Israel's security will be assured when it is accepted by its neighbors and recognized by the world. That requires not just strength but smarts. Not just military might but diplomacy and compromise.
“Israel is no longer a small, vulnerable nation surrounded by stronger enemies seeking its destruction. Israel is now … by far the region’s strongest force.”
Read Part III! Just some brief off-the-top, not deeply-thought-out reactions to Jeremy Ben-Ami's latest piece.
I think most Israelis and most supporters of Israel agree with what would be ideal: Acceptance of Israel by the Palestinians; Israel's other Arab neighbours; other countries in the region (Iran, Turkey etc) and of course the whole World. So that part is unobjectionable. (And I'm cognizant that future opeds will lay out "The Plan."
The ultimate question is how does Israel achieve such acceptance. And what risks should Israel take to seek to get that acceptance. (And what steps should it take if it is attacked or threatened with attack - Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran or others.)
No one (few people) claim that Israel has not made mistakes since Oslo or that every Israeli action has been the wisest (especially in hindsight.) But the fact remains that because of various terrorist attacks on Israel - dating back to the post-Oslo days under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were PM and going on to October 7th from Hamas and then from Hezbollah and Iran - Israel feels more threatened; less willing to make territorial or political concessions with the Palestinians. And continuous Palestinian denial of Jewish rights to be in Israel; or to a claim to Jerusalem or demands for a Palestinian Right of Return to pre-1967 Israel. And of course numerous examples of Palestinian Antisemitism taught in the schools and on...None of this makes Israelis more willing to take "risks for peace." And this would be pretty much the same were Israel's Prime Minister to be Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid or Nafatali Bennett (even as the tone might change)
I guess our strongest disagreement with this piece: You write. "Yet many of us who supported the use of force following October 7 also believe strongly that Israel must adhere to international humanitarian law and the laws of war....If Israel violates a law...there should be consequences. Lobbying to make Israel the only country in the world given US aid without limit or restriction will actually in the long run undermine support for Israel in segments of the American population."
I'm not going to defend - or be an apologist for - every action taken by Israel; and certainly not every action taken by every single member of the IDF (let alone every Israeli settler). But Israel is in a fight for it's life. And while not saying Israel can do absolutely anything without possible consequence; it certainly should be given a lot of leeway by its friends. Certainly publicly and lobbying against Israel or advocating punishment of and penalties against Israel - and especially the IDF - is not something I'd have thought true friends of Israel would do. There's quite a difference between an abstract "norm" and reality. And the situation Israel is facing
I'd acknowledge the validity of your pint "We also recognize military force alone can’t resolve the underlying conflict between the Jewish and Palestinian people over the same land." But it's ONLY Israel's military strength that will bring even a possibility an end to the conflict. And the recognition by Palestinians that they will never get a better deal. And they have to accept the Jewish State and the legitimacy of that state. and that Palestinians will not be "returning" to pre-1967 Israel
My ultimate cue is what the IDF, Shin Bet and others on the Zionist Left "Security Hawks" feel Israel can and should do. Not that they're always right. (See Pre-October 7th or pre-1973 War.) Or in other words "What Would Rabin Do?"
In this day and age, I imagine at least the people on Substack value when those who don't see eye to eye create a civil dialogue, rather than an exchange of name-calling!
I am firmly of the belief that Commanders for Israel's Security (which I link to in the piece - URL is https://en.cis.org.il/) represents the inheritors today of the legacy of Rabin and Peres. Their understanding that it is a foremost Israeli interest to separate Israel from an eventual state of Palestine is the core of that legacy.
The risks of developing a Palestinian state (which are real as you point out) are lower than the risks of not doing so - that is their professional security judgment. Only the ideologues and those who zealously hold far right political and religious dreams believe it's possible to maintain the current reality of controlling all the land indefinitely.
That's why we need a new framework that brings in the full region (the Gulf States, immediate neighbors) and friends like the US and Europe around the world who all have an interest in creating a gradual pathway toward a secure Palestinian state alongside Israel that ends this conflict. This can't be a two-state solution, it has to be a 23-state solution and I'll have more to say on that in coming weeks!
