An Israeli soldier looks on as a helicopter takes off near the Lebanon border (JALAA MAREY/AFP via Getty Images)
Navigating the wars in Ukraine and Gaza has brought the political theory of realism to the fore, becoming a sudden mainstay of popular and journalistic analysis. More than anyone, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, the doyen of American realism, has been catapulted into the position of a global intellectual, consulted widely for both his told-you-so’s and his predictions. But on Gaza he demurs: the circumstances there, he argues, are so far from the conventional inter-state war we see in Ukraine that realism has little traction for analysing Israel’s offensive.
Other adherents of his thought have not followed him. Writing recently for UnHerd, Thomas Fazi claimed that the arguments of realism actually fit the war in Gaza very well. He argues that just as any realist appraisal of the Russian invasion of Ukraine must acknowledge the role of Nato expansion, so too an explanation of this war needs to be as rooted in the regime imposed by Israel on the Gaza strip as in the horrors of the Hamas atrocities last year.
Yet a realist appraisal of any war has to go further than an inductive analysis of its immediate causes to also consider the political character of its protagonists. One of the basic distinguishing features of realism is its focus on state power and the ruthless means by which states secure themselves, leading to the recurrence of violent conflict. And in this war, there is only one state to speak of — the Israeli one. Prior to October 7, the dependence of the Hamas authorities on the Israeli state was so extreme that the strip could be characterised as a de facto devolved province of Israel itself, with Hamas expanding to fill the vacuum left by the Israeli military and settler withdrawal in 2005. And as is now well-established and increasingly recognised, Israel has propped up Hamas ever since as a deliberate strategy for dividing the Palestinians of Gaza from those in the West Bank under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority.
A realist analysis should recognise this Israeli domination over Gaza, but the weight of its analysis should fall on the permissive cause of Israeli policy: the fact of Palestinian national defeat. For if realism is to carry any meaning whatsoever, it must surely include a lucid registration of historic defeats and victories, both political and military. There is one unavoidable fact in the history of this conflict that matters more than Israel’s crude strategies of divide-and-rule, and that is the fact that the Palestinians’ leaders effectively surrendered to Israel many years ago, at the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993.
Oslo was, in Edward Said’s ruthlessly incisive appraisal at the time, nothing short of a “Palestinian Versailles”. In accepting the two-state solution, Said argued, the Palestinian leadership renounced the entirety of Palestine’s national claims, accepting the substitution of municipal for national aspirations, with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) reduced to the role of policing Palestinians on behalf of Israel. The defeat of the secular Arab nationalism of the PLO would create the void that groups such as Hamas now occupy. But the rise of Islamist factions in Palestinian politics also traces a wider arc in Arab politics that began with Israel’s victory over all the leading Arab states of the era in the 1967 Six Day War. Since then, Islamic conservatism has come to substitute for Arab nationalism as the dominant force in Middle Eastern politics, whether backed by Iran on the one side (Hezbollah and Hamas) or Saudi Arabia on the other (the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Isis).
For Hamas as for other Islamists, the ultimate referent object of politics is the overarching transnational community of believers, the ummah. For them, secular nation-states are provisional makeshifts at best, if not simply idolatrous substitutes for righteous rule. This is significant because as long as there is no agency that can legitimately claim to represent the Palestinian nation, their aspiration to independence remains a defunct and meaningless proposition. Over the years, regional experts have made much of the idea of a so-called “hudna”, a religious notion of ceasefire that some academics take as evidence for Hamas’s willingness to subordinate their religious ideals in favour of accepting secular rule and accommodation with Israel (at least in the short term). But given the fact that Hamas only exists in the ruins of Palestinian national independence, it makes little odds for the future of the Palestinian people, whatever term of Islamic jurisprudence one chooses to drape over Hamas’ thuggish theocracy or the iron fist of Israeli oppression.
Since the defeat of Palestinian nationalism in 1993, there has been no meaningful political agency in the conflict or the region except that of the Israeli state. Any political claim in this conflict that does not begin from this reality will inevitably find itself remoulded around the hard fact not only of Israeli military might but also the fact that the Jewish state is the only real political force in the Palestinian territories. And this is why analysts who otherwise draw from realism end up echoing so many of the liberal humanitarian claims around Gaza — whether describing the Israeli assault as a genocide, or boosting the claims of the International Court of Justice in its recent interim ruling.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWow! That was brilliant! It reads like inspired poetry. I kind of liked it. That said (and I prefer smaller words used more elegantly, than larger words that gush forth like water from a spring), does morality and Right play any role in the realist case? It sounds like ‘realism’ is a synonym for ‘power’. Indeed, does ‘Might make Right’, or does ‘Right make Might’?
This author seems to say that both are true. ‘Right’ cannot exist without ‘Might’ to protect it and bear it up high; but ‘Might’ on its own is a fruitless tree.
Israel is trapped in a paradigm. It will not wreak a bloody slaughter amongst the Philistines, because it is bound by ‘Right’, it will not defeat them utterly, because it shies away from ‘Might’.
Here’s a thought: Perhaps kindness in excess is a kind of cruelty. Israel, in letting the situation linger and not harshly imposing a just rule, is hoping to thread a very fine needle, but sorry is thereby increased. The paradigms of the past are surely insufficient to our present needs; proven by the fact that this situation has reoccured so many times.
But what is needed is out-of-the-box thinking ….
It isn’t Right that’s stopping Israel incorporating the Palestinians into a greater territory, it’s done to ensure there’s a Jewish majority in the region. If everybody in Gaza and West Bank were given full voting rights to the Knesset (as would be the case of Israel took its responsibilities seriously as the victor) then they could no longer be guaranteed a majority, and thus the Palestinians would become much more politically powerful.
I think the only way Israel could “realistically” manage the situation is to maintain its 3 class citizenship as it basically is today. Jews(rather not Arabs), Israeli Arabs, and non Israeli Arabs. How realistic is apartheid ( technically not morally ) is an open question. It has worked so far but burst open in violence every ten years or so. Lived there. Not fun. But very low crime otherwise. Apparently too much sectarian violence already.
Not just the demographic threat which with falling birth rates is far less than in the past. Also:
1. The fear of the security consequences of lifting military rule.
2. The world is in love with the Two State Solution and would never let Israel annex the West Bank and Gaza anyway.
I think you meant Israel is trapped in a paradox, not a paradigm?
‘But what is needed is out-of-the-box thinking ….’
Allow me to make a fool myself with my suggestions:
Drop the walls around gaza? But in a controlled fashion. It would be a long term effort and a logistical, diplomatic nightmare but perhaps it could be done.
First, let the women, children and elderly people that have had to evacuate out into Israel where they can receive aid from international aid agencies, Israel could allow the set up of camps like this, moderate Israelis could assist, some very, very understanding Israeli people could even open their houses to the women and children that are evacuated. This is a big ask of Israel I know, especially given the atrocities committed by hamas. Then allow the men remaining in gaza to move north (perhaps aid agencies could set up camps there for them, looks pretty badly flattened now) while the tunnels in the south are cleared and destroyed. They can vet them as they move, detain the extremists, seize any weapons, then destroy what remains of hamas tunnel network in south gaza.
When Israel is confident that is done, and that would be a logistical nightmare in itself, drop the walls around gaza.
