Listen now | 0:17 Coleman’s Joe Rogan appearance and new book, The End of Race Politics 2:26 Campus protests and free speech 12:29 Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism? 17:18 Is "exterminating Hamas" a viable solution? 26:47 Bob: Israel never offered Palestinians a state
Good conversation. It clarifies Coleman's position, and Bob is right to focus on Coleman's essentialism. Let's conduct a variation on Coleman's experiment: God makes all the Jews move to Gaza and the West Bank, and He gives Arabs control the state of Israel. God makes Israel treat the Jews the same as today's Israel treats Palestinians. Now examine the prevailing identities of the two cultures. Who is now obsessed with the other party? Who is obsessed with regaining their rightful land?
Robin, I have provided a thought experiment. What do you think are the results of the experiment? What do you conclude from the results?
I think Jewish Israelis would long to be free in their homeland. I think that there would be a strident call (dominant, but maybe not a majority) to push Arabs out of Israel. In other words, like now with roles reversed.
I conclude (rather, I already believe), that the hardened identity Coleman perceives, (misperceives, I think, in the generality that he states it), is a pretty immediate product of circumstances and human nature, and not something special about Palestinians or their culture.
Just one point of information. The education system in Gaza, before Israel destroyed it, was very good. Palestinians were proud of it. They did not build that education system driven by an identity whose "constitutive center" is a desire to rid the land of Jews.
I support Bob's pattern of treating peoples (plural) as fundamentally rational (with predictable human emotional reactions) and focusing attention on political solutions.
Assuming the Israelis have no chance of regaining the land, what would you suggest they do with the rest of their lives? Whine endlessly or create a new nation in Gaza?
I'm pretty sure Jews would accept the facts on the ground and make the most of it. They always have.
This is incredibly uncharitable, bordering on hostile. Palestinians don't "whine endlessly" – there have been many peaceful protests (see Great March of Return) that have been met with rounds from an IDF sniper.
no, Israel didn't just get out of Gaza and immediately got rockets and eventually Oct 7. much happened before and in between. Coleman has never spent any time in the West Bank or Gaza never talked with Palestinians on the ground. there's no first hand knowledge of what they think or what their daily existence is like to shape his thinking and it shows.
Coleman doesn’t seem to be aware that Sheikh Yassin offered a hudnas (an automatically renewable truce) in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders before Hamas narrowly won the first election in Gaza in 2005. (Israel assassinated Sheikh Yassin before the election took place, which drew widespread international condemnation.) He also doesn’t seem to be aware that the U.S. and Israel (along with Fatah) attempted to stage a coup in Gaza *before* the rocket issue emerged. I bet he also doesn’t know that more Israelis died of car crashes last year alone than have died as a result of rocket attacks since 2005.
I don't really know Coleman Hughes: I tend to think that culture wars are intractable, at least until people stop paying attention to them. I thought he did well here though. I'm interested to know why colonialism is the wrong lens through which to view the situation and would have liked to hear more on that. My understanding is that Zionism was explicitly framed as a colonial adventure by many of its early proponents. I get that Israel is a unique case, but isn't that true of all colonial states?
Interesting side note, I heard an interview with a recent (former) head of MI6 (the UK's foreign intelligence service). He claimed that 60% of Hamas militants had lost at least one parent to previous rounds of violence.
Israel was explicitly framed as a colonial project by its early proponents. Herzl, Jabotinsky, et. al. explicitly called it a colonial project back in the 19th/early 20th Century, when the term “colonialism” didn’t yet have a negative connotation in the Western World. In fact, Jabotinsky wrote an extremely important essay called “The Iron Wall” in the 1920s wherein he said it was naive for European Zionists to believe that Palestinian Arabs would react to the Zionist colonial project any differently than the Sioux reacted to the White Man’s encroachment upon their territory in North America.
The biggest difference between Israel and other colonial states like the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. is that the latter group of countries do not make citizenship conditional on racial or ethnic lineage and all have explicit legal guarantees of equal rights for all citizens regardless of race. (Obviously this wasn’t true historically for these countries, but it’s true at this point in time.) Israel does not have such guarantees of birthright “san solis” citizenship or equal rights regardless of race. Much like apartheid South Africa, the freedom of movement of the Palestinians is severely limited and the vast majority of them do not have civil or political rights.
