This is all very thoughtful and high-minded but it doesn’t really grapple with the reality of what American “diplomacy” in the Middle East looks like, which boils down to brutal sanctions of Iran and the ratifying of pre-existing business relationships between Israel and its largely autocratic neighbors. Hard to say that any of this constitutes meaningful progress towards “peace.”
I think peace is good, and I think war is unalloyed evil. Once upon a time, war had some positive features, but technological advance abolished them, and the social effects of war, if less horrific than all the dead people, are perhaps even worse because they last centuries. There is scarcely a single modern problem that was not, at the least, significantly exacerbated by WW1. Even if you are quite fascist in your inclinations (as I am, specifically ecofascist), war is still completely bad because it actually only promotes atomism, degeneracy and decay.
Which is all to say I agree with you before I explain why you are totally wrong. The root cause of what is happening now is the decision to pull out of Gaza. The simple fact is that every step towards the 2 state solution has led to more war, because it was always a bad idea that ignored basic prudential logic. The day after Hamas took over, Israel should have reoccupied Gaza with a full ground invasion and the minimum amount of aerial bombing. This would have led to many thousands of Israeli casualties, but that was Israel's recompense for its bad (and broadly popular) decision to leave in the first place. Ever since then, Israel has punted taking responsibility for its bad decision because, as a democracy, no government could ever do what it takes to make amends, the task becoming more impossible with each day it was put off. Gaza, more precisely than the world's largest open air prison, became the world's largest booby-trapped open air insane asylum, with the inmates in charge, and now we are where we are and it's all so wretched and gross and hopeless that there is no response other than to vomit. So it turns out taking risks for peace is not such a great idea after all.
I'll admit being a little disappointed when I read this piece. When I saw the title I thought you were going to be making an argument about Israel proceeding differently in Gaza, and I was interested to hear your take. I'm definitely supportive of Israel targeting Hamas (as long as they are doing all they can be reasonably asked to do to reduce civilian as they do so), but I'm also worried that the costs and consequence might make an invasion a huge error. Maybe what makes more sense is to stop the airstrikes (or make them much more limited), while continuing a blockade of everything but food and water until the hostages are free, while also more playing a longer games of targeting Hamas leaders. Or maybe there is another approach worth considering?
Meanwhile, I certainly agree with you that pursuing peace with the Palestinians is the right course of action, but I'm curious how you envision getting there and what you think of this approach:
(It's essentially a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Israeli giving up almost all the settlements and a U.S. led peacekeeping force enforcing the demilitarization.)
I honestly don't know enough to have a take on how Israel should pursue the destruction of Hamas, which is why I haven't offered one, beyond expressing my anxieties that (a) Israel doesn't really know how they are going to do it, and (b) that Israel doesn't have a plan for after Hamas is destroyed to figure out how to live alongside the Palestinians.
As well, I think that it's unrealistic to expect anything less than a serious war to destroy Hamas after the atrocities they perpetrated on October 7th. So even if I did have a take suggesting another course, I'm not sure what the point would be of offering it.
I think it would be very foolish for any American president to offer to insert American troops directly into the conflict. The last time we tried something like that was in Beirut. This is the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the barracks that killed 241 American marines and ended that intervention.
I'm old enough to remember Beirut. And any deployment of troops certainly comes with risks. Having said that, I think that risk can be somewhat mitigated by making it an international force that would draw from the Arab states as well. But doubtless there will still be significant risks. At the same time, finally solving the Palestinian issue also comes with huge rewards for the U.S. in terms of bringing regional stability to the Middle East.
But ultimately, the proposal is "Sherlock Holmes diplomacy": once you've eliminated the impossible, what remains, however, unlikely, is the right path.
A two state solution along the lines of Taba is the only path I can imagine that has a chance at being acceptable to both sides. And since Israel won't have the political will to force the settlers to leave, it's going to require the U.S., the only power that Israel really trusts, to play the role of a friend doing an intervention.
