Very thoughtful, well written, and illustrates the stumbling block that bias, applied to either side of the discussion, becomes an anchor holding one to a false sense of moral righteousness, and in the case of those in power, the inability to take ownership of institutional responsibility in perpetuating the human toll and suffering we are seeing played out in Palestine today. While Gabriel’s bias is clear regarding his view of Israel as an occupier and an apartheid state, it also treats Hamas gently for the brutality it has inflicted on Palestinian arabs, Israel, and the world at large. Terrorism that for years has included hijackings, the slaughters in Munich, Rome, and the west, and using Arab children as suicide bombers. Hamas and other terrorist factions are not freedom fighters, but brutal terrorists who prey on their own. Not mentioned is it is not only Israel that blockades Gaza, but Egypt and Jordan, who are complicit along with the collective Arab states in tolerating Hamas’s actions, and keeping citizens in Gaza stateless.
There is an undeniable truth that cannot be ignored; Israel since 1948, even in considering it's mistakes, has been grounded in it’s right to exist. Hamas on the other hand has shown it's willingness to embrace any atrocity and to pay any price to achieve the opposite-- the destruction of the nation of Israel, and the death of every jewish citizen they can kill.
While I hold differing opinions surrounding the historical context that underlies the situation in Palestine and Gaza, (https://donstevens.substack.com/p/palestine-why-history-and-context), I appreciate Mr. Kahane’s writing which clearly exposes the capacity of evil that lies within each of us collectively and individually.
The history of Palestine can be explained differently depending on one's bias, but It cannot be undone. The truth is that there is innocent blood flowing in the Jordan that comes from both sides of the conflict.
It is time to cut the anchor of perceived moral superiority that holds Palestine in conflict. Edward Said was quoted, “The paramount thing is that the struggle for equality in Palestine/Israel should be directed toward a humane goal, that is, coexistence and not further suppression and denial.” He is right.
Thank you so much for your very thoughtful comments. In case I hadn't made myself clear in this piece (my previous writing on the subject may make it more obvious), I have no illusions about Hamas' brutal, bloody, and nihilistic project. There will be no peace in the region until they are isolated and made irrelevant. (Easier said than done, of course.) The point I was trying to make about the relationship between occupation and armed resistance is probably worthy of a longer essay, but it's frankly above my pay grade. Suffice it to say here that in the face of brutally repressive occupation, armed resistance is considered by many to be a legitimate tactic (I am essentially a pacifist, though I can nevertheless understand why others are not) — but even among those who practice/believe in armed resistance, and here I am thinking of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, there is a code of conduct. By every metric, Hamas' massacre on 10/7 failed the test of what might be considered noble armed resistance. I'm simultaneously trying to call out younger progressives who, swept up in a movement to which many are newcomers, seem to be reading Frantz Fanon Cliffs Notes and coming away with the sense that 10/7 was "justified," and at the same time, I'm pushing back against what I consider to be a double-standard in the way that we (westerners) deploy the word terrorism: when state actors terrorize (as far-right settlers, with the backing of the IDF, have done in the West Bank), we don't call it terrorism. Double-standards aside, my avoidance of the word 'terrorism'—as with the other isms I refer to on my list—has less to do with trying to sanitize the behavior of individuals and groups who do heinous things than it is a reflection of the belief that such words are used as cudgels to stop conversation, whether politically, diplomatically or in the public square.
-
I read your linked piece, which has much to recommend. A few thoughts/quibbles.
1. You offer an excellent overview of the extent to which Hamas has been an obstacle to peace. Still, you make a crucial and inaccurate elision between Hamas' goals and those of the civilian Palestinian population: while it is plainly stated in Hamas' charter that their goal is a unified state under Islamist rule, polling on 10/6 suggested that 70% of Palestinians in Gaza supported a two-state solution. Hamas, it should be noted, was also incredibly unpopular in Gaza prior to 10/7. Meanwhile, as the noted journalist Peter Beinart has suggested, the meaning of "from the river to the sea" is truly contested. There are those for whom it means "drive every Jew out of the land," and there are others for whom it means "peaceful coexistence." I don't think that one can build a claim around the will and desires of the Palestinian people based on that phrase alone.