I really wish you pushed back on Coleman more on the points about Gaza being a proportionate war, since that seems to be the weakest part of his argument. Specifically the controlled demolition of universities, the damaging of 80% of housing and the sniper fire targeting children and women.
Good conversation. The give and take helps to clarify not only the content of the two points of view, but also their strengths and weaknesses. I find Wright's point of view persuasive, but Coleman does a good job of presenting its weaknesses. Beyond Coleman's conception of a sacred world view being a decisive element of the Palestinian mindset, I think his judgment about the Palestinians' anger is misled by a lack of knowledge about the facts on the ground of Palestinian life in Israel--the violence against them that goes unpunished, the discrimination, lack of legal rights, lack of free movement. I was surprised that he didn't mention any of these realities, or include them in his appraisal of the Palestinian mindset. Coleman does not demonstrate that he regards these realities as important. Perhaps he views them as subsidiary, overshadowed by his (sociological or anthropological?) conception of "sacred identity" making Palestinians unwilling to compromise and untrustworthy in negotiations. 40 years ago, who would have thought that Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland could have arrived at a compromise and peace, or in 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia would have succeeded in ending the 30 Years War? Wright's optimism about the plasticity of human behavior is not unrealistic.
It should tell you something that his argument hinges on the use of an adjective (“sacred”) to suggest that Palestinians have an irrational pathology rather than an understanding of Palestinian history or the daily injustices to which they are subjected by Israel.
There is an unfortunately very long history at this point of non-Palestinian historians and political commentators who have made the claim that Palestinians — unlike every other national group who have been colonized in world history — oppose their colonizer’s state because of pathology rather than because of *history.* Coleman appears to be the latest participant of that frankly racist tradition.
(1) re 'river to the sea' see Likud Party Platform: " between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Ok, the sea to the river, but still pretty similar and predating the 'river to the sea', I believe..
(2) as pointed out there are different strains of Zionism, see the Zionism of Martin Buber (whose writings on this are worth reading 'A Land of Two Peoples'
One thing that struck me, that I don’t think was directly addressed, is that Coleman’s thesis (which he re-iterated several times) is foundationally flawed; that a foundational/sacred element of Palestinian identity is hostility to Israel, whereas the foundation of Jewish identity is in no way dependent on Palestine and stretches back to the Torah. This thesis does 2 problematic things:
1. It conflates Jewish Identity with Israeli identity. They are not identical. There are a lot of Jews in the world that do not identify as Israeli, or as supporters of the nation state of Israel.
2. It ignores thousands of years of Palestinian history. Palestinian identity didn’t suddenly arise with the Jewish immigration of the early 20th century. To say that a foundation of Palestinian identity is based in hostility to Israel is to say that Palestinian Identity began with Israel. While the Nakba is obviously a defining moment in Palestinian history and weighs heavy on the collective memory driving the current situation, I think you were right in your comparison to other conflicts, where the two sides harbour deep feelings of hatred toward one another for the duration of the conflict. But these attitudes are born out of conditions, and if those conditions change, so may the attitudes (see Northern Ireland). The fact that this conflict has been going on for so long definitely makes those attitudes more entrenched, but does not make them “foundational” or “sacred”.
And I find Coleman’s thesis unnerving in a couple ways:
1. It is reminiscent of absurd arguments made by the right and neocons after 9/11, that Islam is at its core a hateful and violent ideology, and therefore can’t be reasoned with, and that all Muslims are thus suspect. This narrative was a consistent thread in justifications of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and of torture and the War on Terror generally.
2. Its logical conclusion is ethic cleansing and genocide. If you hold that Israel must continue to exist, and a major threat to its existence are these Palestinian people, who hold a “foundational” belief that is “sacred” and unchangeably at the core of their identity, then the only real solution to that threat would be to eliminate the Palestinian identity.
<<Palestinian identity didn’t suddenly arise with the Jewish immigration of the early 20th century. >> I do not think that up to the end of the 19th century this identity was that strong but only became more important under the influence of European conceptions of nationalism and rapid European Jewish immigration in the early part of the 20th century. But others would know more about this.
Coleman does seem to think that the Palestinians should just get over the settlements like the right of return shouldn't matter to them. The settlements are illegal by international law, end of story. Allowing them to continue expanding, unchecked and encouraged by the Israeli government, is partially why things have so bad. It rewards and empowers the most right wing and extreme portions of the Israeli population.
At the time, I thought it was extremely obvious that Ariel Sharon just wanted to rub Palestinians noses in the fact that he could go if he wanted, just strut and puff and express dominance.
