Thank you for this nuanced and educational analysis. The thing that bothers me about all this focus on the history of the State is that it really shouldn't make a difference. Suppose the Zionists were conqueror colonizers, like the origins of so many other nations. Why should that impact the people living in Israel now, who just want peace? Most of them are already 3rd or 4th generation! What sense does it make to talk about kicking them out of their homes? And where would they go? The message to the world should be that almost everybody in who lives in Israel now grew up there, and they have the right to defend their homes, regardless of what happened in Deir Yassin or Haifa in 1948. Unfortunately, the downside of this message would be that in order for it to taken as sincere, Israel would have to stop allowing settlement building in Arab territory.
Yes R. Slifkin has made that point in a previous post.
Regarding settlements: Jewish presence in the West Bank is crucial for the security of "little Israel". This was made even clearer by the events of October 7.
Ironically, it is the Palestinians' incessant belligerence that makes Jewish expansion a security necessity.
"The issue lies in the fact that the Arabs genuinely did not share this view; they truly believed that the Jews intended to expel them."
This underscores a critical lesson I've gleaned from Steven Pinker's discussions on violence: Perceptions of violence can greatly differ between the perpetrator and the victim. The individual causing harm, especially when his actions are fully justified and moral, often holds a perspective vastly different from that of the victim. For instance (without drawing direct comparisons in detail), a human may unintentionally step on an ant without a second thought, yet for the ant, this moment is catastrophic
As usual, an analysis that provides details while trying to avoid prejudice. It seems to capture the thoughts of the 2 sides of the conflict. So, is there a way to overcome this in a rational way or are we doomed to being stuck in the never ending pattern of violence?
Indeed. dramatic shifts are occurring on many levels.
1) World order/power is beginning to fall from the West hegemony to Russia/China/Iran - and, yes, I include Iran because I believe they are not just some backward people unfortunately. 2) The concept of true Democracy is collapsing as fast.
I often wonder about the following 3 options regarding these 2 shifts. #1 & #2, chicken/egg Is the world power shifting because the West lost their way/will, or did the new world order use its power to influence the West to move towards dictatorship tactics or #3 the 2 shifts are happening concurrently but aren't really related.
While not the focus of this piece, though it's mentioned in passing, is the religious element of the conflict. Unfortunately, it seems that only serious deradicalization will lead to lasting peace
I personally know people who have had relatives murdered by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It is a Marxist anti religious group opposed to Islam.
There was only one country on the continent of Europe with more Jews in 1945 than in 1939. Albania. 80 percent Muslim.
My statements are based on fact. Some of yours aren't.
" the return of all the Palestinians, including descendants of the original refugees, to all of Palestine. Which, of course, results in the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state"
True, but conceptsia. An axiomatic notion that forms the basis on the discussion. Except that it misses a subtle point. The Arab demand for right of return is not only about notions of justice. It's a deliberately conceived demand that they know is unacceptable and will necessarily be rejected. It's rejection they want, not justice.
What is the Palestinian assessment of such extreme demands?
Here's what the PLO's "peace" faction had to say:
"Israel cannot possibly fulfill the demands of the Arabs and the UN resolutions, even if it is governed by the purest of those calling themselves doves. Since even the doves in Israel cannot agree to the Arab demands... they are nothing but hawks, unaware of their own hawkishness! However, the internal Israeli controversy itself and the illusion cherished by the doves that a settlement could be reached on their terms benefit the Arabs, since they serve to aggravate internal tension in Israel and give Israel a reputation for extremism and recalcitrance. The negotiations will eventually come to an explosive end ... It is desirable, however, for the negotiations to break off owing to Israel’s intransigence. "
-The Debate at the 12th Palestinian National Council. (from The Palestinians : people, history, politics, 1975)
There is a nother very basic problem with solving this.
Israel can make peace and enforce it, but too many among us don't want it. I am referring to a fair peace. Not a peace that subjugates others (or worse).
Too many Palestinians don't want peace. And even if their leadership agreed to it, they wouldn't be able to deliver it. There is no Palestinian leader with the ability to deliver on any proper peace agreement.
The last time a peace agreement was ever feasible was Arafat- Barak and Arafat refused and Clinton famously yelled at him.
Ironically, it was the Arabs' incessant belligerence which gave rise to an independent Jewish state. Had the local Arabs not continuously fought against the immigrant Jews, and had the Arabs organized themselves under a local government, today in Israel there would have been an Arab state with a Jewish minority, just like all other countries of the world have Jewish minorities.
This is of course all correct, but if I may be so bold, I think you have things a bit backwards here. And if I can psychobabble, I think I know why:
When people are devoted to an issue, they often fall into a trap of thinking that others think the same way. For example, lots of believing Christians, who think about Jesus all the time, think that Jews think about Jesus all the time (albeit negatively) all the time as well, when of course we barely do. So too, if one is a, well, rationalist, one might look for rational causes for various issues. Which of course are solvable, even if only with difficulty.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is what you bring up almost as a side point: I-S-L-A-M. That comes first. Stuff about land, Palestinians, Jews, Zionism...all that is secondary. Let's face facts: Jews have been a favorite whipping boy of Islam since day one. (And of Arabs, for millennia before that.) One of the first things Islam *did*- under Mohammed himself- was massacre thousands of Jews in Arabia. It took Christianity over a thousand years to do something similar- centuries *after* Islam. And it's gone downhill since then.
At the same time, Islam has this strong "shame" thing that, among other things, absolutely refuses to accept any loss of land. (Halevai Israeli had the same.) One of Osama bin Laden's pet peeves was the loss of Spain by Muslims over five hundred years ago- and the Christians were taking it *back*!
