Glenn, this reminds me of a theme you've often hit upon: Lack of agency by one side. In this case, the Palestinians never have agency.
1. Discussion of mistakes by Israel, the US, and their allies in the past. Naturally, the Palestinians respond badly. No agency on their part.
2. Call for a ceasefire to avoid a humanitarian crisis -- deaths in hospitals, mosques, schools, etc.. No agency for the govt. of Gaza using hospitals, mosques, schools etc. to screen military assests. (No sense that Hamas might *want* the deaths of Palestinian civilians to further their own goals -- that's just incomprehensible to the Western mind.)
3. Sympathy for the poor infrastructure in Gaza. No agency for the govt. of Gaza repurposing infrastructure resources for construction of tunnels and weapons.
4. Hope that the current Palestinian leaders would accept a 2-state solution (despite lots of evidence to the contrary) if only Israel would take the "correct" approach. (And no actual recommendations for what that approach might be beyond "stop doing X", which neglects the historical fact that resistance to Isreal predates "X".)
5. Call for a ceasefire. No call for the immediate relase of the hostages. THIS IS THE WORST OF ALL. (If the ceasefire letter does call for release of the hostages, my bad. It wasn't mentioned in the podcast)
If the govt. of Gaza cared about the people of Gaza, they could surrender. But that would require agency.
Some history: The Arab nations rejected the original UN proposed 2 state solution in favor of a single-state solution (the original "from the river to the sea"). They attacked Israel in 1948. Gaza and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan prior to 1967. The Arab countries could have implemented a 2-state soltion at any time. It appears that politically, they were more intersted in the elimination of Israel than in a Palestinian state.
I wonder what he means that the Palestinians were never offered an actual 2 state. My understanding was that this is what was agreed to under President Clinton.
Also in the double-standard:
1. Wright constantly refers the "Zionist" state. There's a presumption that "Zionist" equals BAD. By any reasonable standard, the Israeli ("Zionist") govt has a *far* better human rights record than any other country in the middle east -- including to their Arab population. A claim that a new Palestianian Arab country in the region would be a good thing needs defending -- otherwise, he's arguing for a net reduction in human rights in the region.
2. He refers to "ethnic cleansing". He ignores the ethnic cleansing that happened in the middle east where basically all the Jews were expelled from every other country in the middle east after 1948 (as well as the ongoing ethnic cleansing against Christians in the Arab world). Again, Israel has agency; ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arab states was something that "just happened" -- if he acknowledges it at all.
3. Wright refers to Jews in the West Bank who can vote vs Arab Palestinians in the West Bank who can't vote. Presumably, he's talking about voting in *ISRAEL*. The Jews are Israeli citizens, the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens -- of course they can't vote in Israeli elections. Arab Israelis living in Israel do vote in Israeli elections. Do Arab Palestinians living in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections? Do Israeli's? What he is really complaining about? Again, is he somehow suggesting that the govt. of the West Bank (Palestinian Authority) does a better job on human rights than the govt. of Israel?
Finally, regarding "From the River to the sea, Palestine shall be free." By the standards of the Left (and currently widely accepted in the US), this is:
1) An Antisemetic dog whistle
2) a micro agression
3) An example of "Speech is violence"
4) Racist because it disproportionaly affects an oppressed minority. (I'm waiting to hear "Jews aren't an oppresssed minority in the world -- or even in the middle east")
Glenn has the right analogy: "White Lives Matter". And I'd actually agree that the intent of the speaker matters. But that's not the world we live in. Until Wright condemns the standards of the Left, sorry, he has no moral grounds to say "the listerners need to get educated" -- that's not the way we evaluate claims about speech. (and I'm particularly incensed that Wright would try to make that claim.)
What's particularly ironic about that slogan is that it would not result in a free state. Show me the model of a free state in the region? Would you model a hypothetical Palestine after Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Syria? Qatar? It seems that people uttering that slogan are either ignorant ("useful idiots", to borrow a phrase) or simply interested in getting rid of Israel.
