Ze'ev Jabotinsky always had the most "real politik" brutally honest and concise analysis of the dilemma and the potential solution/s
Reality is not pretty, with no perfect solutions, only trade-offs.
I was taught by a memeber of the Khalidi family during my university days at the American University of Beirut and I rated him highly as Patrician Palestinian who was erudite and not thuggishly violent at heart.
Accepting defeat is hard , and thinking clearly during a defeat is even harder. I am not Palestinian. I am a secular conservative at heart who abhors cultural relativism. My only formative negative life experiences have come from various flavours of Arab Dictatorship and Arabic and Islamic societal pathologies. Hence it is easy for me to think this way, much harder for many Palestinians.
Catch 67 by Micah Goodman is an Israeli religious conservative book that actually describes and understands the Arab psyche and dilemma very well.
IMO stability is only achievable with:
1-Overwhelming Israeli military superiority (I would say we are here and this is not in danger)
2- A Jewish overwhelming demographic majority that can then manage an Arab minority (As is the case inside 1948 boundaries)
I am interested in your views on:
1- Are secular or religious Jews who serve in the Military having enough children for this to occur across the 1967 boundaries?
2- What are realistic scenarios for population transfers this late in the game?
Thank you again for the great content across sub stack and X
"He argued that given the course of Jewish history, especially in the twentieth century, the use of force only strengthened a preexisting and pervasive sense of victimhood among Israelis, while it united Israeli society, reinforced the most militant tendencies in Zionism, and bolstered the support of external actors. This was in distinction to Algeria"
also Israeli's don't have somewhere to go! When violence arrives and your back is to a wall you fight. (this has been the Palestinian situation)
Excellent analysis as always. I wrote a short article( 4 pages) about the Crypto-Jews who founded Monterrey, Mexico and their descendants, would you mind giving it a look?
Does he mention anything about the special horribleness of the Palestinian leader the Mufti of Jerusalem who organized an SS band during WWII and whose anti Jewish policies and repression of more moderate Palestinian arabs in the 1940s made many Israelis feel they would not survive unless they kicked most of the arabs out?
Does Khalid deny the Arabs attacks in the 1920s and the worse ones in 1930s? Or not talk about them? Or just describe them as general ethnic conflict that was going both ways?
He was too busy talking about the Nazi connections I suppose.
The main issue I have with these guys (including famous commentators like Finkelstein) is it becomes clear that they're not trying to simply truth seek and be intellectually honest.
They're still useful. I suppose you just have to think of them as a steelman for a particular position and not expect them to be intellectually honest. People like this will still make very important points.
I think he is more or less intellectually honest, but above that he is deeply personally vested and affected. Can't expect him to write some purely objective take
http://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf
Ze'ev Jabotinsky always had the most "real politik" brutally honest and concise analysis of the dilemma and the potential solution/s
Reality is not pretty, with no perfect solutions, only trade-offs.
I was taught by a memeber of the Khalidi family during my university days at the American University of Beirut and I rated him highly as Patrician Palestinian who was erudite and not thuggishly violent at heart.
Accepting defeat is hard , and thinking clearly during a defeat is even harder. I am not Palestinian. I am a secular conservative at heart who abhors cultural relativism. My only formative negative life experiences have come from various flavours of Arab Dictatorship and Arabic and Islamic societal pathologies. Hence it is easy for me to think this way, much harder for many Palestinians.
Catch 67 by Micah Goodman is an Israeli religious conservative book that actually describes and understands the Arab psyche and dilemma very well.
IMO stability is only achievable with:
1-Overwhelming Israeli military superiority (I would say we are here and this is not in danger)
2- A Jewish overwhelming demographic majority that can then manage an Arab minority (As is the case inside 1948 boundaries)
I am interested in your views on:
1- Are secular or religious Jews who serve in the Military having enough children for this to occur across the 1967 boundaries?
2- What are realistic scenarios for population transfers this late in the game?
Thank you again for the great content across sub stack and X
"He argued that given the course of Jewish history, especially in the twentieth century, the use of force only strengthened a preexisting and pervasive sense of victimhood among Israelis, while it united Israeli society, reinforced the most militant tendencies in Zionism, and bolstered the support of external actors. This was in distinction to Algeria"
also Israeli's don't have somewhere to go! When violence arrives and your back is to a wall you fight. (this has been the Palestinian situation)
Excellent analysis as always. I wrote a short article( 4 pages) about the Crypto-Jews who founded Monterrey, Mexico and their descendants, would you mind giving it a look?
Love to!
Awesome, what is your email?
Enjoyable read. Thank you.
Benny Morris is far from a reliable source. He has said numerous genocidal things.
Does he mention anything about the special horribleness of the Palestinian leader the Mufti of Jerusalem who organized an SS band during WWII and whose anti Jewish policies and repression of more moderate Palestinian arabs in the 1940s made many Israelis feel they would not survive unless they kicked most of the arabs out?
From recollection he only mentioned the Palestinian's poor poor choice in German photo opps during WWII. many omissions.
Does Khalid deny the Arabs attacks in the 1920s and the worse ones in 1930s? Or not talk about them? Or just describe them as general ethnic conflict that was going both ways?
Omits
He was too busy talking about the Nazi connections I suppose.
The main issue I have with these guys (including famous commentators like Finkelstein) is it becomes clear that they're not trying to simply truth seek and be intellectually honest.
They're still useful. I suppose you just have to think of them as a steelman for a particular position and not expect them to be intellectually honest. People like this will still make very important points.
I think he is more or less intellectually honest, but above that he is deeply personally vested and affected. Can't expect him to write some purely objective take