2. You are absolutely right in drawing attention to Hamas' misuse of funds intended as humanitarian aid. But as the New York Times belatedly reported today, Netanyahu has been quietly supporting Hamas for years in an effort to divide and delegitimize Palestinian leadership ("we can't negotiate with terrorists," see my earlier point above). "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu said in 2019. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (I wrote about the relationship between Hamas & Netanyahu here: https://gabrielkahane.substack.com/p/how-to-build-a-coalition) All of this is to say that at least for the last decade, Israel has been as much a bad-faith partner for peace as Hamas has been.
3. Another strength of your essay is its attention to the role that neighboring Arab states have played in perpetuating the immiseration of the Palestinian people (I wrote about Egypt's participation in the blockade of Gaza in an earlier piece). All of this is true. But it does not change the fact that Israel behaves like an apartheid state, even if its refusal to formally annex the West Bank gives it a flimsy fig leaf to evade the exact legal definition (though there are many human rights organizations who have nevertheless come to the conclusion that the shoe fits): Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to different courts, restricted freedom of movement, systemic discrimination, property theft, and more. (Palestinian-Israelis have more rights, but are still subject to discrimination. And, most notably, where all diasporic Jews can become Israeli citizens, the same is not true for diasporic Palestinians, even those who are descended from the 700,000 who fled or were forcibly removed during the Nabka. Again, I've yet to see a convincing argument for how ethnostates can also be democracies.) As Nathan Thrall wrote in his landmark essay, "The Separate Regimes Delusion," the argument that apartheid can only exist with formal annexation of the West Bank does not withstand scrutiny: that is to say, it is only by calling it a military occupation (going on 53 years)—even as 700,000 Israeli settlers have descended on the region—that anyone can argue that the second-class status of Palestinians is legally justified.
Whether one uses the term apartheid or not, the conditions under which Palestinians live in the West Bank are cruel, and the Israeli government has been making those conditions gradually worse for the last several decades. Perhaps I should add "apartheid" to the list of buzzwords that obscure the more pressing moral questions: how to offer universal human rights and freedom to Palestinians while working to marginalize Hamas, and creating safety and security for Israeli Jews.
Lastly, a book recommendation: I started yesterday and am now a third of the way through Nathan Thrall's "A Day In the Life of Abed Salama." It is a heartbreakingly clear-eyed account of the kind of discrimination that Palestinians in the region face. I've not finished it, but based on what I've read, would highly suggest adding it to your reading list.
The first thing I would say is thank you! To engage in a dialogue when our viewpoints don't fully align in the manner that you've done is a gift. You're response is thoughtful, considerate, respectful, direct, and reflective of both your words and mine. I wish this could be how all of us bridge the divide that has prevented us from realizing we cannot have a civil society if the sole purpose in our approach to one another is to create division rather than reconcile.
You are correct that relativism regarding a comparative analysis of one behavior being "less evil", either by the act or magnitude of the act is a slide into the double standard you point out. In this regard, past aggression against Israel should not be used by the current government of Israel as as justification for policy that devalues human life or sanctity. To this end Israel has to find the balance between protecting their nationhood and forging not only existence with their neighbors, but existing in partnership with them. It is time to beat swords on both sides of the conflict into plowshares and begin cultivating a rich future for all citizens of Palestine.
To that end, a new era of trust, leadership, and governance is a necessity for both Israel, and a unified Gaza and West Bank. As you point out, the majority of Palestinian Arabs don't support Hamas. I apologize if I did not present my viewpoint on this clearly. I absolutely agree that Hamas is an extreme ideologic organization that is neither the identity of the citizens of Gaza, nor representative of their views. Labelling Palestinians in Gaza as equivalent to Hamas is wrong. Likewise I believe outside of Syria and Iran, most Arab nations do not support Hamas or Islamic Jihad. In fact, Syria and Iran care little for Palestine or it's citizens except to be used as cannon fodder in a greater war against the west.