So here we've got a land that was once Muslim *and* is taken by the despised Jews...the reaction is obvious. It ain't rational, but it's obvious. The Muslims, including the Palestinians themselves, care about the Nakba and their own status and on and on about as much as, well, the kids protesting in the US really do. No, it's the Jews. For example: Arabs only controlled Israel for a few hundred years, and Palestinians *never* did. After that, it was a Kurdish regime, a Central Asian one, and finally a Turkish one. And the Turks and Arabs *really* didn't get along. And yet the Palestinians never did to any of them what they do to the Jews.
I know it can be discouraging to think that the ultimate problem is the deeply-held religious beliefs of over a billion people. But like it or not, it is what it is.
I'll be honest, I don't quite understand what he means.
Fortunately, Israel hasn't really been in an existential war since 1973, or maybe even 1967. But one can wonder why we can't fight for honor as well. You'd think mass rape of our women would motivate that at least.
Nachum, I think Ephraim’s point is that R’ Amital’s point is effectively the same as yours:
We assume that others share our deeply-held thoughts and motives, so it stood to reason that our resolve to fight for our homeland would trump the Arabs’ resolve to fight “just” for honor (i.e., to avoid shame).
But as you (and R’ Amital) point out, the Arabs *do not* think like we do, so they are willing to carry on fighting (however unsuccessfully) for something (“honor”) we regard as trivial.
"loss of Spain by Muslims over five hundred years ago- and the Christians were taking it *back*!"
And the first thing that the Christians did after the reconquest was to expel all the Jews.
"Jews have been a favorite whipping boy of Islam since day one."
I can identify more times and places in the Islamic world when and where that was NOT the case. And more times and places in Christian Europe where and when that WAS the case.
"t took Christianity over a thousand years to do something similar"
That isn't true. In the 6th century CE, the Eastern Roman Empire under Heraclius planned to exterminate all Jews from their realm. It may not have been specifically anti-Semitic, as they also had planned to exterminate all Christians they considered to be heretical. They had recently succeeded in doing that to the Samaritans and that is why there are less than a thousand left alive today. We could have been in the state that the Samaritans are in today had the Muslim Arabs not arrived in time to expel Heraclius and his genocidal ways. Heraclius backed off his genocidal policies in order to save what was left of his empire.
And that was not the only example. The Visigoths who ruled Spain were every bit as bad and actually perpetrated mass forced conversions and expulsions. Children were kidnapped, circumcision and Sabbath observance banned, property was confiscated, business with Christians banned, and remaining Jews were ordered to be enslaved. The Muslim invasion of 711 CE put an end to this and Jews thrived in Spain for the next 300 years.
Muslim Arabs ruled the Land of Israel from about 638 CE to 1072 CE, and again in 1099 CE. They seem to have mostly treated Jews reasonably well. What followed were the genocidal Christian Crusaders. There was no Arab rule over any part of the Land of Israel after 1099 CE until 1948 CE.
Yes, I should have counted on the "Christians were worse!" response.
First, we're not talking about Christians here. We're dealing with Muslims.
"And the first thing that the Christians did after the reconquest was to expel all the Jews."
The reconquest took centuries. The first thing they did *after it was complete* was expel the Jews. (And they'd been persecuting Jews for over a century by that point.)
But again, not the point. The point was what Osama Bin Laden felt about it.
"I can identify more times and places in the Islamic world when and where that was NOT the case."
Really? There were times and places where Jews were treated as equals in the Muslim world? Or are you resorting to...what was your word? Ah, yes, "reasonably well." The Jews were treated "reasonably well." A little persecution, dhimmi status, a massacre every now and then...it's all good. What was Meir Kahane's line? "A moderate Arab kills Jews moderately."
"And more times and places in Christian Europe where and when that WAS the case."
I'm not an ignoramus nor an apologist. (I remember the super-Catholics of National Review, including most notably their at-the-time head half-Jew, trying to prove that the Crusades weren't so bad.) I know full well what Christians did to Jews. But last I checked the people who are currently attacking me are not Christians.
"That isn't true."
...you say, and then proceed to prove me right. I said "something similar." Mohammed was massacring Jews by the thousands in the 600's. Christianity didn't accomplish that until about the year 1100, and they had a six-hundred-year head start.
So let's just set aside what the Cossacks did to our grandmothers for a minute- and I need look no further than the existence of blue eyes in my family to know what they did- and agree that the history of Islamic treatment of Jews has been consistently miserable since day one, and that's not even taking into account what pre-Islamic Arabs did to Jews. (See the Book of Nechemia, for starters.)
And non-Muslims. Christian Arabs in Lebanon hate Israel every bit as much as Muslim and Druze Arabs there. And the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a Marxist group, not religious at all. I personally know people with family murdered by them.
There is a really strong movement to demonize Islam but it isn't just about Islam. Traditional Islam doesn't even recognize nationalities, just Muslims and non-Muslims.
You're going to have to be more thorough than that. The culture is overwhelmingly colored by Islam. So radical secular Marxist and Christian Arabs are going be influenced by Islamic Jew hatred. Where Islamic Jew hatred ends and Marxist (or Christian) hatred begins is the crux of the debate between you and Nachum.
(And to complicate things: After centuries of their own particular flavor of Jew hatred, the modern Arab world opened up to the West and absorbed Western Jew hatred. The Muslim Brotherhood picked up Nazism, and Abbas was taught by Soviet Jew haters.)
"Where Islamic Jew hatred ends and Marxist (or Christian) hatred begins is the crux of the debate between you and Nachum."
