Regan Arntz-Gray and I delve into the conflict, focussing on the underlying morality of advocating for Palestinian statehood, examining how the right to self-determination trades off against individual liberty and welfare of future generationsThanks for reading Vaish’s Substack!
Great podcast. When you guys dug into the issue with Palestinian people voting for non-Western ideals, it reminded me of the Shadi Hamid's book "the Problem of Democracy", which was basically a book that said "If you have democracy in the middle east, then people will vote for Islamism, and Westerners have to be ok with "bad/non-western" outcomes".
Secondly, this topic is complicated in terms of finding solutions. Israeli support for a Palestinian state faded after the Second Intifada and Hamas's electoral victory in the mid 2000s. Even with reforms removing Hamas/PIJ or reforming Fatah by removing Abbas, Israelis fear another Hamas-like outcome in Palestinian elections due to concerns about Iranian influence and Israeli's counterattack on October 7th.
I guess If we imagine if Biden wins again he had the power to put pressure for a 2 state solution (or else Israel faces diplomatic isolation) then I guess the "Palestinian state" would be barely a state at this point. Whoever the Palestinian leader would AT BEST accept a state that is:
1. A Palestinian state getting 61% West Bank, Gaza and some land swaps in return for Israeli settlements
2. a fund for Palestinian people who can't return
3. no checkpoints (maybe)
4. no militarized state
5. international control of Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif
6, capital probably would be in Ramallah instead of East Jerusalem unless they can eek out some land there.
7. Also, Israel would be monitoring the Jordan Valley.
If Trump wins, then at best Palestine could get what's in this deal:
I haven't read Shadi's book but understand the basic thesis. It's one thing to accept non-western outcomes and an imperfect human rights record (be it Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the likes). But another to expect to politically negotiate with a society that has weaponized religious hate and martyrdom (as the Palestinians have done), because at that point, you can't reasonably expect your adversary to respond to incentives and disincentives rationally. Putting this into a game theoretic framework, if you try and play a game with someone whose payoffs are infinite and other-wordly, their alternative (ie martyrdom) will always be hard to beat unless you give them everything they ask for. I'm not claiming this is a 100% true all the time but one is hard pressed to find the remotest traces of rational self interest in how organizations like HAMAS or ISIS behave. That is a much lower bar than needing Palestinian society to support gay marriage or something like that. In so far as no one has great ideas on de-radicalizing palestinian society, i'm much less concerned about palestinians having the right to self determination rather than individual palestinians (who so desire) having more economic rights and the ability to leave and seek better lives elsewhere being able to do that.
From Israel's perspective, I'm trying to see the upside in giving the palestinians a state at this point. Even in the best case, it's very unlikely an offer of peace changes Iran's (or its proxies') hatred of Israel and desire to export the revolution. They buy themselves some time but now with much lower security control and buffer until the next attack lands.
Giving the Palestinians a state could work if it leads to the end of UNRWA, normalization with Saudi, and an agreement for the IDF to patrol the Jordan Valley and for Gulf-backed proxies to go to Nablus and Jenin and hunt down terrorists. The Israelis can maintain a permanent presence in Palestine, just as the US still maintains a presence in Germany and Japan. A Palestinian state doesn't mean full withdrawal. It could lead to a more stable equilibrium. A two-state solution could solve the "conflict" as far as the "international community" and diplomatic world is concerned. There will still be terrorists and rockets here and there, but it would be easier for Israel to get Gulf buy-in to prevent them and deal with them, and a lot of the bureaucracies and incentive structures that allow the problem to fester would go away. The new Palestinian state would be very influenced by the moderate Gulf states, and the education system wouldn't teach the people to hate Israelis.
So I think it could be helpful under some circumstances for Israel to create a Palestinian state. Of course if done badly you will just get Hamastan 2.0 and everyone will be worse off, which is no good. But I think if done carefully and with the right security guarantees and so on it could be a win for everyone and would help Israel. Most Israelis would support such a deal if it would actually work, and rightly so. Most Palestinians won't accept it - you need a dictator backed by the Gulf to get it to work - and many critics will say it's not a real state, but we already know many people are not OK with any solution where Israel still exists. Fuck them.
Thanks for your comment! Have to agree with your less than hopeful conclusion: "Most Israelis would support such a deal if it would actually work, and rightly so. Most Palestinians won't accept it - you need a dictator backed by the Gulf to get it to work - and many critics will say it's not a real state, but we already know many people are not OK with any solution where Israel still exists."