I think the Palestinians rage over it is best explained by the fact that they felt they had little or nothing, but there was at least this one place where Jews were governed by laws which also limited their behavior in deference to Palestinians.
Sharon came in and showed that in fact, Palestinians had no rights whatever that could not be overruled by Jews.
I understand Hughes' thought that it shouldn't matter, but if that's all you feel you have that's truly still yours, and then it gets taken and waved in your face, I don't know what else you'd expect.
I think Sharon was deliberately provocative, probably intended to derail accords, and that single act cost Palestinians and Palestinian- Israeli relations a generation, if not more.
The next time anyone tells me musicians should shut up about politics, I'm going to send them this video.
Ariel Sharon was absolutely trying to sabotage the Oslo process. His aides admitted as much to the press.
In 1998, when Israel had a Bibi-led
government and he was competing with Bibi for leadership of the Israeli right, Sharon stated that settlers in the WB should “grab every hilltop you can because everything that’s not in our hands will go to the Palestinians.” This was where the terrorist gang the Hilltop Youth got its name.
Two years later he was PM, he visited the Temple Mount, and the Second Intifada started because the Palestinians knew that the political process had been torpedoed (if it was ever actually sincere).
Very interesting conversation in which Coleman essentially keeps repeating his main and IMO only point, namely what he describes as Palestinian identity being unique from other national identities in that it is based on an essential hatred of Jews. He denounces the origin of Israel as settler-colonial or imperialist out of hand without exploring them and refuting them. I wish Bob had pushed back there, but I trust he had his reasons not to.
I perhaps would have responded that the Israeli identity is unique in that it is based on Biblical entitlement to land, from which Palestinians would in 1948 be forcefully evicted as a consequence of atrocities committed against European Jews by Nazi Germany.
Forced expulsion is never a recipe for peace. Some would say the Zionist project has failed. I would agree.
Yes. I noticed at the end that Coleman was comparing Palestinian national identity (as he understands it) with Jewish beliefs, which isn't an apples to apples comparison. From what I've been hearing Israeli identity in many cases does actually involve a denial of the concept of Palestinians as a people ("Palestine never really existed" or something to that effect is a common talking point).
The idea that Palestinian identity is a fabrication was a frequently used piece of pro-Israel rhetoric for a long time. It’s less common now, even among Zionists. But as late as the 1990s, Newt Gingrich said the Palestinians were “an invented people.”
I have spoken to at least one Israel supporter who acknowledged that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 but that it was not a moral problem because “they were all just considered Arabs and they could have moved to Egypt.”
Here’s a thought experiment: does Coleman believe that the Palestinians would have reacted any differently if the European settlers in Palestine had been Dutch or French or English rather than Jewish?
Obviously, they would have had the exact same collective response. It is therefore highly, highly misleading (and perhaps even willfully dishonest) to suggest that Palestinian anti-Zionist sentiment is a pathology analogous to European anti-Semitism. It was a product of history, not psychopathy.
EDIT: come to think of it, I can’t take credit for this thought experiment. I now realize it was a point that Za’ev Jabotinsky made in his essay “The Iron Wall.” He said in that essay that Zionism was a colonial project and therefore his fellow Zionists would be foolish to believe that the Palestinians would react to it any differently than any other native people would react to any group of colonizers.
They were more in line than I think either of them appreciated: national cultural identifiers are essential in the short term, but they can change if there is room.
If “hatred of Israel” is essential to Palestinian identity, what about the Palestinian experience makes hatred of Israel so central to their identity? I agree with Bob and suspect Hamas is just a symptom of the “cancerous” root of that experience, that the root is more related to Israel’s retributive violence, and am concerned that Israel’s continued “protection” of Israeli citizens by sacrificing Palestinians will ultimately lead to less protection for Israel in the future. Both Hamas and Bibi are pursuing actions that trade long term benefits for short term gains.
Bob, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the following article, in which an epidemiologist from Columbia describes why several independent studies have concluded that the number of fatalities reported by the Gaza Health Ministry are accurate: https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/
Just the definition of a what a debate should be. Really great.
Good conversation. It clarifies Coleman's position, and Bob is right to focus on Coleman's essentialism. Let's conduct a variation on Coleman's experiment: God makes all the Jews move to Gaza and the West Bank, and He gives Arabs control the state of Israel. God makes Israel treat the Jews the same as today's Israel treats Palestinians. Now examine the prevailing identities of the two cultures. Who is now obsessed with the other party? Who is obsessed with regaining their rightful land?
