This is very good Alex but I’ve yet to hear any viable initiative to address point 10. You can argue that,given Israel’s population, returning to Gaza en masse is not realistic (completely agree) and likewise re-conquering the West Bank is a non starter but I am not seeing any way forward from a political standpoint. More to the point, Palestinian society needs to be reformed both “top down” and “bottom up” and only they can do this. As the conflict has been ongoing for a century or more, I am not seeing any obvious catalyst for change.
I think post-1945 Europe is the only possible model - a reformed PA and some kind of Marshall Plan. You're right that this isn't workable if they refuse, but I have yet to see Israel even put this kind of plan on the table.
I guess Bibi is waiting to see the new US ME policy and if it really departs significantly in substance from Biden (well Blinken’s in reality). As for the analogy with Europe (a Marshall plan for the ME), only the Gulf can afford it IMO and, as we know, not all Gulf states have benign or even neutral intentions.
> The problem with the deal is that, like the Oslo Accords, it postpones the crucial issues to a later phase. Most importantly: Who will rule Gaza when the war ends?
Machiavelli notes that there are two ways to rule a territory populated by people with law and custom different from your own and hostile to your presence: a) military occupation, which is unproductive, costly in terms of both blood and treasure, and ultimately results in a net liability, or b) settle the territory with your own, who may make use of the land and serve as a garrison force to prevent uprising.
Israel seems to have at least partially followed Machiavelli's advice in Judea and Samaria while pursuing precisely the wrong approach in Gaza (since 2005) with predictable results.
The incoherence of Israeli policy stems from an inability of the state to perceive itself as a foreign occupier, which would necessarily refute the basic tenets of Zionist ideology. You can't simultaneously be the rightful inheritor of the land of your forefathers and also a foreign occupier; you have to pick one. The tragedy is that by sticking with the rightful inheritor narrative you cannot view the Palestinian narrative as anything but an illegitimate fairy tale, but by acknowledging the foreign occupier narrative you end up undermining your own legitimacy in the process.
My advice would be to either put up or shut up: Let your settler ideologues rebuild their homes in Gaza. Let them tend their vineyards and open their boutique goat cheese farms. Tax the proceeds and use the funds to sponsor Arabs who wish to seek asylum in a place more amenable to their worldview. If you think this is fantasy, I urge you to present a workable alternative in a post-7.10 world.
Where does the PA fit into Machiavelli's options? Because Israel's approach in the West Bank is still heavily dependent on the PA's presence, because Israel neither has the money nor the soldiers to administer its occupation independently. The same applies to Gaza, which is why the only workable alternative - despite its flaws - is some kind of Gulf state-led reconstruction with some form of PA administration.
Most Arabs in Judea and Samaria see the PA rightly as a tool of the Zionists. The PA is, for all practical intents, a contracted extension of the IDF employed to patrol and maintain order in parts of the territories where the IDF is legally not permitted to enter.
If Israel found the political will to rearrange this miserable situation to its advantage, it would forcibly dismantle the PA, confiscate weapons, and expel the large majority of the remaining hostile population that didn't flee on their own accord. This will probably happen anyway when Abu Mazen dies, soon and in our days.
Eloquent but pure sophistry. A series of false dichotomies anchored in the irrelevant authority of Machievelli. How about acknowledging the legitimacy of both people's claims to the land and figuring out a way of sharing it? And building an international coalition for the long and difficult process that implies?
More precisely, the false choice you present ignores the fact that the territory in question has always been partitioned, making it possible to accept military occupation on one side of the line as a temporary expedient for reasons of security, while upholding the legitimacy of one's presence and one's rightful sovereignity on the other, a perspective which I think it is fair to say has mostly represented mainstream Israeli opinion.
I would add that there is something deeply callous about making these pseudo-worldly, and ultimately vacuous pronouncements after 15 months of the most appalling suffering to the communities attacked and displaced in Israel and the Palestinian civilians in Gaza who have been killed and maimed in terrible numbers and seen their society reduced to rubble.
So would you support the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of its Arab inhabitants, then? Or are you content to pose as a world-weary student of history, above the tedious fray?