But yeah, the two-state solution makes sense, both Israelis and Palestinians are people and it's only natural to want to split the land and give them both the right to self-determination. Israel has self-determination and it's working out very well, it's a first-world democracy where the Arab minority have rights and prosperity that they don't enjoy in any other non oil rich country in the region. But yeah, the (isolated) settlements are bad and they are a mistake, though the really isolated ones only have 100K people or so and so drawing a border is still very viable, as people like Shaul Arieli have shown. As a strong supporter of Israel, I do agree Israel should compromise on the settlements. It can certainly do such a thing.
However, the Palestinians have a terrible track record at governance, which complicates the situation a lot. A Palestinian state that just becomes Hamastan 2.0 is no good. The Palestinian demand for an unlimited "right of return" is a dealbreaker. They are unwilling to compromise there.
Good discussion! And good points about how Palestinians have usually seemed to protest Israeli occupation with violence. Against such a militarily stronger foe, this seems like it would almost always worsen their position rather than improve it. (Unless you believe that your violence will eventually get supernatural support.) The Palestinian position would probably be much different if they had leaders with the insight of Gandhi or Mandela.
This would continue to be intractable, thanks to the reputation & nature of some of the actors involved. The Palestnians are no longer a disparate identity; they are inextricably intertwined with forces that are beyond redemption.
Why do you think the connection between Gazans and Hamas is "inextricable"? Japan during World War II was, if anything, more intertwined with religious fanaticism than Gaza. As devoted as some Gazans are to Hamas, at least they don't believe Hamas leaders are gods, which is what many WWII-era Japanese believed about their emperor. Japanese suicide bombers flew their planes into enemy boats. Civilians on Okinawa committed mass suicide rather than be taken captive by American soldiers. Yet after the war, Americans found Japanese who were willing to work with them and rebuild Japan into one of Asia's bastions of (relatively) liberal democracy.
I agree with the substance of what you said but I suspect we might draw different conclusions from it. It took years of crushing the will of the radicalized section of the Japanese population - either by actually killing people or by threat of violence - to get to that point. Those peaceful elements within Gaza can't win a war with Hamas or islamic jihad since the latter have arms and capital and the former have none. This is why I thin Israel is correct to want to completely dismantle hamas at any cost. You can't make deals with the moderate palestinians if there are radicals with guns lurking in the shadows waiting to disrupt the status quo.
Great podcast. When you guys dug into the issue with Palestinian people voting for non-Western ideals, it reminded me of the Shadi Hamid's book "the Problem of Democracy", which was basically a book that said "If you have democracy in the middle east, then people will vote for Islamism, and Westerners have to be ok with "bad/non-western" outcomes".
Secondly, this topic is complicated in terms of finding solutions. Israeli support for a Palestinian state faded after the Second Intifada and Hamas's electoral victory in the mid 2000s. Even with reforms removing Hamas/PIJ or reforming Fatah by removing Abbas, Israelis fear another Hamas-like outcome in Palestinian elections due to concerns about Iranian influence and Israeli's counterattack on October 7th.
I guess If we imagine if Biden wins again he had the power to put pressure for a 2 state solution (or else Israel faces diplomatic isolation) then I guess the "Palestinian state" would be barely a state at this point. Whoever the Palestinian leader would AT BEST accept a state that is:
1. A Palestinian state getting 61% West Bank, Gaza and some land swaps in return for Israeli settlements
2. a fund for Palestinian people who can't return
3. no checkpoints (maybe)
4. no militarized state
5. international control of Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif
6, capital probably would be in Ramallah instead of East Jerusalem unless they can eek out some land there.
7. Also, Israel would be monitoring the Jordan Valley.
If Trump wins, then at best Palestine could get what's in this deal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan#:~:text=if%20re%2Delected.-,Key%20concepts%20and%20final%20status%20issues,both%20parties%20to%20the%20conflict.
Obviously Israel can just ignore presidents and go for annexation, but I am sure Israel doesn't want to be isolated.
Thanks Yaw.
I haven't read Shadi's book but understand the basic thesis. It's one thing to accept non-western outcomes and an imperfect human rights record (be it Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the likes). But another to expect to politically negotiate with a society that has weaponized religious hate and martyrdom (as the Palestinians have done), because at that point, you can't reasonably expect your adversary to respond to incentives and disincentives rationally. Putting this into a game theoretic framework, if you try and play a game with someone whose payoffs are infinite and other-wordly, their alternative (ie martyrdom) will always be hard to beat unless you give them everything they ask for. I'm not claiming this is a 100% true all the time but one is hard pressed to find the remotest traces of rational self interest in how organizations like HAMAS or ISIS behave. That is a much lower bar than needing Palestinian society to support gay marriage or something like that. In so far as no one has great ideas on de-radicalizing palestinian society, i'm much less concerned about palestinians having the right to self determination rather than individual palestinians (who so desire) having more economic rights and the ability to leave and seek better lives elsewhere being able to do that.