Allow construction companies and aid agencies in to rebuild what has been destroyed, fast as possible (perhaps with international assistance) on the land that was the gaza strip. Reallocate the new housing and land to those who have evacuated, ensuring the Palestinians that have had to evacuate are allowed to return to their old residence and if they need a new one, that it is equivalent to what they left behind before the evacuation.
End the segregation.
Israel maintains security while the people resettle. Allow them the same, full rights and freedoms of an Israeli citizen, they can maintain their Palestinian identity. If the rule of law is implemented terrorists and extremists can be detained, there is nowhere left for them to hide if the tunnel networks are destroyed.
If this is successful, then the same could be applied to the people on the west bank in the future (but hopefully without all the bombing and need to rebuild afterwards) ending segregation entirely. Palestinian officials from the west bank and perhaps Iran could participate in ensuring that Palestinians have representation in government and that the Palestinians from gaza are treated fairly throughout the process.
A complete diplomatic nightmare I know.
If the western principals of freedom of religion and the rule of law are applied simultaneously though, this could allow the moderate people on both sides to live more peacefully than they do now and without segregation. It would take a long time. There would be setbacks and mistakes and difficulties along the way.
In Britain we have managed to have peaceful protests from both sides very successfully:
https://www.ppu.org.uk/news/veterans-endorse-remembrance-day-demonstrations-and-dismiss-government-backlash
In Britain, where freedom of religion and the rule of law are applied, people from both sides do live peacefully.
We could do with some more of this perhaps:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/24/freed-gaza-hostages-named-yocheved-lifshitz-nurit-cooper
Sounds unachievable now I read this back. With a fair few leaps of faith. Probably politically incorrect in places. It’s written now though. And perhaps a bit out the box.
It’s Hamas stopping Palestinians from leaving Gaza, not Israel. You underestimate how much Hamas hate the Israelis and how prepared they are to sacrifice their own people.
OK then.
That’s OK it’s just the definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The longer this has gone on, the worse and worse the attacks have become.
Leave it as it is then. It’s just now both sides are REALLY p*ssed off and shipping disruptions and instability are getting worse and worse in the whole region. Something will have to give. Which will affect all of us.
My point is hamas fighters are men. While gaza is half flattened and they have nowhere to go – round them up, clear the city in south of them too, let the moderate Palestinians evacuate prioritising women and children and then try to start again. But without the segregation. Or the hamas terrorists. Implement the rule of law. I did say it would be a logistical and diplomatic nightmare.
We are on a one way ticket to some serious instability. This will not stop with a ceasefire, it will not stop without a solution that satisfies both sides and deals with the past disagreements and the segregation.
If Jews and Palestinians can protest peacefully on the same streets in Britain – why could it not work in Israel?
If the Jewish lady that was taken hostage by hamas can show some understanding and shake their hand, why not others?
I understand that it is bordering on utopian but real long term solutions are few and far between. What would you do?
Britain is a good example of different people of all religions living side by side, we do have some problems but none that can’t be solved without implementing the rule of law. Why could it not be tried there?
I am not really suggesting anything that isn’t being done already from the perspective Israel is moving to eliminate hamas, the problem is what is to be done afterwards to prevent it from happening again? If you keep the segregation in place then you will have the same problems and disagreements over and over again.
It’s an impossible situation. Palestinian children are indoctrinated from birth to hate Israelis. There are some cultures that require a common enemy to hold them together. The identity of the enemy is not important, just the fact that there is an enemy. If there were no Israelis for Hamas to hate, it would be Kurds, Jordanians, or Christians.
Your comments raise an interesting question, though. How do you combat an ideology that permits you to commit atrocities in its name and even rewards you with a ticket to paradise and your own private harem when you die?
I’ll try and take this point for point:
‘Palestinian children are indoctrinated from birth to hate Israelis.’
I’m not that hot in what Palestinian children are taught but I did say it would take time. Keeping them in gaza where the ONLY thing they are exposed to is hamas style indoctrination will surely only make the situation worse? It is also why implementing the rule of law and better education is important. If they are allowed to mix in Israel both of these things are easier to deliver I think.
‘If there were no Israelis for Hamas to hate, it would be Kurds, Jordanians, or Christians’
Fair enough but if we take gaza on its own for the moment – Israels objective is to eliminate hamas I believe.
‘Your comments raise an interesting question, though. How do you combat an ideology that permits you to commit atrocities in its name and even rewards you with a ticket to paradise and your own private harem when you die?’
Most religions have a concept of paradise and many wars have been fought in the name of all the major religions. We have to appreciate that too, perhaps looking back through history for examples of where solutions to these problems have been found in the past would be a good start?
As you say it’s nearly an impossible situation. The middle east in general has become more and more unstable, not always helped by the massive influx of western weapons and tech. We do have to take responsibility for the fact that we did leave behind a huge stash of weapons in Afghanistan, have been party to funding a number of terrorist organisations in these regions ourselves and have benefited from the resources these countries have to offer, generally contributing to instability in the region.
My point that Palestinians and Jews do live peacefully in Britain where freedom of religion, (without allowing the radical factions you mention that ‘permit atrocities to be committed in their name’), freedom of expression and the rule of law are implemented still stands though I think?
It is when these things are absent that organisations like hamas flourish.
This would not be easy in Israel, but it could improve the situation in the long term for everyone living there, the segregation is a big problem for the Palestinian side and while I understand the dangers, as a long term solution I can’t see a different approach that would not lead to the same outcome we saw in October.
This could be a rare opportunity to solve the crisis long term.
First the question is, “How do you combat an ideology that permits you to commit atrocities…” Then there’s ” …many wars have been fought in the name of all the major religions…”
It’s, how do you combat it and then, what were the solutions to religious wars in the past? The answer is to fight it out until one group gives up like the Christians did in the Crusades. Fight it out until Charles Martel’s warriors in full body armor drove back the invader. Catholics and Protestants had enough death and stopped.
It always comes down to fighting it out until one side loses too many fighters. People with arthritis know they’ll be feeling the pain for the rest of their lives. Maybe that the case here or sometimes you just get in a state of mind to keep fighting hoping one too many people on the other side dies so they quit.
Bleak.
No Sam, Realism does not say ‘Might is Right’ it says ‘Might will win’.
Dystopian as perpetual war is, the reality is that there will only be peace when there is only one state between the river and the sea. Whichever one.
Whilst some like to fantasise that such a single state would have both Israelis and Palestinians living peaceably side by side, it is just a fantasy. The reality would be genocide of one against the other. As the international community won’t allow that, perpetual war is the only permissible solution.
The single state where both Israelis and Arabs live peacefully side by side is called Israel. Sure, there are tensions, but for the most part it works. The incorporation of the radicalized population of the West Bank and Gaza however, into the Israeli democracy would probably be a recipe for an explosion. And neither the Ummah or the international community would allow the annexation of the West Bank or Gaza anyway. The other option (which the international community would again strongly oppose) would be to complete the population exchange where somewhere near one million Jews were expelled from Arab countries to Israel, but the Arab nations never accepted to receive the Arab population of Palestine in return. And of course the final option would be the genocide of the Jews at the hands of the Jihad. There has never been an option offered to Jews to remain living in Palestinian controlled territory.
Israeli = Israeli Jews + Israeli Arabs, which is why I say Israelis and Palestinians. If there were to be an attempt to bring Israelis and Palestinians together in one state, then I think it would be the Israeli Arabs who get slaughtered from both sides. The ultimate victors would be the same as the victors in every conflict since day 1 of Israel’s existence.
You’ve got that backwards. The Palestinians now living outside Israel’s borders were radicalised by their expulsion from their ancestral lands by radical Zionists, and it was this that led to the expulsion of the Jews from other Arab countries.
There are some 400 million people in MENA, the vast majority of whom consider Israel to be a European colonial imposition, and an illegitimate one at that. Should the West keep propping up their colonial project for the sake of some ~10 million Zionists who can’t bear sharing the land with more Arabs? Why?
Apartheid was dismantled in South Africa, and it can be dismantled in Israel too.
It was not Israel’s provocation any more than any other country’s provocation. Does Israel provoke more than the Chechens on Russia until Russia turned Grozny into rubble? Did all those Christian school girls in Nigeria provoke their Muslim abductors? Did the Hapsburgs provoke the Ottomans? Did Charles ‘The Hammer’ Martel provoke Muslims from Spain? It’s Islams mission to conquer everyone on their borders. I think they’re commanded to do it.
A lot of progressive “woke” speak in your comment. Israel “a colonial imposition” – well okay so is North America so is Australia, so ultimately are many countries in the world. At some point we can’t reverse this movement. It is quite extraordinary how pro Palestinian commentators consistently fail to mention the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled by Arab States at the same time as indeed many Arabs either fled or will expelled from what is now Israel. The Indian subcontinent has many problems but a refugee crisis is not one of them. There were far larger forced population movements in that region in the late 40s, as indeed there were in Europe. This is a done deal. Israel, unless it is completely destroyed, is not going to allow its whole nature to be changed by millions of the great great grandchildren of refugees “returning” to a country they’ve never seen and demographically swamping the Jewish population. This is just obvious realpolitik. No other states in the world would act in such a self-destructive way, apart from possibly very progressive Western European ones!
The Zionists acquired land by peaceful legal purchase. There was no Palestinian independent identity apart from other Arabs living in the region.The population of Palestine subsequently increased both Jewish and Arab as a result of much great economic activity going on in that land.
You have kind of answered your own question. There are 400 million Arabs living in Middle East and North Africa over millions upon millions of square miles. They don’t need an additional sliver of territory which is the only Jewish majority state and indeed the only democracy in the region.
It’s a fact people don’t know the success stories of Arabs in Israel. You see them mostly in the medical care industry as MDs, nurses, workers of all kinds, working at the pharmacies, patients and their visitors. Restaurant owners, bus drivers, shop owners, media, construction workers, everywhere Arabs. They’re welcome in any bathroom, any store, planes, trains, restaurants etc. Arabs wave their own flags as they attend universities in Israel and swim in the summer at any of many mixed swimming areas for everybody.
Yet people act like Arabs in Israel are treated like American Blacks in the 50s or Zulus before Mandela. Sadly, Arabs aren’t being hired anymore like before October 7th and that will be rough for them but who can trust they’re not mapping out another attack? It’s true it’s tough to compete with college educated Jews from America, South America, Europe, Russia and other places but maybe their children can with the right education. At least there’s a chance in Israel compared to Syria, Egypt, Iraq…many of the 29 Arab states.
No, there would not be genocide against the Palestinians – we’ve already done that experiment. One side, at this point of history – and certainly history is complicated, I’m not an Islam hater – simply acts in a more ethical way than the other. Hamas tell us exactly what they believe, and many West Bank Palestinians increasingly believe the same thing.
If that state is Israel, and I hope that is the case, then peace is unlikely. The same people funding and waging attacks against it are not likely to stop.
I was impressed by Cunliffe’s recent book on Brexit, and this article here today displays a similar degree of insight.
I’m not sure I wholly agree with it – I think it discounts somewhat the ludicrous extent to which Israel must remain a militarised state against an implacable enemy that isn’t just whatever is in Palestine, but whoever backs them. No mention is made of Iran in this article, and I think it’s a damaging omission in terms of a complete analysis. But that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with many of the points raised.
It does mention Iran’s support for Hamas but may have been edited since you posted. You are right that Israel is always going to be attacked from the West’s enemies in the East. But they’re always going to attack because they see Israel as an enclave of their western enemies in their East.
Indeed, the reality is no other Arab state genuinely cares about the Palestinian people and in many cases they actively despise them. From time to time the Palestinians become useful for poking Israel and it is the extent to which the state wants to do that that determines the support they provide. Eg Iran wants to provoke Israel to the maximum extent, so its Shia regime is happy to support a Sunni terrorist group. Ultimately it the complexity and ever changing nature of inter Arab relationships which severely blunts realism as a tool for analysing the situation.
“…as is now well-established and increasingly recognised, Israel has propped up Hamas ever since…”. This type of statement is a common rhetorical trick, to present a highly dubious statement as being one of uncontested truth. Military action by Israel in 2006 to prevent the takeover by Hamas of Gaza would have been a little easier than it is now, after two decades in which Hamas have turned Gaza into a military fortress for exactly this purpose. But intervention then would have been just as trenchantly condemned by the same forces which seek to isolate Israel today. The notion that the people of West Bank and Gaza are entirely in Israel’s power is fanciful given that Israel is itself is surrounded by increasingly populous and wealthy Islamic powers, who fund Palestinian terrorism and for whom the Palestinian issue is a tremendously useful mechanism for distracting domestic opinion. No Arab state would dream of surrendering that mechanism by taking on responsibility for the Palestinian Territories itself. And vulnerable as Israeli Jews are today, they would be far more so if Israel became another Lebanon, with millions more hostile citizens within its borders in a single state.
There is a great deal of evidence of Israel propping up Hamas. Netanyahu in particular seemed to support them in their rejection of a two state solution, unlike the PLO. This is widely reported in popular Israeli media and scholarly publications. Look and you shall find; maybe even in this case GIYF.
To the extent he “supported” them it was NOT to prevent a two state solution which was never a possibility but because he assumed (very wrongly) that they could be induced to remain quiet and not threaten violence and he has been much more concerned about the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.
Israel’s support for Hamas pre-dates Netanyahu and his merry band of ethnosupremacists, it goes back to the ’80s:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090208223439/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
Lots of downvotes but no rebuttals.
You’re a known idiot here, people are saving their time 😉
El Cid, Read the post below from Danny Kaye, then you will realise that is you who are the idiot.
Did early Hamas receive support from Israel? The answer is yes. In the seventies and most of the eighties, Israeli authorities thought the early Hamas (an ideological offshoot in Gaza of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, led by Ahmed Yassin) to be exclusively concerned with religion and charity, and considered it a potential counterweight to Yassir Arafat’s much more militant Palestine Liberation Organisation. They provided it with support for building mosques and for charity work. As it turns out, that was a miscalculation, similar in some ways to the help the USA extended to the Afghan Mujahideen in the eighties in their fight against the Soviets.
The link provided by Jim C has several quotes from Israeli officials with a lot more information and is worth reading, but note that its title (“How Israel helped to spawn Hamas”) is a little misleading. Since Hamas is the representative of militant Islam among Palestinian Arabs, and since Israel can’t have been behind the rise of militant Islam in the larger Middle East – the Muslim Brotherhood was established in Egypt in 1928 -, then it is pretty clear that Hamas would have arisen as a political force with or without Israel’s initial support.
It seems Israel has always tried since 2005 to be a good neighbour to the Palestinians in Gaza. They supplied Electric Power and water, and many thousands of Gazas went over the border each day to work in Israel. If that is propping up Hamas – the elected gov. in Gaza – then so be it. The problem was that Israel thought it was working; instead Hamas was building a powerful network of military infrastructure in tunnels and equipment.
Exactly. Not to mention the millions of dollars from the international community, but mostly America given to Palestine to build a nation but used By Hamas for tunnels.
Netanyahu may have many faults, but he is is hardly an ideological ethno supremacist. Divide and rule isn’t particularly noble, but it can be effective. However I expect he’s been politically damaged now beyond recovery, having failed to prevent the 7 October attack and maybe being too complacent about Hamas.
It seems Israel has always tried since 2005 to be a good neighbour to the Palestinians in Gaza. They supplied Electric Power and water, and many thousands of Gazas went over the border each day to work in Israel. If that is propping up Hamas – the elected gov. in Gaza – then so be it. The problem was that Israel thought it was working; instead Hamas was building a powerful network of military infrastructure in tunnels and equipment.
Israel under Netanyahu did prop up Hamas, it’s not a rhetorical trick or dubious statement to recognise this. This is an excerpt from a report in the Times of Israel the day after Oct 7: Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015.
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
While Netanyahu does not make these kind of statements publicly or officially, his words are in line with the policy that he implemented.“
Source: (not sure whether links are allowed in the comments section) https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
Israel “propped up” Hamas only in the sense that it wanted Palestinian leadership divided. That would prevent pressure to make concessions.
The fact that it propped up Hamas does not mean it intended Hamas to go out of control up to and including October 7 atrocities.
The whole scheme went out of control and today can be described as “too clever by half”. What made sense up to 2020 no longer makes sense since. It is certainly not a reason for Israel to throw in the towel and not attempt to destroy Hamas, regardless of whether it helped it in the past.
“When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, Sir”
–John Maynard Keynes
Israel is trapped. Whether this was ever avoidable debatable. Since it’s inception enemies have sought it’s destruction and rarely shown a desire or ability to peacefully co-exist. Thus a siege-mentality, with few options but to ‘kettle-up’ the threat and hunker down for the long term likely always the outcome.
Even now Hamas leaders Khaled Meshaal and Yehiya Sinwar state 7/10 a great day and one they wish to repeat. They are unmoveable in wanting the destruction of Israel from the River to the Sea. Hezbollah and the Iranian Autocracy vomit the same implacable hatred.
Not sure whether Author realistically thinks an Arab peacekeeping mandate of sorts a possible outcome. It’s highly unlikely. Total poison chalice for Saudi’s or Egyptians. (By the way Saudi’s not allied with Muslim Brotherhood and Author mistaken to suggest that. Brotherhood would want the end of the monarchy. We need to further understand all the rival factions within the Arab and Iranian world to appreciate why Palestinians are but pawns).
If the Iranian regime fell and was replaced then it’s possible much in the Middle East might change. We can forget that below the Autocrats there are large sections of their societies repressed and desiring change. Maybe all Israel can do is wait and hope for other dynamics to evolve.
Lovely depressing read. Immoral “bitter lesson [of] realism” brilliantly conveyed.
Not much space for self actualisation or agency of the subjects in here.
Realism is relative. Try a pragmatic lens! The likes of Machiavelli and Clausewitz recognised that you don’t create peace through appeasement but by defeating your enemy. Only then can you build a more productive and peaceful cohabitation; and then only by behaving with magnanimity.
Israel has absolutely no intention of cohabiting with the non-Israeli Arabs whose land they stole.
Think I need to go and talk to all the palestinians who peacefully cohabit with the Israelis in Israel. As perhaps, so should you.
You don’t know the facts about Israeli society.
“you don’t create peace through appeasement but by defeating your enemy. Only then can you build a more productive and peaceful cohabitation”
The way the Allies created peace after defeating Germany in World War 1? Why not work on building a more productive and peaceful cohabitation *before* the war rather than after?
Describing a position as “Realism” is just a device to use in an argument so as to make it appear that whatever one is saying is actually REAL, actually the truth. You could present both sides of any argument and tag those conflicting positions as “realism” if that is your bent. My advice, strip out the use of this “realism” camouflage term entirely, and judge the context of the arguments on merit alone. In this context, this particular article fails on most every point it makes.
That was my first thought too – about the use of the term “realism” – and especially so after the author made reference to other writers (including on Unherd) who’d also used the term.
It’s a redundant way of making a case, which as you rightly point out, should simply stand or fall by its merits. The same might also apply to a ‘moral’ case. One might therefore ask: from where does the concept of ‘merit’ arise, or how does it succeed?
I’m not sure i know the answer to that, except the actual absence of a frame of reference , or ‘special pleading’.
And how can anyone use the term ‘Realism’ without pointing out that EVERY single problem in Islam’s engagement with the West stems from their close and devout adherence to the tenets and commands of the Quran and Hadiths.
No Howard, thats not accurate. Realism is an accepted philosophical approach to International Relations. It seeks to remove any notions of ‘morality’ or ‘justification’. Its about looking at a state’s desire for control and authority no matter what that entails. By all means disagree with the authors interpretations but make sure your understanding of ‘Realism’ as a kind of doctrine is thorough first, otherwise you’ll sound intellectually confused.
I don’t know how serious analysts can call Gaza an occupation before autumn last year, when a terrorist government was tolerated by Tel Aviv for more than 15 years. All the Israelis did was secure their borders; look at the tragedy resulting in such tolerance.
It’s a fiction of the Left, one of the many they’ve kept going to prop up the Intifadas since the 1970s. The complacency has resulted in partial ethnic cleansing as a byproduct of Hamas’ policy of mass sacrifice of their civillians.
They control who and what gets in and out, the taxes, the electricity, the internet, medical access, access to employment, right to travel etc etc but they aren’t an occupying power? What are they then?
“They control who and what gets in and out”
How did the considerable quantities of weaponry get there? Serious question.
A down vote for what is blatantly untrue!
The key assumption in this essay is apparent in the expression “… the defeat of Palestinian nationalism in 1993 …”, i.e., that the Oslo accords, with their ostensible (but possibly not sincere …) endorsement by the Palestinians of a two-state solution, represents the defeat of Palestinian nationalism. In other words, the author admits that genuine Palestinian nationalism does not ultimately aim to establish an independent Palestinian state, as the Oslo accords would eventually have allowed, but rather, it aims to dismantle the Jewish state in Palestine. If this was not obvious enough after the repeated rejections by the Palestinians of a two-state solution (Camp David 2000, Condoleeza Rice/Ehud Olmert proposal 2008), the total disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and the Palestinians’ ensuing misuse of billions in foreign aid to transform it into a fortress from which to attack Israel, rather than a Singapore-on-the-Mediterranean, should dispel any doubt. The events of October 7, and the massive ongoing endorsement by Palestinian opinion of these massacres, also leave little doubt as to the way that they envision the dismantling of Israel should take place …
So it is not that Israel refuses to acknowledge its own domination over the Palestinians. It is that Israel acknowledges that its domination over the Palestinians is inevitable as long as the Palestinian dream of an independent nation is subordinate to their dream of eradicating the Jewish nation. Israelis are the ultimate realists.
Where does that leave us? This is where realism must confront ideology. The only long-term solution is indeed a two-state solution, and for that to be viable, the Palestinian ideology of Greater Palestine must be defeated. This will not happen overnight. It will not happen as long as outside powers – Iran, Qatar – use the Palestinians as pawns in their struggle against Israel. Nor as long as the international community continues to support the Palestinian “right of return” by giving continuing support, via UNWRA, to their unique claim of being “refugees” even after 3, 4 and 5 generations. Nor as long as large parts of the Western and Arab “street” continue to see the Palestinian “cause” (“from the river to the sea”) as central to their identity (why they do so deserves a separate analysis). Israel has very little influence on all of this.
Meanwhile, the Israelis will realistically do everything they need to survive, while wishfully hoping for better times.
The key assumption in this essay is apparent in the expression “… the defeat of Palestinian nationalism in 1993 …”, i.e., that the Oslo accords, with their ostensible (but possibly not sincere …) endorsement by the Palestinians of a two-state solution, represents the defeat of Palestinian nationalism. In other words, the author admits that genuine Palestinian nationalism does not ultimately aim to establish an independent Palestinian state, as the Oslo accords would eventually have allowed, but rather, it aims to dismantle the Jewish state in Palestine. If this was not obvious enough after the repeated rejections by the Palestinians of a two-state solution (Camp David 2000, Condoleeza Rice/Ehud Olmert proposal 2008), the total disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and the Palestinians’ ensuing misuse of billions in foreign aid to transform it into a fortress from which to attack Israel, rather than a Singapore-on-the-Mediterranean, should dispel any doubt. The events of October 7, and the massive ongoing endorsement by Palestinian opinion of these massacres, also leave little doubt as to the way that they envision the dismantling of Israel should take place …
So it is not that Israel refuses to acknowledge its own domination over the Palestinians. It is that Israel acknowledges that its domination over the Palestinians is inevitable as long as the Palestinian dream of an independent nation is subordinate to their dream of eradicating the Jewish nation. Israelis are the ultimate realists.
Where does that leave us? This is where realism must confront ideology. The only long-term solution is indeed a two-state solution, and for that to be viable, the Palestinian ideology of Greater Palestine must be defeated. This will not happen overnight. It will not happen as long as outside powers – Iran, Qatar – use the Palestinians as pawns in their struggle against Israel. Nor as long as the international community continues to support the Palestinian “right of return” by giving continuing support, via UNWRA, to their unique claim of being “refugees” even after 3, 4 and 5 generations. Nor as long as large parts of the Western and Arab “street” continue to see the Palestinian “cause” (“from the river to the sea”) as central to their identity (why they do so deserves a separate analysis). Israel has very little influence on all of this.
Meanwhile, the Israelis will realistically do everything they need to survive, while wishfully hoping for better times.
So the problem is that Israel refuses to accept victory, not that the Palestinians refuse to accept defeat. I have to say, that’s a new angle, and with so many specious angles already backing Israel into an impossible corner, finding a new one is quite a feat.
Writing recently for UnHerd, Thomas Fazi claimed that the arguments of realism actually fit the war in Gaza very well. He argues that just as any realist appraisal of the Russian invasion of Ukraine must acknowledge the role of Nato expansion, so too an explanation of this war needs to be as rooted in the regime imposed by Israel on the Gaza strip as in the horrors of the Hamas atrocities last year.
—————————————————-
Believing that Russia is invading Ukraine due to NATO expansion to the East is a very popular misconception among Western experts and readers. The naivety of readers is understandable. Fazi’s stupidity is unforgivable.
I will repeat for the last time – Russia has never seriously considered the independence of Ukraine.
For those who doubt this, I would advise reading the poem “On the Independence of Ukraine” by the poet Joseph Brodsky, so respected in the West, which is saturated with malice, bile and hatred.
In addition, Fazi’s words about “the regime imposed by Israel on the Gaza strip” are puzzling. Here I am completely confused. What regime, when, who is there and what is in charge?
University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, the doyen of American realism, is an expert on all issues and is therefore on the same level in both conflicts as the numerous talking heads on YouTube and on television talking about the coming climate catastrophe. But the public likes him…
It’s understandable because it’s true; Russia warned the West for decades that Ukraine joining NATO was the brightest of red lines… and here we are.
Yes, nothing like a poem to establish a country’s leaders’ intentions.
And you call Fazi stupid.
Yes, nothing like a poem to establish a country’s leaders’ intentions.
——-
This was simply an example of what the most educated and liberal Russians thought.
Or do you seriously believe that the Russian apparatchiks, who always ruled Russia after 1991, were more friendly towards Ukraine?
Sorry, you insult my intelligence.
Yes, one poem is an example “of what the most educated and liberal Russians thought.” Apparently.
The USSR was run by Ukrainians much of the time. Russian leaders do not foster nationalism or racism because they have something like 80 different ethnic groups in the federation and cannot afford to make them restive.
Whereas the US/UK have been fostering extreme Ukrainian ethnosupremacism – ie, Russophobia – since the end of WWII with Bandera and Lebed.
As for your intelligence… not seeing much evidence it’s particularly penetrating.
You are missing the point of realism.
‘Believing that Russia is invading Ukraine due to NATO expansion to the East is a very popular misconception among Western experts and readers.’
But it was one of Russias concerns that contributed to the war. No war starts for one single reason but a build up of misunderstandings, disagreements and poor leadership on one or both sides.
Realism involves taking the FACTS from both sides of the argument and considering them carefully. Then you need your moral handbook – which will be different between people depending on where you come from and what you value. Therefore you also have to consider the morals and values of the other side. Then you can start to make a REALISTIC judgement, based firmly in reality but also on those morals and values of a realistic way forward. Then you can come up with ideas for solutions that will work IN REALITY. With REALISM.
So you say: Russia has never seriously considered the independence of Ukraine
OK. Fair enough. So how do you find a solution to the conflict?
You have to consider that russia has said, IN REALITY ie: it is a fact that they believe – that NATO expansion is a problem. So it is ONE factor to consider when thinking of a realistic solution.
The point you mention – that they do not consider ukraine to be independent is simply another factor to consider alongside the point about NATO. Both are valid considerations.
Then you can consider all the other causes, for example: the maidan revolution and the fall out from that, the role of the US, the role of Europe etc. You can even consider your poem in there if you like.
Then to find a solution you have to consider all of those things, put them together and ask what is a REALISTIC SOLUTION to the conflict that is practicable in REAL life and acceptable to both sides so that peace can be achieved.
If peace cannot be achieved you are looking at a war that will last until one side is exhausted of munitions and soldiers or bankrupt.
You are missing the point of realism.
—-
I didn’t talk about ways to resolve the conflict, I talked about its causes. You in the West are too accustomed to consider yourself super-important, being sure that conflicts arise at your request or because of your mistakes in all these banana republics. Meanwhile, Russia was preparing to seize Ukraine immediately after the collapse of the USSR, there is documentary evidence of this.
Your point of realism is the surrender of Ukraine and the subsequent destruction of the Ukrainian nation.This is literally the same thing that your politicians, your useful idiots and your already Muslims demand from Israel – “Peace Now”, “From the River to the Sea”, leaving the Arabs and Iran to complete what Europe, with varying degrees of zeal, did not manage to do in 1940 years
Alas, you are too often stupid observers, and when it comes to Russia, you are also hopeless cowards. Putin is a pathological coward, he led troops around Ukraine for weeks until he received permission from the degenerate Biden “Well, if it is a small invasion”
I don’t see realistic solution for the simple reason – in both conflicts your fat and stupid West society only follows events, you are object of the history, you are not it’s subject.
You said that: Believing that Russia is invading Ukraine due to NATO expansion to the East is a very popular misconception among Western experts and readers.
Then called Fazi stupid.
I was pointing out that it is not a misconception but a FACT. Facts are important when it comes to realism.
‘I didn’t talk about ways to resolve the conflict, I talked about its causes.’ –
So did I, I pointed out that NATO expansion was ONE of the causes given by Russia.
‘ Your point of realism is the surrender of Ukraine and the subsequent destruction of the Ukrainian nation.This is literally the same thing that your politicians, your useful idiots and your already Muslims demand from Israel – “Peace Now”,’
My point was never that at all. All my points have been made from a realist perspective. Nobody has called for the complete surrender of Ukraine.
‘ I don’t see realistic solution for the simple reason – in both conflicts your fat and stupid West society only follows events, you are object of the history, you are not it’s subject’
LMAO. Well if you don’t see a realistic solution there is little more to say. You are demonstrating a severe lack of intelligence. So you see NO realistic solution to either conflict? Or are you saying that the west has no influence over events?
– ‘Alas, you are too often stupid observers, and when it comes to Russia, you are also hopeless cowards.’
And yet you cannot see a realistic solution? If you want to accuse everyone else of stupidity and cowardice you really need to demonstrate that you have a better, realistic solution or a better understanding of the conflict than they do. You are not doing a good job at that. We should keep throwing the army at it then until one side is exhausted so we aren’t cowards? Instead of pushing for a peace deal when a good negotiation window opens? Interesting. I hope you are not in charge of anyone’s foreign policy.
‘You in the West’ – where are you from then?
I was pointing out that it is not a misconception but a FACT.
—
Caps Lock has never impressed me.
The Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian SFSR – 12 June 1990, the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine – July 16, 1990. Compare dates, please. The then Ukrainian government decided to take this step only after Russia; Kravchuk was a cautious politician.
Nevertheless, it was the Russians who have since blamed Ukraine for the collapse of the USSR according to the principle Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. I can cite statements from Yeltsin’s advisers and his officials that the act of independence of Ukraine is legally invalid and Russia has territorial claims to this “artificial formation”; it’s just that the search will take time, so take my word for it. Note that there was not a word about NATO at that time, it was in 1990-1991. By the way, today’s rhetoric of the great historian Putin is a literal repetition of what was said then, except that NATO appeared for dessert.
Fazi is a communist or a leftist progressive, it doesn’t matter. Like any communist, he loves the USSR as his dream of equality, like the progressive left, he hates Israelis and is too old to become smarter and see reality for what it is. But I still hope and that’s why I’m rude to him.
—
My point was never that at all. All my points have been made from a realist perspective. Nobody has called for the complete surrender of Ukraine.
—
You still don’t see that Putin and Hamas abide by any agreements, guided by the same principles. You’re scaring me. By the way, do you know about the existence of the Budapest Memorandum?
—
LMAO. Well if you don’t see a realistic solution there is little more to say. You are demonstrating a severe lack of intelligence. So you see NO realistic solution to either conflict? Or are you saying that the west has no influence over events?
—
The West now has only one intention – pacification. The West’s only influence on events was to react to them by transferring the initiative to the aggressor. Do you remember how urgently the West offered Zelensky a plane and a cozy apartment somewhere in Europe?
The only realistic solution is to understand that we have wars and we must win. Otherwise, let’s give up.
—
‘Alas, you are too often stupid observers, and when it comes to Russia, you are also hopeless cowards.’
—
It’s about your politicians.
—
‘You in the West’ – where are you from then?
—
Try to guess for yourself 🙂
‘Caps Lock has never impressed me’
Sorry about that I’m posting from my phone and I can’t seem to do bold text like you can.
‘You still don’t see that Putin and Hamas abide by any agreements, guided by the same principles’
Perhaps they won’t but I’m not sure we are doing a good job of fighting them either.
‘But I still hope and that’s why I’m rude to him.’
Fair enough. I’m rude sometimes too.
‘The West now has only one type of influence over events – pacification.
The only realistic solution is to understand that we have wars and we must win.’
Yes I agree to an extent but unfortunately we aren’t very good at that at the moment though. We seem to be trying to have a big war we are not ready for, it’s OK saying we must fight and must win – you try telling the Americans that. They can’t even count their bullets at the moment. Or their money. Peace isn’t so bad either, at least nobody gets shot or missile attacked. I’m not a peace at all costs type though.
I will not try to guess where you are, we could be here all day. East of the west I assume.
Thank you and sorry if I was too rude for you.
I understood my mistake immediately after “Sorry about that I’m posting from my phone and I can’t seem to do bold” 🙂
I enjoyed our exchange, no problem at all, I didn’t think you were rude. I’m rude anyway 🙂
Neither does BOLD print; I find it invariably irritating and read no further.
If you about me, I use bold for quotes. Take a look above
Hopefully El Uro, it will be for the last time, because many of us do not agree with you. The impetus for the conflict was Ukraine joining NATO.
Do you think I wrote a comment here to seek agreement or approval? I’m too old for this. This kind of behavior is more common among modern young people; I remember the shock that one American professor experienced 10 years ago when he found out that before answering any ethical questions, students consult with their fellow students.
There are some intersting insights but I do think this is leading nowhere. These wars are a clash of civilisations and will take many centuries to subside. Who will win ? Those who shall live long enough will be able to see. I am not sure they will like the look of it
the fact of Palestinian national defeat. –> since the thesis here is realism, how does one take such a view when there has never been a sovereign Palestinian state? Until the middle of the 20th century, I’m not sure the term “Palestinians” carried much weight. But regardless, 1993 represented the time in which the would-be nation chose instead to commit suicide. The plan was there. Bill Clinton thought he had achieved the political coup of a lifetime. And the rest is a sorry history.
Somehow, Israel has managed to co-exist among Arabs and Muslims for decades. Just a few years ago, those relations were broadening. But the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the people who fund them refuse to move past the goal of annihilating the Jewish state. When someone wants you dead, I’m not sure how you negotiate with them.
Soviet disinformation masters created the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1964. The label ‘Palestinian People’ first appeared in the PLO charter drafted in Moscow in 1964. These labels were first used in the Western Press in 1967. Before that they were Israeli Arabs.
This article is the biggest load of twaddle
That coming from you, BB is a great indicator of its accuracy!
To create a Palestinian state out of the kind of international protectorate described in the article, the process that led to the creation of the modern German government would be a good one to follow. The protectorate, overseen perhaps by Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Emiratis, Gaza could be rebuilt and evolve back to self-government more or less the way the western occupation zones Germany did after World War II. The process began with foreign military rule that insisted on denazification to the maximum extent practicable, and a similar process would be needed to neutralize the toxic ideology that governed the place up to its defeat. Likewise, a version of the demilitarization initially imposed would be just as important, for the Palestinian Arab territories can have no future if they insist on attacking Israel and provoking Israeli counterattacks. Who is going to invest in a place where anything they build is bound to be blown up? Elected self-government could start at the municipal level and work up to the territorial. After self-government is restored in Gaza, the two Palestinian Arab enclaves could work toward a “national” election the way the German states in the occupation zones of the US, UK and France did then.
It’s been tried. The UN established outposts in southern Lebanon to keep Hezbollah from coming to the border of Israel. The UN mission was swallowed whole by Hezbollah and became a wholly owned asset like the UN was in Gaza. For any ‘international protectorate’ to be effective it must have permission to engage militarily or police with the threat of live fire or it will be as impotent as the UN.
(Duplicate)
The machinations of Netanyahu and his Zionist myrmidons are beyond belief: they will do anything and with anyone to expel, one way or another, the Palestinians from their homeland. They are often caught saying this but the US and Europe continue to aid and abet them. Bibi will not accept a Hamas surrender, only their extermination, because that is part of his plan to make life impossible for Palestinians to remain in Gaza (and, next, the West Bank).
your obtuse and misleading opinion stems from professors like Philip Cunliffe writing such nonsense
Wouldn’t you do the same with fanatics who are hell bent on your destruction?
Your news sources must be wrong. Israel has several times tried to accept a surrender. Each time they cease hostilities, Hamas just resumes its terrorist attacks. How do you reason with a foe that seeks to exterminate you?
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/hamas-official-vows-to-repeat-attacks-on-israel-again-and-again-until-it-s-destroyed-196930629782
I understand where you are coming from. It is hard to imagine that there are people living in the world who just love to hate and hurt others for the sheer visceral joy of it – that no amount of talking, money, or reparations will ever satisfy their bloodlust.
It is so much easier to believe that people who commit such heinous atrocities must have had a jolly good reason to get so worked up.
Much to agree with this excellent piece but I’m not sure Israel needs to accepts her dominance. This has always been acknowledged and indeed been the overiding mission for the IDF and other services for as long as I can remember. I’ve often said the real issue is that the Palestinians never accepted they lost and moved on, but perhaps it is really the rest of the world that needs to accept they lost. The reality is, Israel is in the current position because the same people calling for a ceasefire and decrying the number of deaths now are the same ones who are telling the Palestinians they can get back what they lost and perpetuating the problem with no end in sight.
This is a bizarre andnonsensical argument. 1993 did not represent the defeat of Palestinian Nationalism. It represented the defeat of Israeli utopianism. Israel operated under the delusion that Yasser Arafat was a budding Sadat who would take a realist approach and accept limitations on Palestinian maximalist aspirations. In reality he was a bloodthirsty monster who’s only difference from Hamas being that his goal was limited to murdering Jews and destroying Israel, not re-creating the Islamic caliphate. By agreeing to Oslo, Israel not only rehabilitated Arafat and the PLO but created an irrevocable fact on the ground that has proven utterly disastrous. Israel has NO desire to rule Palestinians or (obviously) to incorporate them into Israel. Israel simply wishes to be left alone. The conflict continues because 1. The Palestinians insist on it and 2. The world does not allow Israel to impose a true defeat that might change Palestinian thinking.
“Israel simply wishes to be left alone” the way a home invader wishes the people he kicked out of their house would stop trying to get back in.
Unless it was his house originally.
WELL SAID
The defeat of the Palestinians was their leaders’ fault .. yes, all of them, to refuse all the offers made by Israel.
Bassam Eid, a palestinian activist wrote an excellent piece in Newsweek dated December 28 2023.
https://www.newsweek.com/my-fellow-palestinians-its-time-get-rid-our-leaders-accept-israels-offers-peace-opinion-1864654
Readers expect ‘better’ from a professor of your standing, but perhaps you have another agenda.
Israelophobia by Jake Wallis Simons is an excellent read, printed in 2023, as is George Deek’s speech in Oslo in 2009, on You Tube titled ‘best speech given by Israeli diplomat.
No wonder much of the world follows the fools theory when reading your claptrap.
The Gazans chose a dark future by holding onto hatred and electing Hamas. When the Gazans choices culminated in the antihuman horrors of Oct 7, their fate was sealed. Israel must drive them out. If surrounding nations attack Israel, The West needs to support Israel and answer any threat. For too long The West has tried to reform the barbarism of the Arab world with bribes and interventionist.
It must be me but this article is a lot of gobbledegook. 30,000 dead Palestinians, and what that means for the future, isn’t a factor apparently.
There has never been any, repeat any, demonstratable data that your 30,000 is to any degree accurate.
Yes. Remember them saying 500 were killed in a hospital? It was shown Hamas rockets misfired and landed in the hospital parking lot. Israel had nothing to do with that.
Not only that, but there was zero evidence of anybody being killed by the Hamas rocket.
Oh, here we go.
“Prior to October 7, the dependence of the Hamas authorities on the Israeli state was so extreme that the strip could be characterised as a de facto devolved province of Israel itself, with Hamas expanding to fill the vacuum left by the Israeli military and settler withdrawal in 2005.”
As with many critiques of Israel, the bigotry of low expectations of the Palestinian people drips throughout this piece. While Israel certainly could have handled its withdrawal from Gaza better, is this really a credible excuse for the Palestinians’ failure to govern themselves effectively – both in Gaza and the West Bank? It was after Israel’s withdrawal, which could have been used to demonstrate a model for responsible Palestinian governance, that Palestinians instead elected Hamas. They chose a violent Islamist extremist group committed to Israel’s destruction to govern them; It wasn’t Israel that decided that, Palestinians did.
If there truly is “no agency that can legitimately claim to act on behalf of the Palestinian nation and imprint its demands on the political process,” as Mr. Cunliffe believes, shouldn’t it be up to Palestinians to resolve that? I certainly don’t believe they are as helpless as Mr. Cunliffe makes them out to be. They’re quite capable of choosing a future that doesn’t rely on the strategy of violence that has proven to be rather consistently ineffective at improving the lot of the Arab population of the region for more than 100 years.
Hamas didn’t think about drilling wells, laying pipes and distributing water to its people. Same with establishing electric stations and supplying electricity. Israel supplied it to them out of kindness to the extent of forgiving millions of debt. It would have been easy for you, me or any civilized person to contact Hyatt, Hilton and many others to develop a Mediterranean shoreline and reap tourist dollars. Low expectations and helplessness may be more logical than you’d like to think.
There is a big difference between having low expectations based on a history of disappointment and the bigotry of low expectations, which excuses groups of people as simply incapable of doing any better.
The Palestinians in Gaza also shut down all the businesses that had been built up in Gaza prior to 2005 by the Israelis. Far more profitable to live off the UN.
The only reason to support Israel in this war is if you believe in the actual existence of God and the imminent second coming of Christ. Christians and Jews support Israel. Atheists are concerned with Oil and Palestinians. Woke Ideas about Colonialism are only important in the West, not to the fighting parties involved in a religious war.