I agree with this. I think part of the difficulty is that for all that the various Palestinian factions might seem similar to a guy like me who doesn't know a word of Arabic, to the average Palestinian it would be like equating Ben-Gvir and Avigdor Lieberman. One is a secular ideologue and one is a religious one. They have very different visions, even if they share some common enemies. (The truth is that there seems to be a somewhat parallel divide between Ra'am and hadash ta'al within the Israeli arab context. The current head of the latter, Ayman Odeh, is actually an atheist.)
The hijackers in the 70s were most certainly *not* fundamentalist muslims. The ones on 9-11 most certainly were. I wouldn't want to be on any of those flights, but if forced to choose, I guess I prefer the marxist guerillas who are at least interested in landing the plane safely rather than flying it into a building...
That's not what I meant. Nachum concentrates on Islam and CBH dismisses him with counter-examples of secular, Marxist and Christian terrorists. I noted that these murderers while nominally non-Muslim were still raised and nurtured in an Islamic milieu. So CBH misses the mark with his counter-examples. What Nachum misses is that Muslim Jew hatred, while existing through time immemorial didn't remain stagnant. From the 19th century (maybe earlier?) onward with the opening to the West, Arab Jew hatred borrowed plenty from the Christian West.
I would add that there are also probably characters in the middle along the lines of old style mapai or Likud, who have enough religious knowledge to give off a religious vibe to outsiders even when they're not actually religiously observant themselves.
The most salient facts about the Arabs is the way they view us (and Christians) as heretics, we are also the "descendants of pigs and monkeys" and as such it would be heresy on a priori grounds to allow us an independent state and status in the areas known as Dar al Islam. It has nothing to do with history and misperceptions. Jews are not thus prejudiced, we have no problem with Arab states on any a priori grounds. That is why Sadat was assassinated, by the way. So Israel has nothing to relate to on a tit for tat basis. Nor is it "Islamophobic"to recognize the truth. We don't need prevaricate in any so called rationalist or moderate way in the face of rank racism and prejudice.
A reading of Tanach gives another explanation. Have you read Shoftim? What about parshas bichukosai in the Torah? Yirmihayu? It's everywhere. It has to do with keeping the faith and not keeping the faith. About doing good or bad. Reward and Punishment. The great Rambam speaks about this too.
People get riled up about this. No, I'm not G-d. He doesn't speak to me either.
But I read his book.
Some people that really do believe what G-d says, but don't love it, try to minimize it by giving all sorts of other reasons. That's wrong.
This is not to imagine that we should abandon logic. Of-course we eliminate terrorists. Of-course we don't make treaties with terrorists. But we also know that the deep underlying reason, "the core of the conflict" as this piece is titled, is about our relationship with Hashem and His Torah.
I noticed an interesting Malbim in last week's Haftara.
בחרב ימותו כל חטאי עמי. שהם הפסולת, האומרים לא תגיש ר"ל שהם אומרים שהרעה הבאה היא מקרית ולא השגחיית ע"י ה' בעבור מעשיהם, וע"כ יאמרו שלא תגיש בעדינו הרעה, שהרעה אשר תגש לבא לא תבא בעדינו כדי להעניש אותנו, רק הוא דבר מקרה, ומוסיפים לאמר שגם לא תקדים בעדינו, שאף לא יאמינו שע"י מעשיהם תקדים הרעה לבא, כי יאמרו שביאת הרעה וזמן בואה הכל ענין מקרה, ואינה מקדמת לבא על הרשעים קודם הצדיקים שהוא כפירת ההשגחה והעונש:
It’s not often discussed - but transfer of all Gaza inhabitants is a good idea. Put them in twenty countries - mainly western if necessary. Apartments, healthcare, education, and the ability to go in groups and have communities. Frees Gaza up for Israel - there’s a lot of value to unlock. This means Israel could contribute a healthy amount to the project.
I understand that something like 80 to 100 million refugees were transferred after WWII. Also - obviously something like three quarters of a million Jews in the ME in 1948 when war broke out.
Treating Palestinians like every other Jew or European who ever became a refugee is a positive thing. A new life. A new future. Even if it means pushing Gazans on to luxury ocean liners and in to premium economy seats to bring them to their new homes in new countries.
It's actually discussed a lot, in right wing publications. The biggest issue is that no country that they'd want to go to, will take them; and sending them forcibly to a third world country would be considered unacceptable by Israel's allies
While such a (fanciful) transfer might benefit Israel, it would undoubtedly not benefit the “mainly western” countries who would be expected to “absorb” these Arabs.
Mostly because Arab/Muslim immigrants to the West do not want to be absorbed, they want to remake the West in their own image.
Nobody wants them. With the rise of nativism in almost every Western country (Trump, Meloni, Orban, many other examples), even people who are no danger to anyone are being denied entry when fleeing tyranny and even politicians who are in general pro-immigration such as Biden and Macron are enforcing additional restrictions.
And Israel has no interest in Gaza. It was not settled by Jews during Biblical times and it is questionable whether it has the halachic status of Eretz Yisrael.
I don’t think “nativism” is the problem, the problem is that “even [Muslims] who are no danger to anyone” are unwilling to assimilate into and adopt the liberal (lowercase “L”) values of their host countries/societies.
Even Europe may be starting to see the writing on the wall (far too late).
"I understand that something like 80 to 100 million refugees were transferred after WWII. "
And there was mass death as the result of some of those transfers.
"Treating Palestinians like every other Jew or European who ever became a refugee is a positive thing"
In an ideal world, that would be the case. The problem is that with the exception of Israel and Jordan, no country with Palestinian refugees allows them citizenship. If countries in the Middle East were to adopt the *jus soli* birthright citizenship law that is in effect in most of the Western Hemisphere, including the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and other countries, the problem would disappear. But no country in the Middle East has that law, not even Israel. Palestinian refugees remain stateless.
