Whatever you think about the moral comparison of the two situations, as a practical metaphor Thomas Jefferson's famous saying seems terribly apt here: they have got the wolf by the ears; it isn't safe to hold on and it isn't safe to let go.
However, I have two large caveats about recommending it.
First of all, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also reflected in historiography, which is to say that any history of Israel or history of the Palestinians is going to be credibly accused by historians of the other as being significantly biased. I think Sachar does a very thorough and honest job of relating the history of Israel, which is what you asked for, so I'm not concerned about accuracy or that there will be omissions for ideological or propagandistic reasons. But history is a narrative art form, and the Palestinian narrative is just a totally different shape that can't readily be reconciled with a history of Israel, even though they are obviously two sides of a single story. The logical thing to suggest is to complement Sachar's book with a Palestinian history, but honestly, I'm not sure what to recommend as a good book about the history of Palestine, and even if I did I'm not sure that reading the two books back-to-back would result in a synthesis; more likely, the result would be a mental split-screen.
Second, Sachar's book was first published in 1976. I read the second edition, which came out in 1996, and the third edition is more recent still, having come out in 2006, but that's still 17 years ago, which means it came out before the entirety of the long rule of Benjamin Netanyahu from 2009 through 2021. So whatever efforts Sachar made in subsequent editions to revise the narrative established in 1976, that narrative is still going to be primary, and since those revisions were undertaken before Netanyahu returned to power they're going to have been undertaken from a perspective that is inevitably going to feel a little obsolete. Like, imagine a magesterial history of the United States written in 1945 that was revised in 1975. It'd read very differently from an American history written for the first time in 1975 -- but it would also read very differently from an American history written later, aware of the rise of Reagan, the fall of the Soviet Union, mass immigration, 9/11, etc. etc.
In no way am I trying to dissuade you from reading Sachar's book -- it's excellent. I'm just pointing out that *any* one book is going to have very significant limitations.
The talk about "re-establishing" deterrence is nonsense; there never was any deterrence in the first place, which is fairly clear if you look at the actors involved. "Israel" vs. "the Palestinians" is too simplistic: there are actually four groups involved here: 1. the Palestinians who want peace, even if this involves continuation of the state of Israel on land that was once, many decades ago, Palestinian land; 2. the Israelis who want peace, mainly the left wing, even if that involves giving the Palestinians their own state or something along those lines; 3. the Israeli right-wing, who want the Palestinians gone from the region, as much as possible; and 4. Hamas and similar groups, who want Israel wiped off the map.
Group 4, Hamas et al., cannot be deterred, at least not by Palestinian suffering. In fact, Palestinian suffering caused by Israel is fine with them, because that reduces international support for Israel. Hamas, in other words, is willing to sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to push forward their aim of defeating Israel. (This is quite clear from how they use and govern the Gaza strip.)
Group 3, mainly the Israeli right wing, benefits directly from the existence of group 4 since the existence of the existential threat to Israel lets them justify actions that work against peace, such as the expansion of settlements and persecution of Palestinians. Peace is existential disaster for this group since it would limit not only their territorial expansion but to a great degree the reason for their existence.
So long as we have these two groups, each incentivised to keep the battle running, holding any more than a minimal amount of power, there will be no peace. And the other two groups, particularly the Palestinians, are going to suffer at the hands of them.
Whatever you think about the moral comparison of the two situations, as a practical metaphor Thomas Jefferson's famous saying seems terribly apt here: they have got the wolf by the ears; it isn't safe to hold on and it isn't safe to let go.
Enjoyed this piece. Can you recommend any good books on the history of modern Israel?
Also, have you written a response to that Freddie deBoer piece where he mentions you? I thoughtI saw you mention that you would respond and I’m eager to see what you think https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/can-the-liberal-democratic-project
I wrote a response to Freddie deBoer in the form of a Note: https://substack.com/@gideons/note/c-42462775
As for a book about modern Israel: my best answer is Howard Sachar's comprehensive history: https://www.amazon.com/History-Israel-Rise-Zionism-Time/dp/0375711325/ref=asc_df_0375711325/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312057361370&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14015458024250929630&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9004351&hvtargid=pla-494072628142&psc=1&mcid=e25bc42519b23683be251d4560e94850&gclid=CjwKCAiAx_GqBhBQEiwAlDNAZrJUbPoByq_Z8FpQCJjoO5wSsPgzNb3JaSd_F0YS-ENfOvnFWW2eUhoCMtEQAvD_BwE
However, I have two large caveats about recommending it.
First of all, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also reflected in historiography, which is to say that any history of Israel or history of the Palestinians is going to be credibly accused by historians of the other as being significantly biased. I think Sachar does a very thorough and honest job of relating the history of Israel, which is what you asked for, so I'm not concerned about accuracy or that there will be omissions for ideological or propagandistic reasons. But history is a narrative art form, and the Palestinian narrative is just a totally different shape that can't readily be reconciled with a history of Israel, even though they are obviously two sides of a single story. The logical thing to suggest is to complement Sachar's book with a Palestinian history, but honestly, I'm not sure what to recommend as a good book about the history of Palestine, and even if I did I'm not sure that reading the two books back-to-back would result in a synthesis; more likely, the result would be a mental split-screen.
Second, Sachar's book was first published in 1976. I read the second edition, which came out in 1996, and the third edition is more recent still, having come out in 2006, but that's still 17 years ago, which means it came out before the entirety of the long rule of Benjamin Netanyahu from 2009 through 2021. So whatever efforts Sachar made in subsequent editions to revise the narrative established in 1976, that narrative is still going to be primary, and since those revisions were undertaken before Netanyahu returned to power they're going to have been undertaken from a perspective that is inevitably going to feel a little obsolete. Like, imagine a magesterial history of the United States written in 1945 that was revised in 1975. It'd read very differently from an American history written for the first time in 1975 -- but it would also read very differently from an American history written later, aware of the rise of Reagan, the fall of the Soviet Union, mass immigration, 9/11, etc. etc.
In no way am I trying to dissuade you from reading Sachar's book -- it's excellent. I'm just pointing out that *any* one book is going to have very significant limitations.
Thank you so much for the detailed and thoughtful reply!
The talk about "re-establishing" deterrence is nonsense; there never was any deterrence in the first place, which is fairly clear if you look at the actors involved. "Israel" vs. "the Palestinians" is too simplistic: there are actually four groups involved here: 1. the Palestinians who want peace, even if this involves continuation of the state of Israel on land that was once, many decades ago, Palestinian land; 2. the Israelis who want peace, mainly the left wing, even if that involves giving the Palestinians their own state or something along those lines; 3. the Israeli right-wing, who want the Palestinians gone from the region, as much as possible; and 4. Hamas and similar groups, who want Israel wiped off the map.
Group 4, Hamas et al., cannot be deterred, at least not by Palestinian suffering. In fact, Palestinian suffering caused by Israel is fine with them, because that reduces international support for Israel. Hamas, in other words, is willing to sacrifice as many Palestinians as necessary to push forward their aim of defeating Israel. (This is quite clear from how they use and govern the Gaza strip.)
Group 3, mainly the Israeli right wing, benefits directly from the existence of group 4 since the existence of the existential threat to Israel lets them justify actions that work against peace, such as the expansion of settlements and persecution of Palestinians. Peace is existential disaster for this group since it would limit not only their territorial expansion but to a great degree the reason for their existence.
So long as we have these two groups, each incentivised to keep the battle running, holding any more than a minimal amount of power, there will be no peace. And the other two groups, particularly the Palestinians, are going to suffer at the hands of them.