouldn't exist, period". It's quicker to type.
The US is absolutely such a country. The similarity between the crimes committed throughout American history and the crimes being committed in Palestine now is part of why I (an American) feel so furious about the current situation.
This isn't meant as a gotcha, but... since the US is founded on the same sort of land theft as Israel is, does the US have a right to exist? If not, (and assuming you are not Native American) shouldn't you go back to where your ancestors are from? (Europe, Africa, or Asia).
In trying to think it through, I wonder if differences in "moral status" (if any) between Israel and the US depend on time passed + numbers of displaced people + amount of land onto which they can be displaced (Indian reserves are at least a lot bigger than Gaza) + citizenship status (or lack thereof) of the displaced people + number of surrounding countries which are hostile. (Of course, many Jews argue that they were there first, that they are the *decolonizers*, not the *colonizers*).
(I'm Canadian so am in the very same boat. I have Dutch ancestry, and in visiting that country, I admit that I did find it refreshing to realize: "there's nobody arguing about stolen land here" The Dutch literally reclaimed some of the country from the North Sea... it's definitely theirs!)
Well, I don't think Jews in Israel should go back to where their ancestors are from. I don't think that would be a good or just solution for Israel-Palestine, or the US, Canada, South Africa, Chile or anywhere else founded on colonialism. Human history is a litany of peoples migrating and settling in different places, typically displacing someone else in the process. Trying to rewind that history to some arbitrary point would be absurd and lead to all sorts of nightmarish scenarios. So, no, I don't think white Americans should pack up and move to Europe; I don't think European-descended Jews living in Israel should, either. But I think the US does owe a massive moral debt to Native American people who were robbed of their land and heritage, and I think Israel has a similar debt towards Palestinians. I can't pretend to know how to go about repaying that debt, but in Israel the opposite is happening: The process of ethnic cleansing and theft is still actively happening today.
(Also: I don't think the US has a "right to exist" any more than Israel does — or, for that matter, France or Brazil or Pakistan. While principles of state sovereignty are useful for maintaining international stability, I think it's strange to think of political entities having "rights" in any coherent way when the historical terms upon which those states were created were often so arbitrary and unjust.)
Love this - thank you, Matt.
It's kind of embarrassing for humans that the point of this article has to even be made.
There is much I agree with here, but our collective decision to call what is going on in Gaza a "war" seems a bit odd. Is there a Palestinian government or army waging the war (with the full panoply of modern weapons) or are there just a handful of insurgents?
Hamas are the duly elected government of Palestine and the de facto government of Gaza, so yes.
I can’t say i share your metaphysical certainty
The Carnegie Endowment's conversation this morning with Ehud Barak provides some encouragement that there are thoughtful, humane people in Israeli leadership who see the need for a viable path forward to a two-state solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YzpL9BmTMA
Probably the best and even-handed thing I've read on the subject.
This was a solid article, but ultimately the most important line was:
>I don’t know exactly how to bring the long-term conflict to a peaceful resolution.
Every article about this conflict should begin with this statement.
I feel bad for Israel. Like, no one trills over the Armenians who got kicked out of NK. Even now, you have the Azeri president literally bragging about “cleansing” them. Given this double standard, I feel like Netanyahu is right to give up on international public opinion. Like, what are they supposed to concede? And why would the Palestinians not throw that concession back in their face, like they always have? I just don’t see what goods Tom Freedman would deliver to justify the risks from not crushing Gaza. He’s a has-been.
Also remember that a proportion of the Armenians (not all) living in Nagorno Karabakh were settlers: Armenian citizens who moved to a military occupied area, presumably against the Geneva Convention. But no one talks about that, and people call their removal “ethnic cleansing.”
I read your second sentence and I was momentarily like, "Wait, when did Armenians get kicked out of North Korea?!?"
Good point re: lots of other innocent people get ethnically cleansed/massacred/displaced, and Western protesters hardly notice.
A point Matt occasionally touches on with his Sudanese civil war tweets. (Sudan, like "fetch," however, still isn't happening.)
So, here's the thing. Despite being one of the resident left-leaning people here, I don't really care that deeply about I/P. It seems to be two reactionary populations fighting one another, and I have no sympathy for either side really. Matt's view he's stated that there's no reason to continue to give military aid to Israel, which by all measures is a healthy developed economy is pretty much my view.
But, the other reality is the Western world, and specifically, liberal-minded (small l) people think civilian casualties are pretty terrible, and should be avoided at all costs. Even the Russian's have done their best to hide the terrible things they're doing in the occupied portions of Ukraine, and the biggest blowback Ukraine has got has been for what's seen as reprisals against normal citizens. Unfortunately for Russia, Ukraine really isn't bombing Russia, so there's no civilian deaths to propagandize from.