It should be pointed out that the Arabs in Palestine didn't have a national identity. They had tribal identity, and were ottoman citizens, but they didn't have a national aspiration (as opposed to Arabs in other regions which did, such as Egypt).
The Jews who came, many did have national aspirations, though at least till WW1 , there were many who did not. Many middle eastern Jews were perfectly fine remaining under the Ottomans.
Problems were further agitated when colonialist Europeans promised multiple conflicting things to multiple groups and then made arbitrary borders and lines across the middle east.
It's always interesting to go back close to 100 years for the core of the conflict. However, to understand the core of the issue today one must get to the core of your essay.
I believe this is it "Which, of course, results in the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and the (inevitably violent) displacement of many Jews. From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free."
It is a demographic problem, and it can only be solved demographically, when the entire Jewish nation learns the lesson of the Charedim and multiplies like they do. And yes, the Charedim too have some lessons to learn from their brethren (including fellow Charedim, such as those in Lakewood, N.J) to contribute to the economy. We need to come together and learn from each other.
Unfortunately, the Arabs have also leaned this lesson, both in Israel and in the West: that is, demography is a surer means of conquest than the sword.
If Israeli society would have learned this lesson a long time ago we probably would not have the problem we see today. Hopefully we still have another chance.
Also, it’s not just secular Israeli society that has failed to learn the lesson of demography but all of liberal Western society, which prioritizes career goals and personal freedom over traditional values of family and child-rearing.
To summarize, from 1990 to 2015 the Charedim grew from 3% of the country to 9.5% of the Jews in the country (despite the immigration of about 1 million Russians), whereas the datiim shrunk from 12% to 10.8%.
Since the secular TFR is only just at replacement level (according to this study) it emerges that the fertlilty of the dati community causes zero exponential growth.
The Charedim are the only ones dealing with the core of the conflict.
First provide a source that the Dl also have this. Then show how large this community (that has a high birthrate) is.
>>The charedi lifestyle is a threat to Israel.
I agree that it needs some adjustments. I believe it will happen naturally (especially if the government doesn't give money to Kollelim). They will learn from their brethren, including the DL community and the Charedi community of Lakewood, which has an average income pretty similar to the average American income (and a lower consumption per capita).
But more broadly I am referring to the fact that there is no other society in the world that has achieved anything close to the extraordinary growth that the Charedim have had in the last 70 years.
The Amish are world-renowned for having a high fertility rate. Yet they are much more insular than the Charedim and about 15% the size. And still, their fertility rate is similar to that of the Charedim.
What Charedim have achieved with their high fertility is something very unique. Therefore, it is highly probable that it is strongly connected to the rest of their lifestyle (and it is also highly probable that the DL who have a high fertility rate have learned this from the Charedim).
If Israel cares about the future of their security, they should try to have as many people as possible adopt the Charedi lifestyle. They should make it their top priority to help Charedim immigrate to Israel. Certainly, Charedim too have what too learn from their brethren, but the best way to do that is by bringing in Charedim who have learned to adapt to a modern economy so they can serve as an example.
In the third paragraph, please consider changing the word country to region. Palestine never existed as an independent country.
Country does not mean state. It is a country since biblical times.
Thank you Rabbi Slifkin for making that change.
Thank you for this nuanced and educational analysis. The thing that bothers me about all this focus on the history of the State is that it really shouldn't make a difference. Suppose the Zionists were conqueror colonizers, like the origins of so many other nations. Why should that impact the people living in Israel now, who just want peace? Most of them are already 3rd or 4th generation! What sense does it make to talk about kicking them out of their homes? And where would they go? The message to the world should be that almost everybody in who lives in Israel now grew up there, and they have the right to defend their homes, regardless of what happened in Deir Yassin or Haifa in 1948. Unfortunately, the downside of this message would be that in order for it to taken as sincere, Israel would have to stop allowing settlement building in Arab territory.
Yes R. Slifkin has made that point in a previous post.
Regarding settlements: Jewish presence in the West Bank is crucial for the security of "little Israel". This was made even clearer by the events of October 7.
Ironically, it is the Palestinians' incessant belligerence that makes Jewish expansion a security necessity.
Great, nuanced piece.
This passage captures a vital insight:
"The issue lies in the fact that the Arabs genuinely did not share this view; they truly believed that the Jews intended to expel them."
This underscores a critical lesson I've gleaned from Steven Pinker's discussions on violence: Perceptions of violence can greatly differ between the perpetrator and the victim. The individual causing harm, especially when his actions are fully justified and moral, often holds a perspective vastly different from that of the victim. For instance (without drawing direct comparisons in detail), a human may unintentionally step on an ant without a second thought, yet for the ant, this moment is catastrophic
The Jews were persecuted living under Arab rule long before Zionism inmanu Ar
The key is that they want (so called) justice, not peace. And the westerners interpret this and advocate for peace.
Well written!
By "justice", they mean "just us".
I second this
I third this
As usual, an analysis that provides details while trying to avoid prejudice. It seems to capture the thoughts of the 2 sides of the conflict. So, is there a way to overcome this in a rational way or are we doomed to being stuck in the never ending pattern of violence?
Unfortunately I don't really see any way to overcome it. However, in any case the world will change in ways that we cannot possibly imagine.
Indeed. dramatic shifts are occurring on many levels.
1) World order/power is beginning to fall from the West hegemony to Russia/China/Iran - and, yes, I include Iran because I believe they are not just some backward people unfortunately. 2) The concept of true Democracy is collapsing as fast.
I often wonder about the following 3 options regarding these 2 shifts. #1 & #2, chicken/egg Is the world power shifting because the West lost their way/will, or did the new world order use its power to influence the West to move towards dictatorship tactics or #3 the 2 shifts are happening concurrently but aren't really related.