From Israel's perspective, I'm trying to see the upside in giving the palestinians a state at this point. Even in the best case, it's very unlikely an offer of peace changes Iran's (or its proxies') hatred of Israel and desire to export the revolution. They buy themselves some time but now with much lower security control and buffer until the next attack lands.
They should've taken the Trump deal btw.
Giving the Palestinians a state could work if it leads to the end of UNRWA, normalization with Saudi, and an agreement for the IDF to patrol the Jordan Valley and for Gulf-backed proxies to go to Nablus and Jenin and hunt down terrorists. The Israelis can maintain a permanent presence in Palestine, just as the US still maintains a presence in Germany and Japan. A Palestinian state doesn't mean full withdrawal. It could lead to a more stable equilibrium. A two-state solution could solve the "conflict" as far as the "international community" and diplomatic world is concerned. There will still be terrorists and rockets here and there, but it would be easier for Israel to get Gulf buy-in to prevent them and deal with them, and a lot of the bureaucracies and incentive structures that allow the problem to fester would go away. The new Palestinian state would be very influenced by the moderate Gulf states, and the education system wouldn't teach the people to hate Israelis.
So I think it could be helpful under some circumstances for Israel to create a Palestinian state. Of course if done badly you will just get Hamastan 2.0 and everyone will be worse off, which is no good. But I think if done carefully and with the right security guarantees and so on it could be a win for everyone and would help Israel. Most Israelis would support such a deal if it would actually work, and rightly so. Most Palestinians won't accept it - you need a dictator backed by the Gulf to get it to work - and many critics will say it's not a real state, but we already know many people are not OK with any solution where Israel still exists. Fuck them.
Thanks for your comment! Have to agree with your less than hopeful conclusion: "Most Israelis would support such a deal if it would actually work, and rightly so. Most Palestinians won't accept it - you need a dictator backed by the Gulf to get it to work - and many critics will say it's not a real state, but we already know many people are not OK with any solution where Israel still exists."
But yeah, the two-state solution makes sense, both Israelis and Palestinians are people and it's only natural to want to split the land and give them both the right to self-determination. Israel has self-determination and it's working out very well, it's a first-world democracy where the Arab minority have rights and prosperity that they don't enjoy in any other non oil rich country in the region. But yeah, the (isolated) settlements are bad and they are a mistake, though the really isolated ones only have 100K people or so and so drawing a border is still very viable, as people like Shaul Arieli have shown. As a strong supporter of Israel, I do agree Israel should compromise on the settlements. It can certainly do such a thing.
However, the Palestinians have a terrible track record at governance, which complicates the situation a lot. A Palestinian state that just becomes Hamastan 2.0 is no good. The Palestinian demand for an unlimited "right of return" is a dealbreaker. They are unwilling to compromise there.
https://thirdnarrative.org/palestinians-still-reject-clinton-parameters/
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-pa-rejects-clinton-parameters-20-years-later-opinion-658864
Anyway, this was a fantastic podcast. I greatly enjoyed listening.
Thank you so much! Thanks for listening
Good discussion! And good points about how Palestinians have usually seemed to protest Israeli occupation with violence. Against such a militarily stronger foe, this seems like it would almost always worsen their position rather than improve it. (Unless you believe that your violence will eventually get supernatural support.) The Palestinian position would probably be much different if they had leaders with the insight of Gandhi or Mandela.
This would continue to be intractable, thanks to the reputation & nature of some of the actors involved. The Palestnians are no longer a disparate identity; they are inextricably intertwined with forces that are beyond redemption.
Why do you think the connection between Gazans and Hamas is "inextricable"? Japan during World War II was, if anything, more intertwined with religious fanaticism than Gaza. As devoted as some Gazans are to Hamas, at least they don't believe Hamas leaders are gods, which is what many WWII-era Japanese believed about their emperor. Japanese suicide bombers flew their planes into enemy boats. Civilians on Okinawa committed mass suicide rather than be taken captive by American soldiers. Yet after the war, Americans found Japanese who were willing to work with them and rebuild Japan into one of Asia's bastions of (relatively) liberal democracy.
I agree with the substance of what you said but I suspect we might draw different conclusions from it. It took years of crushing the will of the radicalized section of the Japanese population - either by actually killing people or by threat of violence - to get to that point. Those peaceful elements within Gaza can't win a war with Hamas or islamic jihad since the latter have arms and capital and the former have none. This is why I thin Israel is correct to want to completely dismantle hamas at any cost. You can't make deals with the moderate palestinians if there are radicals with guns lurking in the shadows waiting to disrupt the status quo.