Regarding the phrase, "From the river to the sea...", I do believe as you stated that many progressives in America believe it means to drive all the Jews from the land. Many use this without understanding context or history, and certainly few if any have any real risk or "skin in the game" when it comes to the ultimate outcome in this conflict. I accept that others may mean it differently, but from what I glean from how it has been used in the country, it does not mean peaceful coexistence.
Finally, there is a reckoning for both Israel, Gaza and the greater Arab population, and the world at large. This conflict cannot be viewed in the context of winning or losing. If Israel prevails in the vision of Netanyahu , Israel is lost to fighting a continual war, and suffering and insecurity persist for the innocents. If Hamas were to prevail Gaza becomes a pawn on a bigger chessboard that could involve Iran and an ever greater regional conflict.
Western Europe and the United State's abilities at best are limited to maintaining the status quo. Ultimately Israel cannot find security through walls, military actions, or illegal taking of lands. It must forge partnerships in securing new governance in Gaza, and the West Bank, and it must be done in partnership through alliances with Arab states that understand their stability is at risk if Israel were to fall. I pray for restoration and that peace would come not for one, but for all.
Superbly written and thank you for recognizing and articulating the constant - if frequently frustrating - nuance in this (and most) power struggles; the wholesale devaluation of which is destroying the ability for virtually any constructive collaboration to thrive or really even exist w/out instant criticism and/or cancellation.
As you point out.
It is of course natural to want to ‘take a side’, particularly for the weak & oppressed, - nothing more old school American than that - but other than the non-controversial position of siding w/murdered innocents - which every human being I know does - this centuries old, heartbreaking inability to coexist seems near impossible to reduce to slogans, -isms and, sadly, solutions. I wish it weren’t so and, as usual, violence seems to never create anything but misery, confusion and more violence.
Very thoughtful, well written, and illustrates the stumbling block that bias, applied to either side of the discussion, becomes an anchor holding one to a false sense of moral righteousness, and in the case of those in power, the inability to take ownership of institutional responsibility in perpetuating the human toll and suffering we are seeing played out in Palestine today. While Gabriel’s bias is clear regarding his view of Israel as an occupier and an apartheid state, it also treats Hamas gently for the brutality it has inflicted on Palestinian arabs, Israel, and the world at large. Terrorism that for years has included hijackings, the slaughters in Munich, Rome, and the west, and using Arab children as suicide bombers. Hamas and other terrorist factions are not freedom fighters, but brutal terrorists who prey on their own. Not mentioned is it is not only Israel that blockades Gaza, but Egypt and Jordan, who are complicit along with the collective Arab states in tolerating Hamas’s actions, and keeping citizens in Gaza stateless.
There is an undeniable truth that cannot be ignored; Israel since 1948, even in considering it's mistakes, has been grounded in it’s right to exist. Hamas on the other hand has shown it's willingness to embrace any atrocity and to pay any price to achieve the opposite-- the destruction of the nation of Israel, and the death of every jewish citizen they can kill.
While I hold differing opinions surrounding the historical context that underlies the situation in Palestine and Gaza, (https://donstevens.substack.com/p/palestine-why-history-and-context), I appreciate Mr. Kahane’s writing which clearly exposes the capacity of evil that lies within each of us collectively and individually.
The history of Palestine can be explained differently depending on one's bias, but It cannot be undone. The truth is that there is innocent blood flowing in the Jordan that comes from both sides of the conflict.
It is time to cut the anchor of perceived moral superiority that holds Palestine in conflict. Edward Said was quoted, “The paramount thing is that the struggle for equality in Palestine/Israel should be directed toward a humane goal, that is, coexistence and not further suppression and denial.” He is right.