This is all very thoughtful and high-minded but it doesn’t really grapple with the reality of what American “diplomacy” in the Middle East looks like, which boils down to brutal sanctions of Iran and the ratifying of pre-existing business relationships between Israel and its largely autocratic neighbors. Hard to say that any of this constitutes meaningful progress towards “peace.”
I think peace is good, and I think war is unalloyed evil. Once upon a time, war had some positive features, but technological advance abolished them, and the social effects of war, if less horrific than all the dead people, are perhaps even worse because they last centuries. There is scarcely a single modern problem that was not, at the least, significantly exacerbated by WW1. Even if you are quite fascist in your inclinations (as I am, specifically ecofascist), war is still completely bad because it actually only promotes atomism, degeneracy and decay.
Which is all to say I agree with you before I explain why you are totally wrong. The root cause of what is happening now is the decision to pull out of Gaza. The simple fact is that every step towards the 2 state solution has led to more war, because it was always a bad idea that ignored basic prudential logic. The day after Hamas took over, Israel should have reoccupied Gaza with a full ground invasion and the minimum amount of aerial bombing. This would have led to many thousands of Israeli casualties, but that was Israel's recompense for its bad (and broadly popular) decision to leave in the first place. Ever since then, Israel has punted taking responsibility for its bad decision because, as a democracy, no government could ever do what it takes to make amends, the task becoming more impossible with each day it was put off. Gaza, more precisely than the world's largest open air prison, became the world's largest booby-trapped open air insane asylum, with the inmates in charge, and now we are where we are and it's all so wretched and gross and hopeless that there is no response other than to vomit. So it turns out taking risks for peace is not such a great idea after all.
"Peace is good"
Not true!
Signed Raytheon
I'll admit being a little disappointed when I read this piece. When I saw the title I thought you were going to be making an argument about Israel proceeding differently in Gaza, and I was interested to hear your take. I'm definitely supportive of Israel targeting Hamas (as long as they are doing all they can be reasonably asked to do to reduce civilian as they do so), but I'm also worried that the costs and consequence might make an invasion a huge error. Maybe what makes more sense is to stop the airstrikes (or make them much more limited), while continuing a blockade of everything but food and water until the hostages are free, while also more playing a longer games of targeting Hamas leaders. Or maybe there is another approach worth considering?
Meanwhile, I certainly agree with you that pursuing peace with the Palestinians is the right course of action, but I'm curious how you envision getting there and what you think of this approach:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
(It's essentially a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Israeli giving up almost all the settlements and a U.S. led peacekeeping force enforcing the demilitarization.)
I honestly don't know enough to have a take on how Israel should pursue the destruction of Hamas, which is why I haven't offered one, beyond expressing my anxieties that (a) Israel doesn't really know how they are going to do it, and (b) that Israel doesn't have a plan for after Hamas is destroyed to figure out how to live alongside the Palestinians.
As well, I think that it's unrealistic to expect anything less than a serious war to destroy Hamas after the atrocities they perpetrated on October 7th. So even if I did have a take suggesting another course, I'm not sure what the point would be of offering it.
I think it would be very foolish for any American president to offer to insert American troops directly into the conflict. The last time we tried something like that was in Beirut. This is the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the barracks that killed 241 American marines and ended that intervention.
I'm old enough to remember Beirut. And any deployment of troops certainly comes with risks. Having said that, I think that risk can be somewhat mitigated by making it an international force that would draw from the Arab states as well. But doubtless there will still be significant risks. At the same time, finally solving the Palestinian issue also comes with huge rewards for the U.S. in terms of bringing regional stability to the Middle East.
But ultimately, the proposal is "Sherlock Holmes diplomacy": once you've eliminated the impossible, what remains, however, unlikely, is the right path.
A two state solution along the lines of Taba is the only path I can imagine that has a chance at being acceptable to both sides. And since Israel won't have the political will to force the settlers to leave, it's going to require the U.S., the only power that Israel really trusts, to play the role of a friend doing an intervention.