Listen now | 0:55 Biden’s vexing political calculus on Israel-Palestine 9:45 Israel-Palestine compared to Russia-Ukraine 13:28 If Israel eliminates Hamas, what happens next? 22:46 Can anything good come out of the present crisis? 29:25 The meaning of “From the river to the sea…”
Like most people, I was initially horrified by the Hamas attack of 10/7. But I’ve been struggling with the question of what the Palestinians *ought* to do. Security cooperation with Israel in the West Bank has only enabled Israel’s long term ethnic cleansing project. A nonviolent march to the Gaza-Israel border was met by gunfire even before it crossed the line. The US is in the process of making the BDS movement semi-illegal. Granted, a suicide mission against an Israeli military installation would have complied with the laws of war, but would it even have raised awareness of the Palestinians’ plight?
If the laws of war leave an oppressed people with no effective legal option for resistance, are the laws of war even moral?
I appreciated Mr. Baddar's very knowledgeable and articulate comments. I also came away feeling he is not exactly brimming with cognitive empathy. I suspect sometimes that passionate advocates are as capable as anyone of cognitive empathy, but view it as a luxury? Feel there's a need to stay in soldier mindset and avoid scout mindset?
So, a two-state solution is a non-starter according to Mr. Baddar, always has been and always will be. That pretty much sums up the problem.
In the one-state solution Mr. Baddar sees as the only proper outcome Hamas has to be a non-factor. How is that to be accomplished? Who ensures their non-participation? They are not democrats; they are theocrats and very violent theocrats at that. I have a suggestion, the IDF.
And come to think of it where is this culture of democracy, this one man one vote egalitarian zeitgeist to come from? Arabic culture? There's not a single democracy in all of the Middle East, oh, except for Israel and even theirs is lacking proper checks and balances. And let's say this single state (with an Arab majority) solution were to come to past, which group would, once again, be in a position to become victims of genocide? You know the answer. One might call it the final solution.
The Jews will never accept a state where they are the minority. The reason the UN created Israel in 1948 was to provide at least one place in the world where they would control their destiny. With all due respect to the Palestinians, the Jews are the most persecuted minority over the last 2500 years and after the holocaust, they deserved a safe place, that they control. I'm sorry the most logical land area was Mandate Palestine.
His discussion of the Camp David Summit was interesting, but I wish you had also asked him about the peace plan discussed between Olmert and Abbas in 2008. I'd love his take on it.
At 50 min or so in Mr. Baddar makes an equivalence between Hamas and Israel. Actually, according to his numbers of deaths by Israel, it is much worse. He describes the Israelis as engaging in slow-motion genocide. I understand his rational. But Israel doesn't practice genocide. They engage in collective self-defense against people who do believe in genocide. So, there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel.
I guess it was asking too much of the non-Jewish people in Mandate Palestine to have compassion for a people who believed in the same God and had just been subjected to the worse genocide in history. It has been that way for Jews for millennia. I don't know if the U.N. actually asked for compassion, if not, they should have.
One's ancestors (or, in 99% of cases, unrelated co-ethnics) being the victims of genocide before almost anyone today even born isn't a reasonable justification for anything Israel is doing today, right or wrong. It's not 1946 anymore. If you can't justify an Israeli policy in 2023 without reference to the holocaust, you can't justify it at all.
And you're right that it's inaccurate do describe it as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is more appropriate. The Israeli government, and likely the majority of the Israeli electorate, ultimately probably seeks to annex the Gaza strip and the West Bank and expel the Palestinian residents, at least since Netanyahu came to power in the late 2000s. It's bizarre that we still talk about this issue as if Israel even in theory favored a 'peace process' when the PM is on record opposing any independent Palestinian state without condition, supports settlement expansion, and several of his cabinet members openly support expelling the Palestinians. The Palestinians' overall mentality, though not morally justified, is largely explained by the fact that they believe they're in a war of annihilation with the Jewish State (TM); and they're probably not wrong.