Second sentence still has error
"exarcebates [sic]"
While not the focus of this piece, though it's mentioned in passing, is the religious element of the conflict. Unfortunately, it seems that only serious deradicalization will lead to lasting peace
On that note, why does the world think it's ok to call for the death of zionism but not ok to call for for the death of islam?
With few exceptions, Islamic regimes did not want to ethnically cleanse Jews from the regions they ruled.
Right - just look at present-day Iran.
What about Christian regimes?
Attempted genocide of Jews by Eastern Roman Empire 6th and 7th centuries.
Attempted enslavement expulsion and genocide of Jews by Visigothic Kingdom in Spain 7th and 8th centuries.
Attempted genocide of Jews during Crusades.
Expulsion of all Jews from England in 1290. (The edict of expulsion was issued on Tisha B'Av.)
Expulsions of Jews from France 14th century.
Expulsion of Jews from Spain 1492.
Expulsion of Jews from Portugal 1497.
Death penalty to any Jew found in any Spanish or Portuguese Colony, 15th to 19th centuries.
Genocide of Jews in Ukraine, 17th century.
Death penalty to any Jew found in Maryland, 17th and 18th centuries.
Russian pogroms 19th century.
Nazi led Holocaust with a lot of Christian collaboration 20th century.
"unlike Judaism or Christianity"
Christianity has a FAR bloodier history than Islam and has treated minorities far worse.
They also have treated minorities far better.
I personally know people who have had relatives murdered by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It is a Marxist anti religious group opposed to Islam.
There was only one country on the continent of Europe with more Jews in 1945 than in 1939. Albania. 80 percent Muslim.
My statements are based on fact. Some of yours aren't.
This a beautiful, fair and balanced piece which is nuanced and unbiased. It is the best analysis I've read on the topic. Well done.
Thank you for this overview. I really enjoyed reading it and I liked how you tried to explain both sides to each other.
(Maybe check the spelling of 'exacerbate')
" the return of all the Palestinians, including descendants of the original refugees, to all of Palestine. Which, of course, results in the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state"
True, but conceptsia. An axiomatic notion that forms the basis on the discussion. Except that it misses a subtle point. The Arab demand for right of return is not only about notions of justice. It's a deliberately conceived demand that they know is unacceptable and will necessarily be rejected. It's rejection they want, not justice.
What is the Palestinian assessment of such extreme demands?
Here's what the PLO's "peace" faction had to say:
"Israel cannot possibly fulfill the demands of the Arabs and the UN resolutions, even if it is governed by the purest of those calling themselves doves. Since even the doves in Israel cannot agree to the Arab demands... they are nothing but hawks, unaware of their own hawkishness! However, the internal Israeli controversy itself and the illusion cherished by the doves that a settlement could be reached on their terms benefit the Arabs, since they serve to aggravate internal tension in Israel and give Israel a reputation for extremism and recalcitrance. The negotiations will eventually come to an explosive end ... It is desirable, however, for the negotiations to break off owing to Israel’s intransigence. "
-The Debate at the 12th Palestinian National Council. (from The Palestinians : people, history, politics, 1975)
Another interesting point.
Though I think what they want is rejection (in the present) in pursuit of their justice (in the future).
There is a nother very basic problem with solving this.
Israel can make peace and enforce it, but too many among us don't want it. I am referring to a fair peace. Not a peace that subjugates others (or worse).
Too many Palestinians don't want peace. And even if their leadership agreed to it, they wouldn't be able to deliver it. There is no Palestinian leader with the ability to deliver on any proper peace agreement.
The last time a peace agreement was ever feasible was Arafat- Barak and Arafat refused and Clinton famously yelled at him.
Ironically, it was the Arabs' incessant belligerence which gave rise to an independent Jewish state. Had the local Arabs not continuously fought against the immigrant Jews, and had the Arabs organized themselves under a local government, today in Israel there would have been an Arab state with a Jewish minority, just like all other countries of the world have Jewish minorities.
And don't forget that the Jewish majority is partially due to immigration from intolerant Arab countries.
Less relevant, but still worthwhile to mention in this context is that there's a meandering line from the Damascus Blood Libel to Zionism.
This is of course all correct, but if I may be so bold, I think you have things a bit backwards here. And if I can psychobabble, I think I know why:
When people are devoted to an issue, they often fall into a trap of thinking that others think the same way. For example, lots of believing Christians, who think about Jesus all the time, think that Jews think about Jesus all the time (albeit negatively) all the time as well, when of course we barely do. So too, if one is a, well, rationalist, one might look for rational causes for various issues. Which of course are solvable, even if only with difficulty.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is what you bring up almost as a side point: I-S-L-A-M. That comes first. Stuff about land, Palestinians, Jews, Zionism...all that is secondary. Let's face facts: Jews have been a favorite whipping boy of Islam since day one. (And of Arabs, for millennia before that.) One of the first things Islam *did*- under Mohammed himself- was massacre thousands of Jews in Arabia. It took Christianity over a thousand years to do something similar- centuries *after* Islam. And it's gone downhill since then.
At the same time, Islam has this strong "shame" thing that, among other things, absolutely refuses to accept any loss of land. (Halevai Israeli had the same.) One of Osama bin Laden's pet peeves was the loss of Spain by Muslims over five hundred years ago- and the Christians were taking it *back*!
So here we've got a land that was once Muslim *and* is taken by the despised Jews...the reaction is obvious. It ain't rational, but it's obvious. The Muslims, including the Palestinians themselves, care about the Nakba and their own status and on and on about as much as, well, the kids protesting in the US really do. No, it's the Jews. For example: Arabs only controlled Israel for a few hundred years, and Palestinians *never* did. After that, it was a Kurdish regime, a Central Asian one, and finally a Turkish one. And the Turks and Arabs *really* didn't get along. And yet the Palestinians never did to any of them what they do to the Jews.
