A real act of political courage to write this Clyde. Of course, the important history you lay out, which is not being presented in most of the current reporting, is called irrelevant and only the barbarism of the Hamas attack dominates. There is no way around that dynamic, and in the short run public revulsion and condemnation must take place, and is called for. The Hamas slaughter of Israelis is a directed pogrom, and there is a lot of calculation behind it, to say the least, about as far from "spontaneous" as can be. (with the deeper question unanswered for now: how much Iran and thus Hezbollah are part of the strategic planning, driven in part, newly, by the threat of Israeli-Saudi rapproachment.)
Now a week later, quite a few can see an approaching catastrophe as Israel overreacts (for example, Richard Haas on Zakaria's show this morning, Sunday, Oct. 15), because it is probably impossible to "eliminate" Hamas without causing enormous civilian casualties, and creating a vacuum in Gaza as there will be no standing government in the wake of what is coming. The more Israel is driven by revenge, however understandly, the greater the likelihood that it creates a humanitarian crisis - the siege is already breaking human right legalities and the rules of war which aim to protect civilians. In public the US is writing Israel a blank check in the way they have not for Ukraine; privately they may be urging restraint, seeing that Arab public opinion and "the street" will not be as tolerant of Israeli revenge as Arab governmental leaders. And the dynamics have been clear from the start: at some point if Israeli goes the full route and generates a massive flood of refugees and/or leaves a Carthage of ruins for Gaza (not mutually exclusive outcomes), then Hezbollah to the North is bound to act and if they do so on a large scale, it will be warfare of an intensity which far exceeds Hamas capabilities, and is likely to emerge in many other places around the Middle East as terror bombings and sabotage. No one has an answer on how to support "moderate" Palestinian leadership, which always seems to be undercut by a combination of Israeli political dynamics (you cite Sharon quite correctly) the Palestinian "street" and the expected band of extremists. It's an old story in the "Anatomy of Revolution" which Crane Briton gave us in 1938, with two later revisions: the moderates always seem to lose ground to the radicals - whether in the English, French or Russian Revolutions. Add in the worst of ethnic and religious intolerance, and territorial disputes, and we're looking at the 30 years war in Europe in the 17th century and the Balkans after the break up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's as disputes of comparable intensity. And the Jewish people have seen nothing like this since the Shoah and before that the pogroms directed at them in Central and Eastern Europe, some "spontaneoous" and some deeply orchestrated. If Israel's outrage is to be tempered at all, the effort must come from the United States and Western Europe.
For readers who want coverage of comparable quality to Clyde's, the NY Review of Books has featured five takes, the last of which is by the incomparable Fintan O'Toole ("Eyeless in Gaza") and of course, I went looking for something by Peter Beinhart which I found as an guest opinion in the NY Times: "There is a Jewish Hope for Palestinian Liberation. It must survive." (even as Beinhart admits to a level of despair which eclipses everything before it...)...and I better get to searching to see if John Mearsheimer has written about the war.
There are a lot of comments I wanted to make on how skewed and biased this article is but this line seems like the most egregious, as you seem to want to downright try and rewrite actual history “But Arafat said it was Barak, not Arafat, who rejected the Clinton-Taba peace plan ideas.” Like, huh?
Yes, this is the kind of action and thinking that is sorely needed. Thanks for your support. Clyde
A real act of political courage to write this Clyde. Of course, the important history you lay out, which is not being presented in most of the current reporting, is called irrelevant and only the barbarism of the Hamas attack dominates. There is no way around that dynamic, and in the short run public revulsion and condemnation must take place, and is called for. The Hamas slaughter of Israelis is a directed pogrom, and there is a lot of calculation behind it, to say the least, about as far from "spontaneous" as can be. (with the deeper question unanswered for now: how much Iran and thus Hezbollah are part of the strategic planning, driven in part, newly, by the threat of Israeli-Saudi rapproachment.)
Now a week later, quite a few can see an approaching catastrophe as Israel overreacts (for example, Richard Haas on Zakaria's show this morning, Sunday, Oct. 15), because it is probably impossible to "eliminate" Hamas without causing enormous civilian casualties, and creating a vacuum in Gaza as there will be no standing government in the wake of what is coming. The more Israel is driven by revenge, however understandly, the greater the likelihood that it creates a humanitarian crisis - the siege is already breaking human right legalities and the rules of war which aim to protect civilians. In public the US is writing Israel a blank check in the way they have not for Ukraine; privately they may be urging restraint, seeing that Arab public opinion and "the street" will not be as tolerant of Israeli revenge as Arab governmental leaders. And the dynamics have been clear from the start: at some point if Israeli goes the full route and generates a massive flood of refugees and/or leaves a Carthage of ruins for Gaza (not mutually exclusive outcomes), then Hezbollah to the North is bound to act and if they do so on a large scale, it will be warfare of an intensity which far exceeds Hamas capabilities, and is likely to emerge in many other places around the Middle East as terror bombings and sabotage. No one has an answer on how to support "moderate" Palestinian leadership, which always seems to be undercut by a combination of Israeli political dynamics (you cite Sharon quite correctly) the Palestinian "street" and the expected band of extremists. It's an old story in the "Anatomy of Revolution" which Crane Briton gave us in 1938, with two later revisions: the moderates always seem to lose ground to the radicals - whether in the English, French or Russian Revolutions. Add in the worst of ethnic and religious intolerance, and territorial disputes, and we're looking at the 30 years war in Europe in the 17th century and the Balkans after the break up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's as disputes of comparable intensity. And the Jewish people have seen nothing like this since the Shoah and before that the pogroms directed at them in Central and Eastern Europe, some "spontaneoous" and some deeply orchestrated. If Israel's outrage is to be tempered at all, the effort must come from the United States and Western Europe.
For readers who want coverage of comparable quality to Clyde's, the NY Review of Books has featured five takes, the last of which is by the incomparable Fintan O'Toole ("Eyeless in Gaza") and of course, I went looking for something by Peter Beinhart which I found as an guest opinion in the NY Times: "There is a Jewish Hope for Palestinian Liberation. It must survive." (even as Beinhart admits to a level of despair which eclipses everything before it...)...and I better get to searching to see if John Mearsheimer has written about the war.
Great comment. Many thanks, Clyde
There are a lot of comments I wanted to make on how skewed and biased this article is but this line seems like the most egregious, as you seem to want to downright try and rewrite actual history “But Arafat said it was Barak, not Arafat, who rejected the Clinton-Taba peace plan ideas.” Like, huh?
Members of the U.S. negotiating team have confirmed that it was not Arafat who rejected the Camp David peace proposals.