I absolutely agree:
“Israel is no longer a small, vulnerable nation surrounded by stronger enemies seeking its destruction. Israel is now … by far the region’s strongest force.”
The way to security is to make peace.
I am so grateful to have found the articulation of what I have thought and felt for so long. Todah rabah!
Read Part III! Just some brief off-the-top, not deeply-thought-out reactions to Jeremy Ben-Ami's latest piece.
I think most Israelis and most supporters of Israel agree with what would be ideal: Acceptance of Israel by the Palestinians; Israel's other Arab neighbours; other countries in the region (Iran, Turkey etc) and of course the whole World. So that part is unobjectionable. (And I'm cognizant that future opeds will lay out "The Plan."
The ultimate question is how does Israel achieve such acceptance. And what risks should Israel take to seek to get that acceptance. (And what steps should it take if it is attacked or threatened with attack - Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran or others.)
No one (few people) claim that Israel has not made mistakes since Oslo or that every Israeli action has been the wisest (especially in hindsight.) But the fact remains that because of various terrorist attacks on Israel - dating back to the post-Oslo days under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were PM and going on to October 7th from Hamas and then from Hezbollah and Iran - Israel feels more threatened; less willing to make territorial or political concessions with the Palestinians. And continuous Palestinian denial of Jewish rights to be in Israel; or to a claim to Jerusalem or demands for a Palestinian Right of Return to pre-1967 Israel. And of course numerous examples of Palestinian Antisemitism taught in the schools and on...None of this makes Israelis more willing to take "risks for peace." And this would be pretty much the same were Israel's Prime Minister to be Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid or Nafatali Bennett (even as the tone might change)
I guess our strongest disagreement with this piece: You write. "Yet many of us who supported the use of force following October 7 also believe strongly that Israel must adhere to international humanitarian law and the laws of war....If Israel violates a law...there should be consequences. Lobbying to make Israel the only country in the world given US aid without limit or restriction will actually in the long run undermine support for Israel in segments of the American population."
I'm not going to defend - or be an apologist for - every action taken by Israel; and certainly not every action taken by every single member of the IDF (let alone every Israeli settler). But Israel is in a fight for it's life. And while not saying Israel can do absolutely anything without possible consequence; it certainly should be given a lot of leeway by its friends. Certainly publicly and lobbying against Israel or advocating punishment of and penalties against Israel - and especially the IDF - is not something I'd have thought true friends of Israel would do. There's quite a difference between an abstract "norm" and reality. And the situation Israel is facing
I'd acknowledge the validity of your pint "We also recognize military force alone can’t resolve the underlying conflict between the Jewish and Palestinian people over the same land." But it's ONLY Israel's military strength that will bring even a possibility an end to the conflict. And the recognition by Palestinians that they will never get a better deal. And they have to accept the Jewish State and the legitimacy of that state. and that Palestinians will not be "returning" to pre-1967 Israel
My ultimate cue is what the IDF, Shin Bet and others on the Zionist Left "Security Hawks" feel Israel can and should do. Not that they're always right. (See Pre-October 7th or pre-1973 War.) Or in other words "What Would Rabin Do?"
Thanks as always for engaging, Michael.
In this day and age, I imagine at least the people on Substack value when those who don't see eye to eye create a civil dialogue, rather than an exchange of name-calling!
I am firmly of the belief that Commanders for Israel's Security (which I link to in the piece - URL is https://en.cis.org.il/) represents the inheritors today of the legacy of Rabin and Peres. Their understanding that it is a foremost Israeli interest to separate Israel from an eventual state of Palestine is the core of that legacy.
The risks of developing a Palestinian state (which are real as you point out) are lower than the risks of not doing so - that is their professional security judgment. Only the ideologues and those who zealously hold far right political and religious dreams believe it's possible to maintain the current reality of controlling all the land indefinitely.
That's why we need a new framework that brings in the full region (the Gulf States, immediate neighbors) and friends like the US and Europe around the world who all have an interest in creating a gradual pathway toward a secure Palestinian state alongside Israel that ends this conflict. This can't be a two-state solution, it has to be a 23-state solution and I'll have more to say on that in coming weeks!