It is interesting that you seem to think that you made some kind of slam-dunk of an argument here.
Robin, I have provided a thought experiment. What do you think are the results of the experiment? What do you conclude from the results?
I think Jewish Israelis would long to be free in their homeland. I think that there would be a strident call (dominant, but maybe not a majority) to push Arabs out of Israel. In other words, like now with roles reversed.
I conclude (rather, I already believe), that the hardened identity Coleman perceives, (misperceives, I think, in the generality that he states it), is a pretty immediate product of circumstances and human nature, and not something special about Palestinians or their culture.
Just one point of information. The education system in Gaza, before Israel destroyed it, was very good. Palestinians were proud of it. They did not build that education system driven by an identity whose "constitutive center" is a desire to rid the land of Jews.
I support Bob's pattern of treating peoples (plural) as fundamentally rational (with predictable human emotional reactions) and focusing attention on political solutions.
--David
a little more civility would be desirable, I'd think.
Assuming the Israelis have no chance of regaining the land, what would you suggest they do with the rest of their lives? Whine endlessly or create a new nation in Gaza?
I'm pretty sure Jews would accept the facts on the ground and make the most of it. They always have.
This is incredibly uncharitable, bordering on hostile. Palestinians don't "whine endlessly" – there have been many peaceful protests (see Great March of Return) that have been met with rounds from an IDF sniper.
They are not refugees. They have no right of return. Their home is Gaza.
A Palestinian state should be recognized in Gaza and UNRWA should be ended.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. It comes down to whether or not you accept International law; clearly you don't .
no, Israel didn't just get out of Gaza and immediately got rockets and eventually Oct 7. much happened before and in between. Coleman has never spent any time in the West Bank or Gaza never talked with Palestinians on the ground. there's no first hand knowledge of what they think or what their daily existence is like to shape his thinking and it shows.
Coleman doesn’t seem to be aware that Sheikh Yassin offered a hudnas (an automatically renewable truce) in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders before Hamas narrowly won the first election in Gaza in 2005. (Israel assassinated Sheikh Yassin before the election took place, which drew widespread international condemnation.) He also doesn’t seem to be aware that the U.S. and Israel (along with Fatah) attempted to stage a coup in Gaza *before* the rocket issue emerged. I bet he also doesn’t know that more Israelis died of car crashes last year alone than have died as a result of rocket attacks since 2005.
I don't really know Coleman Hughes: I tend to think that culture wars are intractable, at least until people stop paying attention to them. I thought he did well here though. I'm interested to know why colonialism is the wrong lens through which to view the situation and would have liked to hear more on that. My understanding is that Zionism was explicitly framed as a colonial adventure by many of its early proponents. I get that Israel is a unique case, but isn't that true of all colonial states?
Interesting side note, I heard an interview with a recent (former) head of MI6 (the UK's foreign intelligence service). He claimed that 60% of Hamas militants had lost at least one parent to previous rounds of violence.
Israel was explicitly framed as a colonial project by its early proponents. Herzl, Jabotinsky, et. al. explicitly called it a colonial project back in the 19th/early 20th Century, when the term “colonialism” didn’t yet have a negative connotation in the Western World. In fact, Jabotinsky wrote an extremely important essay called “The Iron Wall” in the 1920s wherein he said it was naive for European Zionists to believe that Palestinian Arabs would react to the Zionist colonial project any differently than the Sioux reacted to the White Man’s encroachment upon their territory in North America.
The biggest difference between Israel and other colonial states like the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. is that the latter group of countries do not make citizenship conditional on racial or ethnic lineage and all have explicit legal guarantees of equal rights for all citizens regardless of race. (Obviously this wasn’t true historically for these countries, but it’s true at this point in time.) Israel does not have such guarantees of birthright “san solis” citizenship or equal rights regardless of race. Much like apartheid South Africa, the freedom of movement of the Palestinians is severely limited and the vast majority of them do not have civil or political rights.
I really wish you pushed back on Coleman more on the points about Gaza being a proportionate war, since that seems to be the weakest part of his argument. Specifically the controlled demolition of universities, the damaging of 80% of housing and the sniper fire targeting children and women.
Coleman was truly, truly just making things up at that point.