I know it can be discouraging to think that the ultimate problem is the deeply-held religious beliefs of over a billion people. But like it or not, it is what it is.
Interesting points.
"At the same time, Islam has this strong "shame" thing that, among other things, absolutely refuses to accept any loss of land. "
Rav Yehuda Amital writing post '73 about the pre-'73 notions:
הנחה שנייה היתה, כי קיים הבדל גדול בין המניעים שלנו למניעים של הערבים. אנחנו נלחמים על קיומנו
והם נלחמים על כבודם בלבד, וברור שמלחמה על הקיום מבטיחה עוצמת יתר לעומת מישנלחם על כבודו
בלבד.
But the '73 war demolished that notion:
במלחמה זאת נתגלתה אמת אכזרית, כי מלחמה על הכבוד אצל ערבים זהה לחלוטין למלחמת קיום אצלנו.
(See המעלות ממעמקים)
I'll be honest, I don't quite understand what he means.
Fortunately, Israel hasn't really been in an existential war since 1973, or maybe even 1967. But one can wonder why we can't fight for honor as well. You'd think mass rape of our women would motivate that at least.
Nachum, I think Ephraim’s point is that R’ Amital’s point is effectively the same as yours:
We assume that others share our deeply-held thoughts and motives, so it stood to reason that our resolve to fight for our homeland would trump the Arabs’ resolve to fight “just” for honor (i.e., to avoid shame).
But as you (and R’ Amital) point out, the Arabs *do not* think like we do, so they are willing to carry on fighting (however unsuccessfully) for something (“honor”) we regard as trivial.
"loss of Spain by Muslims over five hundred years ago- and the Christians were taking it *back*!"
And the first thing that the Christians did after the reconquest was to expel all the Jews.
"Jews have been a favorite whipping boy of Islam since day one."
I can identify more times and places in the Islamic world when and where that was NOT the case. And more times and places in Christian Europe where and when that WAS the case.
"t took Christianity over a thousand years to do something similar"
That isn't true. In the 6th century CE, the Eastern Roman Empire under Heraclius planned to exterminate all Jews from their realm. It may not have been specifically anti-Semitic, as they also had planned to exterminate all Christians they considered to be heretical. They had recently succeeded in doing that to the Samaritans and that is why there are less than a thousand left alive today. We could have been in the state that the Samaritans are in today had the Muslim Arabs not arrived in time to expel Heraclius and his genocidal ways. Heraclius backed off his genocidal policies in order to save what was left of his empire.
And that was not the only example. The Visigoths who ruled Spain were every bit as bad and actually perpetrated mass forced conversions and expulsions. Children were kidnapped, circumcision and Sabbath observance banned, property was confiscated, business with Christians banned, and remaining Jews were ordered to be enslaved. The Muslim invasion of 711 CE put an end to this and Jews thrived in Spain for the next 300 years.
Muslim Arabs ruled the Land of Israel from about 638 CE to 1072 CE, and again in 1099 CE. They seem to have mostly treated Jews reasonably well. What followed were the genocidal Christian Crusaders. There was no Arab rule over any part of the Land of Israel after 1099 CE until 1948 CE.
Yes, I should have counted on the "Christians were worse!" response.
First, we're not talking about Christians here. We're dealing with Muslims.
"And the first thing that the Christians did after the reconquest was to expel all the Jews."
The reconquest took centuries. The first thing they did *after it was complete* was expel the Jews. (And they'd been persecuting Jews for over a century by that point.)
But again, not the point. The point was what Osama Bin Laden felt about it.
"I can identify more times and places in the Islamic world when and where that was NOT the case."
Really? There were times and places where Jews were treated as equals in the Muslim world? Or are you resorting to...what was your word? Ah, yes, "reasonably well." The Jews were treated "reasonably well." A little persecution, dhimmi status, a massacre every now and then...it's all good. What was Meir Kahane's line? "A moderate Arab kills Jews moderately."
"And more times and places in Christian Europe where and when that WAS the case."
I'm not an ignoramus nor an apologist. (I remember the super-Catholics of National Review, including most notably their at-the-time head half-Jew, trying to prove that the Crusades weren't so bad.) I know full well what Christians did to Jews. But last I checked the people who are currently attacking me are not Christians.
"That isn't true."
...you say, and then proceed to prove me right. I said "something similar." Mohammed was massacring Jews by the thousands in the 600's. Christianity didn't accomplish that until about the year 1100, and they had a six-hundred-year head start.
So let's just set aside what the Cossacks did to our grandmothers for a minute- and I need look no further than the existence of blue eyes in my family to know what they did- and agree that the history of Islamic treatment of Jews has been consistently miserable since day one, and that's not even taking into account what pre-Islamic Arabs did to Jews. (See the Book of Nechemia, for starters.)
"Christianity didn't accomplish that until about the year 1100, and they had a six-hundred-year head start."
That is a false statement and I have given examples in another comment. Learn some history.
I suppose you are a busy man and did not have time to read my post. No worries.
"We're dealing with Muslims. "
And non-Muslims. Christian Arabs in Lebanon hate Israel every bit as much as Muslim and Druze Arabs there. And the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a Marxist group, not religious at all. I personally know people with family murdered by them.
There is a really strong movement to demonize Islam but it isn't just about Islam. Traditional Islam doesn't even recognize nationalities, just Muslims and non-Muslims.
You're going to have to be more thorough than that. The culture is overwhelmingly colored by Islam. So radical secular Marxist and Christian Arabs are going be influenced by Islamic Jew hatred. Where Islamic Jew hatred ends and Marxist (or Christian) hatred begins is the crux of the debate between you and Nachum.