Glenn, this reminds me of a theme you've often hit upon: Lack of agency by one side. In this case, the Palestinians never have agency.
1. Discussion of mistakes by Israel, the US, and their allies in the past. Naturally, the Palestinians respond badly. No agency on their part.
2. Call for a ceasefire to avoid a humanitarian crisis -- deaths in hospitals, mosques, schools, etc.. No agency for the govt. of Gaza using hospitals, mosques, schools etc. to screen military assests. (No sense that Hamas might *want* the deaths of Palestinian civilians to further their own goals -- that's just incomprehensible to the Western mind.)
3. Sympathy for the poor infrastructure in Gaza. No agency for the govt. of Gaza repurposing infrastructure resources for construction of tunnels and weapons.
4. Hope that the current Palestinian leaders would accept a 2-state solution (despite lots of evidence to the contrary) if only Israel would take the "correct" approach. (And no actual recommendations for what that approach might be beyond "stop doing X", which neglects the historical fact that resistance to Isreal predates "X".)
5. Call for a ceasefire. No call for the immediate relase of the hostages. THIS IS THE WORST OF ALL. (If the ceasefire letter does call for release of the hostages, my bad. It wasn't mentioned in the podcast)
If the govt. of Gaza cared about the people of Gaza, they could surrender. But that would require agency.
Some history: The Arab nations rejected the original UN proposed 2 state solution in favor of a single-state solution (the original "from the river to the sea"). They attacked Israel in 1948. Gaza and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan prior to 1967. The Arab countries could have implemented a 2-state soltion at any time. It appears that politically, they were more intersted in the elimination of Israel than in a Palestinian state.
I wonder what he means that the Palestinians were never offered an actual 2 state. My understanding was that this is what was agreed to under President Clinton.
Also in the double-standard:
1. Wright constantly refers the "Zionist" state. There's a presumption that "Zionist" equals BAD. By any reasonable standard, the Israeli ("Zionist") govt has a *far* better human rights record than any other country in the middle east -- including to their Arab population. A claim that a new Palestianian Arab country in the region would be a good thing needs defending -- otherwise, he's arguing for a net reduction in human rights in the region.
2. He refers to "ethnic cleansing". He ignores the ethnic cleansing that happened in the middle east where basically all the Jews were expelled from every other country in the middle east after 1948 (as well as the ongoing ethnic cleansing against Christians in the Arab world). Again, Israel has agency; ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arab states was something that "just happened" -- if he acknowledges it at all.
3. Wright refers to Jews in the West Bank who can vote vs Arab Palestinians in the West Bank who can't vote. Presumably, he's talking about voting in *ISRAEL*. The Jews are Israeli citizens, the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens -- of course they can't vote in Israeli elections. Arab Israelis living in Israel do vote in Israeli elections. Do Arab Palestinians living in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections? Do Israeli's? What he is really complaining about? Again, is he somehow suggesting that the govt. of the West Bank (Palestinian Authority) does a better job on human rights than the govt. of Israel?
Finally, regarding "From the River to the sea, Palestine shall be free." By the standards of the Left (and currently widely accepted in the US), this is:
1) An Antisemetic dog whistle
2) a micro agression
3) An example of "Speech is violence"
4) Racist because it disproportionaly affects an oppressed minority. (I'm waiting to hear "Jews aren't an oppresssed minority in the world -- or even in the middle east")
Glenn has the right analogy: "White Lives Matter". And I'd actually agree that the intent of the speaker matters. But that's not the world we live in. Until Wright condemns the standards of the Left, sorry, he has no moral grounds to say "the listerners need to get educated" -- that's not the way we evaluate claims about speech. (and I'm particularly incensed that Wright would try to make that claim.)
What's particularly ironic about that slogan is that it would not result in a free state. Show me the model of a free state in the region? Would you model a hypothetical Palestine after Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Syria? Qatar? It seems that people uttering that slogan are either ignorant ("useful idiots", to borrow a phrase) or simply interested in getting rid of Israel.