Good conversation. The give and take helps to clarify not only the content of the two points of view, but also their strengths and weaknesses. I find Wright's point of view persuasive, but Coleman does a good job of presenting its weaknesses. Beyond Coleman's conception of a sacred world view being a decisive element of the Palestinian mindset, I think his judgment about the Palestinians' anger is misled by a lack of knowledge about the facts on the ground of Palestinian life in Israel--the violence against them that goes unpunished, the discrimination, lack of legal rights, lack of free movement. I was surprised that he didn't mention any of these realities, or include them in his appraisal of the Palestinian mindset. Coleman does not demonstrate that he regards these realities as important. Perhaps he views them as subsidiary, overshadowed by his (sociological or anthropological?) conception of "sacred identity" making Palestinians unwilling to compromise and untrustworthy in negotiations. 40 years ago, who would have thought that Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland could have arrived at a compromise and peace, or in 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia would have succeeded in ending the 30 Years War? Wright's optimism about the plasticity of human behavior is not unrealistic.
It should tell you something that his argument hinges on the use of an adjective (“sacred”) to suggest that Palestinians have an irrational pathology rather than an understanding of Palestinian history or the daily injustices to which they are subjected by Israel.
There is an unfortunately very long history at this point of non-Palestinian historians and political commentators who have made the claim that Palestinians — unlike every other national group who have been colonized in world history — oppose their colonizer’s state because of pathology rather than because of *history.* Coleman appears to be the latest participant of that frankly racist tradition.
(1) re 'river to the sea' see Likud Party Platform: " between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Ok, the sea to the river, but still pretty similar and predating the 'river to the sea', I believe..
(2) as pointed out there are different strains of Zionism, see the Zionism of Martin Buber (whose writings on this are worth reading 'A Land of Two Peoples'
Great discussion, Bob.
One thing that struck me, that I don’t think was directly addressed, is that Coleman’s thesis (which he re-iterated several times) is foundationally flawed; that a foundational/sacred element of Palestinian identity is hostility to Israel, whereas the foundation of Jewish identity is in no way dependent on Palestine and stretches back to the Torah. This thesis does 2 problematic things:
1. It conflates Jewish Identity with Israeli identity. They are not identical. There are a lot of Jews in the world that do not identify as Israeli, or as supporters of the nation state of Israel.
2. It ignores thousands of years of Palestinian history. Palestinian identity didn’t suddenly arise with the Jewish immigration of the early 20th century. To say that a foundation of Palestinian identity is based in hostility to Israel is to say that Palestinian Identity began with Israel. While the Nakba is obviously a defining moment in Palestinian history and weighs heavy on the collective memory driving the current situation, I think you were right in your comparison to other conflicts, where the two sides harbour deep feelings of hatred toward one another for the duration of the conflict. But these attitudes are born out of conditions, and if those conditions change, so may the attitudes (see Northern Ireland). The fact that this conflict has been going on for so long definitely makes those attitudes more entrenched, but does not make them “foundational” or “sacred”.
And I find Coleman’s thesis unnerving in a couple ways:
1. It is reminiscent of absurd arguments made by the right and neocons after 9/11, that Islam is at its core a hateful and violent ideology, and therefore can’t be reasoned with, and that all Muslims are thus suspect. This narrative was a consistent thread in justifications of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and of torture and the War on Terror generally.
2. Its logical conclusion is ethic cleansing and genocide. If you hold that Israel must continue to exist, and a major threat to its existence are these Palestinian people, who hold a “foundational” belief that is “sacred” and unchangeably at the core of their identity, then the only real solution to that threat would be to eliminate the Palestinian identity.
<<Palestinian identity didn’t suddenly arise with the Jewish immigration of the early 20th century. >> I do not think that up to the end of the 19th century this identity was that strong but only became more important under the influence of European conceptions of nationalism and rapid European Jewish immigration in the early part of the 20th century. But others would know more about this.
Coleman does seem to think that the Palestinians should just get over the settlements like the right of return shouldn't matter to them. The settlements are illegal by international law, end of story. Allowing them to continue expanding, unchecked and encouraged by the Israeli government, is partially why things have so bad. It rewards and empowers the most right wing and extreme portions of the Israeli population.
At the time, I thought it was extremely obvious that Ariel Sharon just wanted to rub Palestinians noses in the fact that he could go if he wanted, just strut and puff and express dominance.
