The WSJ article you recommend says: "With a final-status solution between Israel and Palestine out of view, the best chance to help Palestinians is to stabilize the Middle East so countries can devote more time to lower-priority issues." Perhaps you can explain how the annexationist policies of Netanyahu and his far-right government are helping the Palestinians and stabilizing the Middle East. That one eludes me.
I imagine the section title of "Living Room" was intentionally provocative? A little jarring and on the nose, yeah? I mean, isn't it more of a frontier type battle? Israel as a Western outpost? Success and failure measured in inches, not miles?
Yes, the subhed "Living Room" is a provocative English-language reference to Germany's demand for "Lebensraum," but it also demands a dispassionate look at Israel's exclusive claim on the West Bank. And Israel doesn't help its case in distinguishing itself from Germany when National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir publicly calls on the IDF to kill "thousands" of Palestinian "terrorists" in order to cleanse the West Bank for unrestrained Jewish settlement.
Provocative writing does not invite, expect, or demand "a dispassionate look" at anything. The subheading is about innuendo and is a dog whistle employed much more effectively than comparing Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir to Nazi leadership.
Efforts by the Jewish state to continue the Zionist project are multifaceted and are all along the good/evil spectrum. They've built an infrastructure to advance the project in order to make it permanent. In the context of the millennia old struggle for permanence there, I don't believe that Smotrich and Ben Gvir offer much out of line.
Even the US government demanding safety for its own Palestinian citizens isn't a new thing. Foreign governments have always demanded that their envoys, representatives, agents have safe passage.
Having reached middle age, and as a father, my perspective has changed a lot since the Second Intifada.
Taking stock of incidents in isolation from their historical context is always dangerous.
This is a deeply troubling situation. Netanyahu, always highly authoritarian, has becomr a cynical fascist. It's true that the palistinean government has been ineffective, and failed to accept a reasonably fair compromise deal when it was offered, but in recent years the palistinean people have been treated abismally, reminiscent of the horrid treatment of indigenous people in the US.
Read the WSJ and maybe you guys will learn something. You all live in a bubble = Carter 2.0
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-follows-jimmy-carters-failed-middle-east-model-israel-iran-nuclear-deal-40f45751
The WSJ article you recommend says: "With a final-status solution between Israel and Palestine out of view, the best chance to help Palestinians is to stabilize the Middle East so countries can devote more time to lower-priority issues." Perhaps you can explain how the annexationist policies of Netanyahu and his far-right government are helping the Palestinians and stabilizing the Middle East. That one eludes me.
I imagine the section title of "Living Room" was intentionally provocative? A little jarring and on the nose, yeah? I mean, isn't it more of a frontier type battle? Israel as a Western outpost? Success and failure measured in inches, not miles?
Yes, the subhed "Living Room" is a provocative English-language reference to Germany's demand for "Lebensraum," but it also demands a dispassionate look at Israel's exclusive claim on the West Bank. And Israel doesn't help its case in distinguishing itself from Germany when National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir publicly calls on the IDF to kill "thousands" of Palestinian "terrorists" in order to cleanse the West Bank for unrestrained Jewish settlement.
Provocative writing does not invite, expect, or demand "a dispassionate look" at anything. The subheading is about innuendo and is a dog whistle employed much more effectively than comparing Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir to Nazi leadership.
Efforts by the Jewish state to continue the Zionist project are multifaceted and are all along the good/evil spectrum. They've built an infrastructure to advance the project in order to make it permanent. In the context of the millennia old struggle for permanence there, I don't believe that Smotrich and Ben Gvir offer much out of line.
Even the US government demanding safety for its own Palestinian citizens isn't a new thing. Foreign governments have always demanded that their envoys, representatives, agents have safe passage.
Having reached middle age, and as a father, my perspective has changed a lot since the Second Intifada.
Taking stock of incidents in isolation from their historical context is always dangerous.
This is a deeply troubling situation. Netanyahu, always highly authoritarian, has becomr a cynical fascist. It's true that the palistinean government has been ineffective, and failed to accept a reasonably fair compromise deal when it was offered, but in recent years the palistinean people have been treated abismally, reminiscent of the horrid treatment of indigenous people in the US.
Whatever happened to the "Only democracy in the Middle East"" that I so often used to praise?