This is very good Alex but I’ve yet to hear any viable initiative to address point 10. You can argue that,given Israel’s population, returning to Gaza en masse is not realistic (completely agree) and likewise re-conquering the West Bank is a non starter but I am not seeing any way forward from a political standpoint. More to the point, Palestinian society needs to be reformed both “top down” and “bottom up” and only they can do this. As the conflict has been ongoing for a century or more, I am not seeing any obvious catalyst for change.
I think post-1945 Europe is the only possible model - a reformed PA and some kind of Marshall Plan. You're right that this isn't workable if they refuse, but I have yet to see Israel even put this kind of plan on the table.
I guess Bibi is waiting to see the new US ME policy and if it really departs significantly in substance from Biden (well Blinken’s in reality). As for the analogy with Europe (a Marshall plan for the ME), only the Gulf can afford it IMO and, as we know, not all Gulf states have benign or even neutral intentions.
Great piece
> The problem with the deal is that, like the Oslo Accords, it postpones the crucial issues to a later phase. Most importantly: Who will rule Gaza when the war ends?
Machiavelli notes that there are two ways to rule a territory populated by people with law and custom different from your own and hostile to your presence: a) military occupation, which is unproductive, costly in terms of both blood and treasure, and ultimately results in a net liability, or b) settle the territory with your own, who may make use of the land and serve as a garrison force to prevent uprising.
Israel seems to have at least partially followed Machiavelli's advice in Judea and Samaria while pursuing precisely the wrong approach in Gaza (since 2005) with predictable results.
The incoherence of Israeli policy stems from an inability of the state to perceive itself as a foreign occupier, which would necessarily refute the basic tenets of Zionist ideology. You can't simultaneously be the rightful inheritor of the land of your forefathers and also a foreign occupier; you have to pick one. The tragedy is that by sticking with the rightful inheritor narrative you cannot view the Palestinian narrative as anything but an illegitimate fairy tale, but by acknowledging the foreign occupier narrative you end up undermining your own legitimacy in the process.
My advice would be to either put up or shut up: Let your settler ideologues rebuild their homes in Gaza. Let them tend their vineyards and open their boutique goat cheese farms. Tax the proceeds and use the funds to sponsor Arabs who wish to seek asylum in a place more amenable to their worldview. If you think this is fantasy, I urge you to present a workable alternative in a post-7.10 world.
Where does the PA fit into Machiavelli's options? Because Israel's approach in the West Bank is still heavily dependent on the PA's presence, because Israel neither has the money nor the soldiers to administer its occupation independently. The same applies to Gaza, which is why the only workable alternative - despite its flaws - is some kind of Gulf state-led reconstruction with some form of PA administration.
Most Arabs in Judea and Samaria see the PA rightly as a tool of the Zionists. The PA is, for all practical intents, a contracted extension of the IDF employed to patrol and maintain order in parts of the territories where the IDF is legally not permitted to enter.
If Israel found the political will to rearrange this miserable situation to its advantage, it would forcibly dismantle the PA, confiscate weapons, and expel the large majority of the remaining hostile population that didn't flee on their own accord. This will probably happen anyway when Abu Mazen dies, soon and in our days.
Eloquent but pure sophistry. A series of false dichotomies anchored in the irrelevant authority of Machievelli. How about acknowledging the legitimacy of both people's claims to the land and figuring out a way of sharing it? And building an international coalition for the long and difficult process that implies?
More precisely, the false choice you present ignores the fact that the territory in question has always been partitioned, making it possible to accept military occupation on one side of the line as a temporary expedient for reasons of security, while upholding the legitimacy of one's presence and one's rightful sovereignity on the other, a perspective which I think it is fair to say has mostly represented mainstream Israeli opinion.
I would add that there is something deeply callous about making these pseudo-worldly, and ultimately vacuous pronouncements after 15 months of the most appalling suffering to the communities attacked and displaced in Israel and the Palestinian civilians in Gaza who have been killed and maimed in terrible numbers and seen their society reduced to rubble.
Good piece.
Thanks!
So would you support the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of its Arab inhabitants, then? Or are you content to pose as a world-weary student of history, above the tedious fray?
That should have appeared under King Salmon´s remark seemingly advocating the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank.