Hi Benjamin, thanks for answering. I appreciate the coverage you do using the access you have, and the trust you get from people in the IDF. I also appreciate all the coverage you do focusing on the sacrifice of the people serving in the armed forces, whose sacrifice is neither well understood nor well appreciated. I also understand ( in…
Hi Benjamin, thanks for answering. I appreciate the coverage you do using the access you have, and the trust you get from people in the IDF. I also appreciate all the coverage you do focusing on the sacrifice of the people serving in the armed forces, whose sacrifice is neither well understood nor well appreciated. I also understand ( in the abstract, I have never served in a military, nor participated in a conflict) that war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas to its participants with decision-making that happens instinctively when facing life or death situations, I can only have empathy for that, and thank you for your service.
Beyond that, one can only write well from what one knows, and what you know, you cover masterfully. What’s truly valuable about Reich’s principles is that he sat down with pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel students to make sense of what is morally right, and what we can agree on in terms of the conflict. In the case of the picture that you give us misses the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end of the Israeli offensive, on this it is on par with most coverage from center-right sources which do not cover at all the Palestinian viewpoint.
To caricature, imagine yourself being a male Palestine growing up in Gaza in your 20s: you have grown up in an area half the size of DC under constant bombarding and intervention from the Israeli military. Chances are you have many family members who have been killed in such an intervention in horrific manners, and you have no chance, and no opportunity of getting ahead other than joining Hamas, which gives you prestige, and the opportunity of giving one finger up to the “oppressor”.
And while this choice is morally repugnant, it exists in a context that is the perfect brewing ground for those choices. You cannot solve the Israel/Palestine question without addressing those historical, structural, and political issues. You need to give a choice, and an opportunity to live and thrive to Palestinians, to have their own state to be able to find a path to peace.
And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end. Netanyahu and co. have worked effectively for 30 years to block that path, but it does not mean that it does not exist.
I agree with all of this except about one sentence. "And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end." I think if we learned anything from 20 years in Afghanistan and many years in Iraq (and in Vietnam before that), it takes more than military might to make a society free and stable and viable. I'm not sure Israel actually has the capability to do that.
Israel can create the conditions in Gaza for a free, stable and viable society. They did so in 2OO5. What did the Gazans do with the withdrawl of the IDF?
They gave control to Hamas, who did nothing to help Gaza be viable. Their hatred of Jews is more important.
Israeli leadership is on a position of building towards an outcome that offers that possibility.
Just like Netanyahu and co. walked a path to make it almost impossible to build a path towards a viable two state solution, a new leadership could build towards that.
Carrot and stick, led by people with moral clarity. Empathy towards the others, playing a game that sidelines extremists and offers a path to compromise. it would be extremely difficult and requires commitment in the long run. But it's the only way out.
New leadership? That's up to the Israeli people. Currently, "more Israelis favour Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister than any other leader, and his Likud party is poised to win the most seats in a new election, according to a poll published on Friday" [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-netanyahu-likud-israel-election-poll].
"war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas" - well said.
As to a path to peace, it's on the Gazans to renounce Hamas and their stated goal to eliminate Israel. That's the first step. The first choice to be made. Without that, Israel can only be defensive. There can be no peace until the Gazans recognize Israel's right to exist. The Israelis gave Gaza the opportunity to to live and thrive when they withdrew in 2OO5. In 2OO7, the Gazans gave control to Hamas. Did the Gazans live and thrive? No. As you noted, working for the Hamas "syndicate" was the only path available.
Hi Benjamin, thanks for answering. I appreciate the coverage you do using the access you have, and the trust you get from people in the IDF. I also appreciate all the coverage you do focusing on the sacrifice of the people serving in the armed forces, whose sacrifice is neither well understood nor well appreciated. I also understand ( in the abstract, I have never served in a military, nor participated in a conflict) that war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas to its participants with decision-making that happens instinctively when facing life or death situations, I can only have empathy for that, and thank you for your service.
Beyond that, one can only write well from what one knows, and what you know, you cover masterfully. What’s truly valuable about Reich’s principles is that he sat down with pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel students to make sense of what is morally right, and what we can agree on in terms of the conflict. In the case of the picture that you give us misses the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end of the Israeli offensive, on this it is on par with most coverage from center-right sources which do not cover at all the Palestinian viewpoint.
To caricature, imagine yourself being a male Palestine growing up in Gaza in your 20s: you have grown up in an area half the size of DC under constant bombarding and intervention from the Israeli military. Chances are you have many family members who have been killed in such an intervention in horrific manners, and you have no chance, and no opportunity of getting ahead other than joining Hamas, which gives you prestige, and the opportunity of giving one finger up to the “oppressor”.
And while this choice is morally repugnant, it exists in a context that is the perfect brewing ground for those choices. You cannot solve the Israel/Palestine question without addressing those historical, structural, and political issues. You need to give a choice, and an opportunity to live and thrive to Palestinians, to have their own state to be able to find a path to peace.
And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end. Netanyahu and co. have worked effectively for 30 years to block that path, but it does not mean that it does not exist.
Btw, I also never served. I just write about foreign policy and military topics a lot. Trying to close the civ-mil gap one paragraph at a time.
I agree with all of this except about one sentence. "And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end." I think if we learned anything from 20 years in Afghanistan and many years in Iraq (and in Vietnam before that), it takes more than military might to make a society free and stable and viable. I'm not sure Israel actually has the capability to do that.
Everything else I agree with.
Israel can create the conditions in Gaza for a free, stable and viable society. They did so in 2OO5. What did the Gazans do with the withdrawl of the IDF?
They gave control to Hamas, who did nothing to help Gaza be viable. Their hatred of Jews is more important.
Israeli leadership is on a position of building towards an outcome that offers that possibility.
Just like Netanyahu and co. walked a path to make it almost impossible to build a path towards a viable two state solution, a new leadership could build towards that.
Carrot and stick, led by people with moral clarity. Empathy towards the others, playing a game that sidelines extremists and offers a path to compromise. it would be extremely difficult and requires commitment in the long run. But it's the only way out.
New leadership? That's up to the Israeli people. Currently, "more Israelis favour Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister than any other leader, and his Likud party is poised to win the most seats in a new election, according to a poll published on Friday" [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-netanyahu-likud-israel-election-poll].
Two-state solution? "Prior to the attack, many Israelis supported this path to peace with the Palestinians. Now, 65% oppose it, with nearly half of this shift occurring directly as a result of October 7, reflecting a deepening skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan amid ongoing terrorism and violence emanating from Gaza" [https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/08/02/polling_shows_shift_in_israeli_opinions_of_gaza_and_two-state_solution_1048994.html].
The only way out is for the Gazans to accept Israel's right to exist. Without that, there can be no two-state solution.
"war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas" - well said.
As to a path to peace, it's on the Gazans to renounce Hamas and their stated goal to eliminate Israel. That's the first step. The first choice to be made. Without that, Israel can only be defensive. There can be no peace until the Gazans recognize Israel's right to exist. The Israelis gave Gaza the opportunity to to live and thrive when they withdrew in 2OO5. In 2OO7, the Gazans gave control to Hamas. Did the Gazans live and thrive? No. As you noted, working for the Hamas "syndicate" was the only path available.