(And to complicate things: After centuries of their own particular flavor of Jew hatred, the modern Arab world opened up to the West and absorbed Western Jew hatred. The Muslim Brotherhood picked up Nazism, and Abbas was taught by Soviet Jew haters.)
"Where Islamic Jew hatred ends and Marxist (or Christian) hatred begins is the crux of the debate between you and Nachum."
I agree with this. I think part of the difficulty is that for all that the various Palestinian factions might seem similar to a guy like me who doesn't know a word of Arabic, to the average Palestinian it would be like equating Ben-Gvir and Avigdor Lieberman. One is a secular ideologue and one is a religious one. They have very different visions, even if they share some common enemies. (The truth is that there seems to be a somewhat parallel divide between Ra'am and hadash ta'al within the Israeli arab context. The current head of the latter, Ayman Odeh, is actually an atheist.)
The hijackers in the 70s were most certainly *not* fundamentalist muslims. The ones on 9-11 most certainly were. I wouldn't want to be on any of those flights, but if forced to choose, I guess I prefer the marxist guerillas who are at least interested in landing the plane safely rather than flying it into a building...
That's not what I meant. Nachum concentrates on Islam and CBH dismisses him with counter-examples of secular, Marxist and Christian terrorists. I noted that these murderers while nominally non-Muslim were still raised and nurtured in an Islamic milieu. So CBH misses the mark with his counter-examples. What Nachum misses is that Muslim Jew hatred, while existing through time immemorial didn't remain stagnant. From the 19th century (maybe earlier?) onward with the opening to the West, Arab Jew hatred borrowed plenty from the Christian West.
What is certain: Haters gonna hate.
I would add that there are also probably characters in the middle along the lines of old style mapai or Likud, who have enough religious knowledge to give off a religious vibe to outsiders even when they're not actually religiously observant themselves.
(Somewhat related, this is worth a read. https://tomerpersicoenglish.wordpress.com/2015/07/11/secular-revolutions-and-religious-counterrevolutions-on-michael-walzers-new-book/ )
2024.
The most salient facts about the Arabs is the way they view us (and Christians) as heretics, we are also the "descendants of pigs and monkeys" and as such it would be heresy on a priori grounds to allow us an independent state and status in the areas known as Dar al Islam. It has nothing to do with history and misperceptions. Jews are not thus prejudiced, we have no problem with Arab states on any a priori grounds. That is why Sadat was assassinated, by the way. So Israel has nothing to relate to on a tit for tat basis. Nor is it "Islamophobic"to recognize the truth. We don't need prevaricate in any so called rationalist or moderate way in the face of rank racism and prejudice.
A reading of Tanach gives another explanation. Have you read Shoftim? What about parshas bichukosai in the Torah? Yirmihayu? It's everywhere. It has to do with keeping the faith and not keeping the faith. About doing good or bad. Reward and Punishment. The great Rambam speaks about this too.
People get riled up about this. No, I'm not G-d. He doesn't speak to me either.
But I read his book.
Some people that really do believe what G-d says, but don't love it, try to minimize it by giving all sorts of other reasons. That's wrong.
This is not to imagine that we should abandon logic. Of-course we eliminate terrorists. Of-course we don't make treaties with terrorists. But we also know that the deep underlying reason, "the core of the conflict" as this piece is titled, is about our relationship with Hashem and His Torah.
I noticed an interesting Malbim in last week's Haftara.
בחרב ימותו כל חטאי עמי. שהם הפסולת, האומרים לא תגיש ר"ל שהם אומרים שהרעה הבאה היא מקרית ולא השגחיית ע"י ה' בעבור מעשיהם, וע"כ יאמרו שלא תגיש בעדינו הרעה, שהרעה אשר תגש לבא לא תבא בעדינו כדי להעניש אותנו, רק הוא דבר מקרה, ומוסיפים לאמר שגם לא תקדים בעדינו, שאף לא יאמינו שע"י מעשיהם תקדים הרעה לבא, כי יאמרו שביאת הרעה וזמן בואה הכל ענין מקרה, ואינה מקדמת לבא על הרשעים קודם הצדיקים שהוא כפירת ההשגחה והעונש:
It’s not often discussed - but transfer of all Gaza inhabitants is a good idea. Put them in twenty countries - mainly western if necessary. Apartments, healthcare, education, and the ability to go in groups and have communities. Frees Gaza up for Israel - there’s a lot of value to unlock. This means Israel could contribute a healthy amount to the project.
I understand that something like 80 to 100 million refugees were transferred after WWII. Also - obviously something like three quarters of a million Jews in the ME in 1948 when war broke out.
Treating Palestinians like every other Jew or European who ever became a refugee is a positive thing. A new life. A new future. Even if it means pushing Gazans on to luxury ocean liners and in to premium economy seats to bring them to their new homes in new countries.
It's actually discussed a lot, in right wing publications. The biggest issue is that no country that they'd want to go to, will take them; and sending them forcibly to a third world country would be considered unacceptable by Israel's allies
Mostly because they have a way of exporting their violence to whatever countries they wind up in.
While such a (fanciful) transfer might benefit Israel, it would undoubtedly not benefit the “mainly western” countries who would be expected to “absorb” these Arabs.
Mostly because Arab/Muslim immigrants to the West do not want to be absorbed, they want to remake the West in their own image.
"transfer of all Gaza inhabitants"
Nobody wants them. With the rise of nativism in almost every Western country (Trump, Meloni, Orban, many other examples), even people who are no danger to anyone are being denied entry when fleeing tyranny and even politicians who are in general pro-immigration such as Biden and Macron are enforcing additional restrictions.