This is a holy war over sacred sites in Jerusalem as predicted in the bible. “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it” Gaza is just a sideshow in the view of both Jews and Moslems. The western audience is concerned about the people of Palestine. To the rest of the Islamic world, they are just pawns to excite western sympathy. Originally, they were not allowed to move to other Arab nations because of their pawn value. Arab nations are now afraid to accept Palestinians for fear that they might murder their hosts. Many Arab nations now want peace, but the Palestinians won’t let them, having, rejected all land offers by Israel or any two-state solution. They totally favor Hama and its genocidal plans. Israel has decided that all Biden’s efforts to create a two-state solution are impossible since the Palestinians, not Israel, have said no. God has also decided to move American Jews to Israel because he plans to destroy America for its Woke sins. Babylon in Revelations means America. He has allowed the Woke groups that American Jews marched with to cry for the genocide of the Jews. This will scare American Jews into fleeing to Israel. The Woke rulers of America are about to abandon Israel and when that happens God will no longer stay his judgement upon America. Revelation 18 ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’[a]
She has become a dwelling for demons.and a haunt for every impure spirit, Then I heard another voice from heaven say;“‘Come out of her, my people,’[b] so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city, you mighty city of Babylon!In one hour your doom has come!’11 “The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore
There are a multitude of problems with your comment from my perspective.
The smart solution to the problem of the Palestinians would be to move them to the Saraha desert. God can resolve his debt to the Palestinians that He incurred when he moved the Jews to Israel. This is a large piece of land where no one lives. It can be turned into the breadbasket of the world using seawater irrigation of GMO crops. Use genes from seagrass and other saltwater plants. No weeds will grow in fields of saltwater crops. It is also the way the problems of Esaw and Jacob were resolved in the Bible. The story of the two sons of Isack is a parable of Israel and Palestinians. The problem of Jacob stealing Esaw’s birthright was resolved when Esaw forgave Jacob and then moved a month’s journey away from his brother in order to avoid being cheated again. God put this story in the Bible 4000 years ago in order to show how to resolve a 21st century problem.
This is a strikingly ahistorical analysis; its perspective too focused on events since 1993. But looking more broadly at several waves of Arab-led programs against Jews during the 1920s and 1930s; the Palestinian leadership’s active embrace and collaboration with Nazi Germany, to the extent that if Rommel had succeeded, the Mufti of Jerusalem -Arafat’s uncle! – would have been sent in from the Balkans to set up gas chambers, and the fiction of Palestinian nationalism, which was silent when occupied by Egypt and Jordan post-WWII, a truly realist analysis should be based on the fact that Jew-hating is baked into the DNA of Arab political culture, whether secular or religious.
I’m happy to see another article about Israel. I live in Israel and I want to see opinions as the war continues. I hope I can add to the defense of Israel if I can. It’s interesting to read again about the new term, Realism. I’m sure its author would like it to be an accepted ‘ism’ along with real ones like Communism and Judaism. In the same way Kant demonstrated ‘reason’ to be subjective I think ‘reality’ is just as subjective. Millions really think Israel caused this war.
What the writer barely mentions as most Leftists and One World types downplay is Islam. After the 30 Years War, Catholics and Protestants decided not to behead or burn each other at the stake. They even tried to include Jews. Everybody became tolerant. It was The Enlightenment. Invited or not, wanting to be included or not Islam never joined.
The reality people knew for sure about Islam from 600 on, was its consistent desire to conquer. I think it’s a religious tenet. Their religious leaders shout it from the pulpit. They store weapons in Mosques. Conquering infidel lands has always been as ubiquitous as Black Friday and the Passover service. It’s that Islamic tenet that Israel fights as may England, France and most of Europe if they don’t totally submit first.
This author writes about ‘sovereignty over its subjects’ and an ‘iron fist of oppression’. We haven’t seen Bobbies do much on the streets of London or gendarmes in Paris. One thing people see is dozens if not hundreds of Muslims rolling out prayer rugs on busy streets whenever they want as if the street is theirs. No-go zones definitely exist and it’s different than South Chicago, North St. Louis and East LA.
This author may bandy around Theocracy but doesn’t seem to know about Kleptocracy. Israel wasn’t dividing to conquer. It mistakenly thought one day Israel and Gaza or Israel and the PA could be like America and Canada or the EU if it offered friendship, common goals and assistance. Now it seems diplomatic solutions are a fantasy if not a joke. As we watch Europe descend into what may become real Dhimmihood it will be Europeans who will need to choose whether or not to arm and stop the real aggressors.
I see the only solution as Israel occupying Gaza and maintaining administrative control. I believe this would be preferable to a UN or Arab Protectorate, in that the Palestinians in Gaza would learn to live with the Israel, as the Palestinians in Israel are now doing. The anti-israeli indoctrination of the Gazans will take over a generation to resolved. The two state solution or the incorporation of Gaza (with its 4.5 million palestinians) into the Israeli state are non-starters in the quest for peace in the middle east.
Oct 7th has brought back the realism of ‘Never Again’ to the Israeli people.
Cunliffes’s analysis is quite powerful because it sheds emotional distraction from recognition of the objective power relationships. The current feeling driven mindset of protestors against Israel only delays the time for peace and stability.
Simplistic point of view I know, but where is the opinion of the other 51% of the population? Where is the encouragement from the West to give women their voice? All we see is pictures of women crying over their dead children. Because that then pulls at the heartstrings of parents and would-be parents in the West. Where are the “hags” and “crones” who, in every society, have solutions. Where are the young women who want to change the world? We, in the West, are as bad as Hamas when we stifle their voices and prevent them from putting forward solutions. Men on all sides haven’t done a great job so far…
While I agree 100% with the realist argument here, I think Israel has won the moral argument as well.
Like most commentators on this issue, this one ignores the simple fact that Palestinians repeatedly rejected any palestinian state that allowed any Jewish presence in Israel.
The first time any Palestinian leader accepted the existence of Israel was at Oslo in 1993.
That acceptance was a deception. Arafat made it quite clear (in Arabic speeches) to his supporters and other Arab states that his ultimate goal remained destruction of Israel. He acted accordingly, supporting attacks on Israel from the West Bank and Gaza from the outset.
Attempts by Israel to stop these with further concessions were repeatedly rejected, because Israel always demanded concrete and permanent recognition.
My suggested solution is for Israel to annex Gaza and the West Bank in a new federal state, outlaw antisemitism and Islamophobia, impose an educational curriculum that teaches the truth about the region and advocates tolerance in a multicultural state.
The eventual goal would be a binational state with Jewish and other groups rights guaranteed.
So ‘realism’ would dictate that Ukraine remain undefendable and hence effectively lose its sovereignty, being thus obliged to do whatever Moscow says for fear of invasion.
The hallmark of any elitist self-aggrandising autocrat.
.. a professor with a pea for a brain and no rationale
A terrible word salad article, just what you would expect from an academic. How could one write an entire essay about the role of ‘realism’ in evaluating the Palestinian situation, and about the necessity of Israel accepting ‘reality,’ and not give any attention to the most salient ‘real’ fact in this conflict: one side doesn’t want peace. That’s the main thing to know about what’s ‘really’ going on.
It is a good attempt to put one’s arms around the conflict, and give it some logical explanation, however the author is missing its key point. He attemps, like many other pundits, to treat the conflict as if it were between two, roughly equal entities: State of Israel and the Palestinian nation. But are we sure that the latter one actually exists? It takes more than land and language (and a short history of struggle) to form a nation. The article therefore implicitly suggests nation building (protectorate can only last so long), an effort with poor track of being successful in the history nation-states.
Having said that I agree with the conclusions: Palestinians, as a nation or not, are the Israel’s problem and should be approached by the Jewish state as such.
All countries in the middle east have many ethnic minorities which are denied full rights. Do the Christians of Lebanon, Or the Kurds of Iraq have democratic rights? Who marches for them? The Palestinians must simply learn to make some similar space within the Zionist state.