Hi Don—
Thank you so much for your very thoughtful comments. In case I hadn't made myself clear in this piece (my previous writing on the subject may make it more obvious), I have no illusions about Hamas' brutal, bloody, and nihilistic project. There will be no peace in the region until they are isolated and made irrelevant. (Easier said than done, of course.) The point I was trying to make about the relationship between occupation and armed resistance is probably worthy of a longer essay, but it's frankly above my pay grade. Suffice it to say here that in the face of brutally repressive occupation, armed resistance is considered by many to be a legitimate tactic (I am essentially a pacifist, though I can nevertheless understand why others are not) — but even among those who practice/believe in armed resistance, and here I am thinking of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, there is a code of conduct. By every metric, Hamas' massacre on 10/7 failed the test of what might be considered noble armed resistance. I'm simultaneously trying to call out younger progressives who, swept up in a movement to which many are newcomers, seem to be reading Frantz Fanon Cliffs Notes and coming away with the sense that 10/7 was "justified," and at the same time, I'm pushing back against what I consider to be a double-standard in the way that we (westerners) deploy the word terrorism: when state actors terrorize (as far-right settlers, with the backing of the IDF, have done in the West Bank), we don't call it terrorism. Double-standards aside, my avoidance of the word 'terrorism'—as with the other isms I refer to on my list—has less to do with trying to sanitize the behavior of individuals and groups who do heinous things than it is a reflection of the belief that such words are used as cudgels to stop conversation, whether politically, diplomatically or in the public square.
-
I read your linked piece, which has much to recommend. A few thoughts/quibbles.
1. You offer an excellent overview of the extent to which Hamas has been an obstacle to peace. Still, you make a crucial and inaccurate elision between Hamas' goals and those of the civilian Palestinian population: while it is plainly stated in Hamas' charter that their goal is a unified state under Islamist rule, polling on 10/6 suggested that 70% of Palestinians in Gaza supported a two-state solution. Hamas, it should be noted, was also incredibly unpopular in Gaza prior to 10/7. Meanwhile, as the noted journalist Peter Beinart has suggested, the meaning of "from the river to the sea" is truly contested. There are those for whom it means "drive every Jew out of the land," and there are others for whom it means "peaceful coexistence." I don't think that one can build a claim around the will and desires of the Palestinian people based on that phrase alone.
2. You are absolutely right in drawing attention to Hamas' misuse of funds intended as humanitarian aid. But as the New York Times belatedly reported today, Netanyahu has been quietly supporting Hamas for years in an effort to divide and delegitimize Palestinian leadership ("we can't negotiate with terrorists," see my earlier point above). "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu said in 2019. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (I wrote about the relationship between Hamas & Netanyahu here: https://gabrielkahane.substack.com/p/how-to-build-a-coalition) All of this is to say that at least for the last decade, Israel has been as much a bad-faith partner for peace as Hamas has been.
3. Another strength of your essay is its attention to the role that neighboring Arab states have played in perpetuating the immiseration of the Palestinian people (I wrote about Egypt's participation in the blockade of Gaza in an earlier piece). All of this is true. But it does not change the fact that Israel behaves like an apartheid state, even if its refusal to formally annex the West Bank gives it a flimsy fig leaf to evade the exact legal definition (though there are many human rights organizations who have nevertheless come to the conclusion that the shoe fits): Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to different courts, restricted freedom of movement, systemic discrimination, property theft, and more. (Palestinian-Israelis have more rights, but are still subject to discrimination. And, most notably, where all diasporic Jews can become Israeli citizens, the same is not true for diasporic Palestinians, even those who are descended from the 700,000 who fled or were forcibly removed during the Nabka. Again, I've yet to see a convincing argument for how ethnostates can also be democracies.) As Nathan Thrall wrote in his landmark essay, "The Separate Regimes Delusion," the argument that apartheid can only exist with formal annexation of the West Bank does not withstand scrutiny: that is to say, it is only by calling it a military occupation (going on 53 years)—even as 700,000 Israeli settlers have descended on the region—that anyone can argue that the second-class status of Palestinians is legally justified.