So, yeah, the reality is large portions of the modern developed world, even putting aside the inherent tensions don't believe you get to kill civilians at a 10-30x ratio in response to a terrorist attack. Now, I know the response will be, "if Mexico was sending bombs into and doing terrorist attacks in border towns..."
But, I think even in that situation, if the US turned various Mexican border cities into rubble and were killing massive amounts of civilians, large portions of the US population would turn against that project pretty quickly.
Now, the pro-Israel folks or Israeli citizens can disagree, and say they'll go on their own, and my response would be, "OK, good luck, but don't expect US backing."
I'd also point out that if Israel actually cared about Hamas leadership so deeply they were willing to do anything, they'd be bombing Qatar right now, not Gaza, where even probably most of the actual Hamas members there have little connection to what happened on 10/7. If instead of immediately going after Gaza, Israel demanded Qatar handed over Hamas leadership, a lot of the previously 100% pro-Israel folks who have turned against Israel in recent months might still be on their side.
Plus, as noted, continue to put into office far-right reactionary leaders who ally with fascists and reactionaries in the US, don't be shocked liberals in the US become less friendly to you, and less willing to give you a blank check.
"if the US turned various Mexican border cities into rubble and were killing massive amounts of civilians, large portions of the US population would turn against that project pretty quickly"
Assertion sorely in need of evidence. I think, if a bunch of Mexican terrorists tortured/raped/murdered hundreds of unarmed American civilians AND threatened to do it again, repeatedly, the overwhelming response from the American public would be "bomb those MFers to the stone age."
The utility of the example is questionable due to staleness, but you are preliminarily corroborated by the response here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916)
I think if the US Army was acting like the IDF currently is, there was the video of the aftermath of bombing like there is for Gaza, the actual terrorist leaders were living it up in Cuba instead of Mexico, and there's no clear path to actual victory, I think you'd see a fairly clear turn against the overwhelming force being pushed, even if people still wanted to get the terrorists responsible.
Yes, there'd be a big initial support obviously, but without decades of the bunker mentality Israel is under, I think there would be pretty quick pushback if the US acted like Israel has for the past nearly six months.
Maybe I'm entirely wrong, and again, I don't care that deeply about this, but the reactions of the US populace to US military actions during other wars and so on, along with the general reaction to other armies going past what's seen as reasonable, even ones we're allied too lead me to that conclusion.
Ironically, the fact the US military is more well-trained (conscription is bad, folks - I understand why Israel has to do that, but well...) and the top brass of the US military seems to be better at their jobs than Israeli military means there likely wouldn't be the same bad ideas put forth.
The US went to war with a nation on the other side of the globe and did a 20 year occupation and killed tens of thousands of civilians because that country was harboring a terrorist involved in a single terror attack by allowing him to hide out in a cave. The US also overthrew an entire government that had no connection to the attack and did another decade long occupation just ‘cause.
Hamas is right on Israel’s border. It not only has organized suicide bombings for decades, it sent rockets to Israeli population center nearly every year for nearly two decades. Israel avoided all out war with Hamas for this whole time, just doing limited retaliatory strikes at very limited targets, even though Israel continued to get rockets launched at its cities each year. Israel literally invented a way to shoot rockets out of the sky so they could try to live with the rockets and avoid all out war with Gaza.
So let’s have some perspective here.
What is it you believe Americans would not accept if the US Army were acting like the IDF?
“Israel is the target of a global campaign of delegitimization that casts the basic Zionist premise of a Jewish state as equivalent to apartheid South Africa.” I wonder how this delegitimization campaign holds up if South Africa falls apart. Presumably, the core will switch back to Algeria as the model for Palestinian liberation. But if the Rainbow Nation ends up like Haiti, it might loose its appeal as model. Certainly, the West would look stupid for helping topple apartheid.
The more I learn about the Israeli/Palestinian situation, the more I think it's an intractable mess and the best move for the US is less involvement.
I think Matt’s overall point that Israel’s actions can meaningfully change public perception of it is correct, but the implied conclusion that Israel somehow could reasonably have conducted a war against Hamas in a way that avoided the current rancor is not correct. Matt often makes the point that Joe Biden has been punished savagely and unfairly for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and I think this is a very similar situation. The public (quite rightfully) hates to see news coverage about civilians getting killed, and does not particularly care why it happened. I truly do not think it would make a meaningful difference to the public if half as many civilians were killed. (I don’t think I should need to say this, but obviously this does not lessen the obligation of the IDF to minimize harm to civilians!)