I think the Palestinians rage over it is best explained by the fact that they felt they had little or nothing, but there was at least this one place where Jews were governed by laws which also limited their behavior in deference to Palestinians.
Sharon came in and showed that in fact, Palestinians had no rights whatever that could not be overruled by Jews.
I understand Hughes' thought that it shouldn't matter, but if that's all you feel you have that's truly still yours, and then it gets taken and waved in your face, I don't know what else you'd expect.
I think Sharon was deliberately provocative, probably intended to derail accords, and that single act cost Palestinians and Palestinian- Israeli relations a generation, if not more.
The next time anyone tells me musicians should shut up about politics, I'm going to send them this video.
Ariel Sharon was absolutely trying to sabotage the Oslo process. His aides admitted as much to the press.
In 1998, when Israel had a Bibi-led
government and he was competing with Bibi for leadership of the Israeli right, Sharon stated that settlers in the WB should “grab every hilltop you can because everything that’s not in our hands will go to the Palestinians.” This was where the terrorist gang the Hilltop Youth got its name.
Two years later he was PM, he visited the Temple Mount, and the Second Intifada started because the Palestinians knew that the political process had been torpedoed (if it was ever actually sincere).
Very interesting conversation in which Coleman essentially keeps repeating his main and IMO only point, namely what he describes as Palestinian identity being unique from other national identities in that it is based on an essential hatred of Jews. He denounces the origin of Israel as settler-colonial or imperialist out of hand without exploring them and refuting them. I wish Bob had pushed back there, but I trust he had his reasons not to.
I perhaps would have responded that the Israeli identity is unique in that it is based on Biblical entitlement to land, from which Palestinians would in 1948 be forcefully evicted as a consequence of atrocities committed against European Jews by Nazi Germany.
Forced expulsion is never a recipe for peace. Some would say the Zionist project has failed. I would agree.
Yes. I noticed at the end that Coleman was comparing Palestinian national identity (as he understands it) with Jewish beliefs, which isn't an apples to apples comparison. From what I've been hearing Israeli identity in many cases does actually involve a denial of the concept of Palestinians as a people ("Palestine never really existed" or something to that effect is a common talking point).
The idea that Palestinian identity is a fabrication was a frequently used piece of pro-Israel rhetoric for a long time. It’s less common now, even among Zionists. But as late as the 1990s, Newt Gingrich said the Palestinians were “an invented people.”
I have spoken to at least one Israel supporter who acknowledged that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 but that it was not a moral problem because “they were all just considered Arabs and they could have moved to Egypt.”
Here’s a thought experiment: does Coleman believe that the Palestinians would have reacted any differently if the European settlers in Palestine had been Dutch or French or English rather than Jewish?
Obviously, they would have had the exact same collective response. It is therefore highly, highly misleading (and perhaps even willfully dishonest) to suggest that Palestinian anti-Zionist sentiment is a pathology analogous to European anti-Semitism. It was a product of history, not psychopathy.
EDIT: come to think of it, I can’t take credit for this thought experiment. I now realize it was a point that Za’ev Jabotinsky made in his essay “The Iron Wall.” He said in that essay that Zionism was a colonial project and therefore his fellow Zionists would be foolish to believe that the Palestinians would react to it any differently than any other native people would react to any group of colonizers.
Interesting convo, I think Coleman is more wrong than right long-term since I don’t think western societies will retain instinctive support for Israel in the next generation. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of best-selling book Black Swan, makes a persuasive case about Israel’s fragility if it doesn’t make peace with the Palestinians: https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1362814/is-israel-a-fragile-state-interview-with-nassim-nicholas-taleb.html
They were more in line than I think either of them appreciated: national cultural identifiers are essential in the short term, but they can change if there is room.
If “hatred of Israel” is essential to Palestinian identity, what about the Palestinian experience makes hatred of Israel so central to their identity? I agree with Bob and suspect Hamas is just a symptom of the “cancerous” root of that experience, that the root is more related to Israel’s retributive violence, and am concerned that Israel’s continued “protection” of Israeli citizens by sacrificing Palestinians will ultimately lead to less protection for Israel in the future. Both Hamas and Bibi are pursuing actions that trade long term benefits for short term gains.
If you want to understand.
Wilf would be a great Non-Zero guest.
https://youtu.be/vAEvWEmUB4Q?
Bob, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the following article, in which an epidemiologist from Columbia describes why several independent studies have concluded that the number of fatalities reported by the Gaza Health Ministry are accurate: https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/