Whether one uses the term apartheid or not, the conditions under which Palestinians live in the West Bank are cruel, and the Israeli government has been making those conditions gradually worse for the last several decades. Perhaps I should add "apartheid" to the list of buzzwords that obscure the more pressing moral questions: how to offer universal human rights and freedom to Palestinians while working to marginalize Hamas, and creating safety and security for Israeli Jews.
Lastly, a book recommendation: I started yesterday and am now a third of the way through Nathan Thrall's "A Day In the Life of Abed Salama." It is a heartbreakingly clear-eyed account of the kind of discrimination that Palestinians in the region face. I've not finished it, but based on what I've read, would highly suggest adding it to your reading list.
All my best,
Gabriel
The first thing I would say is thank you! To engage in a dialogue when our viewpoints don't fully align in the manner that you've done is a gift. You're response is thoughtful, considerate, respectful, direct, and reflective of both your words and mine. I wish this could be how all of us bridge the divide that has prevented us from realizing we cannot have a civil society if the sole purpose in our approach to one another is to create division rather than reconcile.
You are correct that relativism regarding a comparative analysis of one behavior being "less evil", either by the act or magnitude of the act is a slide into the double standard you point out. In this regard, past aggression against Israel should not be used by the current government of Israel as as justification for policy that devalues human life or sanctity. To this end Israel has to find the balance between protecting their nationhood and forging not only existence with their neighbors, but existing in partnership with them. It is time to beat swords on both sides of the conflict into plowshares and begin cultivating a rich future for all citizens of Palestine.
To that end, a new era of trust, leadership, and governance is a necessity for both Israel, and a unified Gaza and West Bank. As you point out, the majority of Palestinian Arabs don't support Hamas. I apologize if I did not present my viewpoint on this clearly. I absolutely agree that Hamas is an extreme ideologic organization that is neither the identity of the citizens of Gaza, nor representative of their views. Labelling Palestinians in Gaza as equivalent to Hamas is wrong. Likewise I believe outside of Syria and Iran, most Arab nations do not support Hamas or Islamic Jihad. In fact, Syria and Iran care little for Palestine or it's citizens except to be used as cannon fodder in a greater war against the west.
Regarding the phrase, "From the river to the sea...", I do believe as you stated that many progressives in America believe it means to drive all the Jews from the land. Many use this without understanding context or history, and certainly few if any have any real risk or "skin in the game" when it comes to the ultimate outcome in this conflict. I accept that others may mean it differently, but from what I glean from how it has been used in the country, it does not mean peaceful coexistence.
Finally, there is a reckoning for both Israel, Gaza and the greater Arab population, and the world at large. This conflict cannot be viewed in the context of winning or losing. If Israel prevails in the vision of Netanyahu , Israel is lost to fighting a continual war, and suffering and insecurity persist for the innocents. If Hamas were to prevail Gaza becomes a pawn on a bigger chessboard that could involve Iran and an ever greater regional conflict.
Western Europe and the United State's abilities at best are limited to maintaining the status quo. Ultimately Israel cannot find security through walls, military actions, or illegal taking of lands. It must forge partnerships in securing new governance in Gaza, and the West Bank, and it must be done in partnership through alliances with Arab states that understand their stability is at risk if Israel were to fall. I pray for restoration and that peace would come not for one, but for all.
Superbly written and thank you for recognizing and articulating the constant - if frequently frustrating - nuance in this (and most) power struggles; the wholesale devaluation of which is destroying the ability for virtually any constructive collaboration to thrive or really even exist w/out instant criticism and/or cancellation.
As you point out.
It is of course natural to want to ‘take a side’, particularly for the weak & oppressed, - nothing more old school American than that - but other than the non-controversial position of siding w/murdered innocents - which every human being I know does - this centuries old, heartbreaking inability to coexist seems near impossible to reduce to slogans, -isms and, sadly, solutions. I wish it weren’t so and, as usual, violence seems to never create anything but misery, confusion and more violence.
thank you, Jim!!