There are many, particularly on the left, who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the oppressed status of the Jews or for that matter even their minority status. Today they make up only 15 million worldwide. Their population as of 1939 is estimated to have been about 16.6 million according to the Washington Post in 2015. So, yea, the Holocaust is still relevant today. Why? Because Hamas and their supporters still support genocide of the Jews. I saw a poll that 75% of Palestinians support Hamas AFTER Oct. 7.
Now, I can understand why many don't see the Jews as an oppressed minority. The Jews despite the pogroms and expulsions since the diaspora have always managed to thrive wherever they settled. They embraced bourgeois values that would help ensure their survival in hostile environments. They made their living doing jobs others found distasteful like peddlers (middlemen) and finance. Today those are how people get rich. And many of them have.
I agree that what the Israeli's did at the Nakbah was better described as ethnic cleansing. And I wouldn't disagree that their policy to keep Israel majority Jewish is a form of ethnic cleansing. Our fellow commenter Karen I believe would disagree. I also agree with you that Bebe Netanyahu has been a disaster for Israel. He may not believe it yet, but his political life is over. I put significant blame for the Hamas attack on his policies. I hope Israel has elections as soon as possible but they won't happen until hostilities end. That would be a good reason to stop fighting but the Israeli people want Hamas gone. That's overly optimistic in my opinion but it is what it is.
The Palestinians and Jews could live in peace. It will require 2 states. But those 2 states, if committed to peaceful coexistence, could become one of the most economically vibrant areas of the world. I'm sure the Israelis would embrace that arrangement. It's up to the Palestinians.
Israel is right now engaging in genocide by the assessment of numerous genocide scholars, including Israeli genocide scholar Raz Segal. It is no longer taboo to question the premises of Zionism, the pro-Israel lobbies' long-standing, deeply funded efforts notwithstanding. In a democracy, policies can and must be questioned and challenged. Many in the US are only recently becoming aware of the situation in Israel and the occupied territories because the perspectives of Palestinians have been severely constrained by pro-Israel lobbies and other groups. We didn't learn about the Nakba in school. It is high time that Palestinian voices be aired on US media and online platforms such as this one.
Like most people, I was initially horrified by the Hamas attack of 10/7. But I’ve been struggling with the question of what the Palestinians *ought* to do. Security cooperation with Israel in the West Bank has only enabled Israel’s long term ethnic cleansing project. A nonviolent march to the Gaza-Israel border was met by gunfire even before it crossed the line. The US is in the process of making the BDS movement semi-illegal. Granted, a suicide mission against an Israeli military installation would have complied with the laws of war, but would it even have raised awareness of the Palestinians’ plight?
If the laws of war leave an oppressed people with no effective legal option for resistance, are the laws of war even moral?
Can we please move on from dissecting the “from the river to the sea” statement?
I appreciated Mr. Baddar's very knowledgeable and articulate comments. I also came away feeling he is not exactly brimming with cognitive empathy. I suspect sometimes that passionate advocates are as capable as anyone of cognitive empathy, but view it as a luxury? Feel there's a need to stay in soldier mindset and avoid scout mindset?
So, a two-state solution is a non-starter according to Mr. Baddar, always has been and always will be. That pretty much sums up the problem.
In the one-state solution Mr. Baddar sees as the only proper outcome Hamas has to be a non-factor. How is that to be accomplished? Who ensures their non-participation? They are not democrats; they are theocrats and very violent theocrats at that. I have a suggestion, the IDF.
And come to think of it where is this culture of democracy, this one man one vote egalitarian zeitgeist to come from? Arabic culture? There's not a single democracy in all of the Middle East, oh, except for Israel and even theirs is lacking proper checks and balances. And let's say this single state (with an Arab majority) solution were to come to past, which group would, once again, be in a position to become victims of genocide? You know the answer. One might call it the final solution.
The Jews will never accept a state where they are the minority. The reason the UN created Israel in 1948 was to provide at least one place in the world where they would control their destiny. With all due respect to the Palestinians, the Jews are the most persecuted minority over the last 2500 years and after the holocaust, they deserved a safe place, that they control. I'm sorry the most logical land area was Mandate Palestine.
His discussion of the Camp David Summit was interesting, but I wish you had also asked him about the peace plan discussed between Olmert and Abbas in 2008. I'd love his take on it.
https://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Details-of-Olmerts-peace-offer-to-Palestinians-exposed-314261
At 50 min or so in Mr. Baddar makes an equivalence between Hamas and Israel. Actually, according to his numbers of deaths by Israel, it is much worse. He describes the Israelis as engaging in slow-motion genocide. I understand his rational. But Israel doesn't practice genocide. They engage in collective self-defense against people who do believe in genocide. So, there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel.
I guess it was asking too much of the non-Jewish people in Mandate Palestine to have compassion for a people who believed in the same God and had just been subjected to the worse genocide in history. It has been that way for Jews for millennia. I don't know if the U.N. actually asked for compassion, if not, they should have.
One's ancestors (or, in 99% of cases, unrelated co-ethnics) being the victims of genocide before almost anyone today even born isn't a reasonable justification for anything Israel is doing today, right or wrong. It's not 1946 anymore. If you can't justify an Israeli policy in 2023 without reference to the holocaust, you can't justify it at all.
And you're right that it's inaccurate do describe it as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is more appropriate. The Israeli government, and likely the majority of the Israeli electorate, ultimately probably seeks to annex the Gaza strip and the West Bank and expel the Palestinian residents, at least since Netanyahu came to power in the late 2000s. It's bizarre that we still talk about this issue as if Israel even in theory favored a 'peace process' when the PM is on record opposing any independent Palestinian state without condition, supports settlement expansion, and several of his cabinet members openly support expelling the Palestinians. The Palestinians' overall mentality, though not morally justified, is largely explained by the fact that they believe they're in a war of annihilation with the Jewish State (TM); and they're probably not wrong.
There are many, particularly on the left, who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the oppressed status of the Jews or for that matter even their minority status. Today they make up only 15 million worldwide. Their population as of 1939 is estimated to have been about 16.6 million according to the Washington Post in 2015. So, yea, the Holocaust is still relevant today. Why? Because Hamas and their supporters still support genocide of the Jews. I saw a poll that 75% of Palestinians support Hamas AFTER Oct. 7.
Now, I can understand why many don't see the Jews as an oppressed minority. The Jews despite the pogroms and expulsions since the diaspora have always managed to thrive wherever they settled. They embraced bourgeois values that would help ensure their survival in hostile environments. They made their living doing jobs others found distasteful like peddlers (middlemen) and finance. Today those are how people get rich. And many of them have.
I agree that what the Israeli's did at the Nakbah was better described as ethnic cleansing. And I wouldn't disagree that their policy to keep Israel majority Jewish is a form of ethnic cleansing. Our fellow commenter Karen I believe would disagree. I also agree with you that Bebe Netanyahu has been a disaster for Israel. He may not believe it yet, but his political life is over. I put significant blame for the Hamas attack on his policies. I hope Israel has elections as soon as possible but they won't happen until hostilities end. That would be a good reason to stop fighting but the Israeli people want Hamas gone. That's overly optimistic in my opinion but it is what it is.
The Palestinians and Jews could live in peace. It will require 2 states. But those 2 states, if committed to peaceful coexistence, could become one of the most economically vibrant areas of the world. I'm sure the Israelis would embrace that arrangement. It's up to the Palestinians.
Israel is right now engaging in genocide by the assessment of numerous genocide scholars, including Israeli genocide scholar Raz Segal. It is no longer taboo to question the premises of Zionism, the pro-Israel lobbies' long-standing, deeply funded efforts notwithstanding. In a democracy, policies can and must be questioned and challenged. Many in the US are only recently becoming aware of the situation in Israel and the occupied territories because the perspectives of Palestinians have been severely constrained by pro-Israel lobbies and other groups. We didn't learn about the Nakba in school. It is high time that Palestinian voices be aired on US media and online platforms such as this one.