And Israel has no interest in Gaza. It was not settled by Jews during Biblical times and it is questionable whether it has the halachic status of Eretz Yisrael.
I don’t think “nativism” is the problem, the problem is that “even [Muslims] who are no danger to anyone” are unwilling to assimilate into and adopt the liberal (lowercase “L”) values of their host countries/societies.
Even Europe may be starting to see the writing on the wall (far too late).
In the US, the people being denied entry are almost entirely Christians.
"I understand that something like 80 to 100 million refugees were transferred after WWII. "
And there was mass death as the result of some of those transfers.
"Treating Palestinians like every other Jew or European who ever became a refugee is a positive thing"
In an ideal world, that would be the case. The problem is that with the exception of Israel and Jordan, no country with Palestinian refugees allows them citizenship. If countries in the Middle East were to adopt the *jus soli* birthright citizenship law that is in effect in most of the Western Hemisphere, including the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and other countries, the problem would disappear. But no country in the Middle East has that law, not even Israel. Palestinian refugees remain stateless.
It should be pointed out that the Arabs in Palestine didn't have a national identity. They had tribal identity, and were ottoman citizens, but they didn't have a national aspiration (as opposed to Arabs in other regions which did, such as Egypt).
The Jews who came, many did have national aspirations, though at least till WW1 , there were many who did not. Many middle eastern Jews were perfectly fine remaining under the Ottomans.
Problems were further agitated when colonialist Europeans promised multiple conflicting things to multiple groups and then made arbitrary borders and lines across the middle east.
The first evidence I have found of a Palestinian national identity is about 1911.
It's always interesting to go back close to 100 years for the core of the conflict. However, to understand the core of the issue today one must get to the core of your essay.
I believe this is it "Which, of course, results in the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and the (inevitably violent) displacement of many Jews. From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free."
It is a demographic problem, and it can only be solved demographically, when the entire Jewish nation learns the lesson of the Charedim and multiplies like they do. And yes, the Charedim too have some lessons to learn from their brethren (including fellow Charedim, such as those in Lakewood, N.J) to contribute to the economy. We need to come together and learn from each other.
Unfortunately, the Arabs have also leaned this lesson, both in Israel and in the West: that is, demography is a surer means of conquest than the sword.
Actually, the Arab birthrate is much lower than it used to be and keeps getting lower. (That's even in Israel. Iran has a very low fertility rate). https://www.palquest.org/en/chart/14380/demography-and-palestine-question-ii-fertility-rate
If Israeli society would have learned this lesson a long time ago we probably would not have the problem we see today. Hopefully we still have another chance.
Also, it’s not just secular Israeli society that has failed to learn the lesson of demography but all of liberal Western society, which prioritizes career goals and personal freedom over traditional values of family and child-rearing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
It is a looming threat to our way of life, which the Arabs/Muslims (particularly in Europe) are actively capitalizing upon.
Just to reemphasize.
The threat to our way of life is that people are not adopting the Charedi lifestyle.
Why do you call it the charedi lifestyle? You mean high birthrate. Which DL also have. The charedi lifestyle is a threat to Israel.
Ok. Finally, a full reply.
I recently came across this study https://chotam.org.il/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A1%D7%93%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D/%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%93%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/
To summarize, from 1990 to 2015 the Charedim grew from 3% of the country to 9.5% of the Jews in the country (despite the immigration of about 1 million Russians), whereas the datiim shrunk from 12% to 10.8%.
Since the secular TFR is only just at replacement level (according to this study) it emerges that the fertlilty of the dati community causes zero exponential growth.
The Charedim are the only ones dealing with the core of the conflict.
First provide a source that the Dl also have this. Then show how large this community (that has a high birthrate) is.
>>The charedi lifestyle is a threat to Israel.
I agree that it needs some adjustments. I believe it will happen naturally (especially if the government doesn't give money to Kollelim). They will learn from their brethren, including the DL community and the Charedi community of Lakewood, which has an average income pretty similar to the average American income (and a lower consumption per capita).
When you say “Chareidi lifestyle” are you referring specifically to the practice of having large families?
Yes.
But more broadly I am referring to the fact that there is no other society in the world that has achieved anything close to the extraordinary growth that the Charedim have had in the last 70 years.
The Amish are world-renowned for having a high fertility rate. Yet they are much more insular than the Charedim and about 15% the size. And still, their fertility rate is similar to that of the Charedim.
What Charedim have achieved with their high fertility is something very unique. Therefore, it is highly probable that it is strongly connected to the rest of their lifestyle (and it is also highly probable that the DL who have a high fertility rate have learned this from the Charedim).
If Israel cares about the future of their security, they should try to have as many people as possible adopt the Charedi lifestyle. They should make it their top priority to help Charedim immigrate to Israel. Certainly, Charedim too have what too learn from their brethren, but the best way to do that is by bringing in Charedim who have learned to adapt to a modern economy so they can serve as an example.
No, liberal Western society prioritizes surviving in a brutal competitive high cost capitalist economy.
Doesn't "career goals and personal freedom" equal "a brutal competitive high cost capitalist economy"?
This is why I feel that the future lies with the Charedi lifestyle, with some adjustments that will hopefully develop naturally.
Interesting, but that graph shows “Fertility Rate[s] of Jews and Palestinians in Israel”. Does “Palestinians in Israel” mean/include Israeli Arabs?
What I’m referring to is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
See the “Population” section, subsection “Preceived demographic threat”.
As it is a Palestinian website I think they are including even Israeli Arabs, and contrasting them with Jews.
Either way, Wikipedia too quotes a study that the Arab birth rated dropped from 2000-2010.
No. Palestinians are arabs who are not citizens