Professor Leonard Grob continues his life-long work committed to fostering peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I recently interviewed him on the war and his vision for "the day after."
I am pleased that you have taken an interest in my essays. This is clearly an issue that evokes very strong passions and thoughts. In this time of divisiveness and politics driven by tribal loyalties and ideologies, it is my view that sober conversation across lines of difference is more important than ever. With that said, and as I have written in a previous essay, having worked in the human rights field, and studied the genocide convention, I conclude that the Israeli assault on Gaza does not fulfill the convention's definition of genocide. Yet innocent civilians as being killed in disproportionate numbers and it needs to stop.
The history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is very complex, and I don't believe lends itself to a simplistic analysis. There remain people who continue to work for a peaceful resolution, and I posted this piece with those people and their good and necessary efforts in mind.
I appreciate your interest in the site. When I initiated this project more than two years ago, my intent was to establish a forum of respectful and informed conversation. The current war understandably arouses strong passions, yet it is highly complex and I refuse to reduce its realities to simplistic ideologies and polemics, which have captured the imagination these days of too many on the Left. I remain highly critical of the Israeli occupation and feel that the loss of Palestinian life in the current war is a great tragedy and needs to stop. If peace is the objective, then I don't see how polemics and screeds are helpful.
I define myself as a leftist and progressive and have been so since the 1960s. Yet, I find myself alienated from elements of the Left these days that have become overly ensnared with ideologies inspired by unnuanced and simplistic dichotomies of power inequities, inclusive of oppressors and the oppressed. Realities are far more complex in ways that defy such reductionism. This mentality has led to the position by some that refutes Israel's right to exist. What other nation needs to defend its very existence? Many on the Left support Vietnamese nationalism, Kurdish and Tibetan nationalism, (I do) but deny the right of Jews to national self-determination. Believe what you wish, but it is impossible for me to believe that the world, including many so-called progressives, don't entertain an unhealthy problem with Jews. For these reasons, I don't trust the BDS and kindred movements. Behind them lies a latent antisemitism (not with all adherents, of course). Fretfully there is a curretn outburst of antisemitism that is very overt, fretful, and ominous.
Consequently, I don't believe that "the only reason "the Left" is concerned is because billions of United States tax dollars go to fund one side of the conflict." As noted above, there are far more complex and unsavory causes that have to do with ideological fetishes internal to the evolution transpiring in sectors of the Left. Moreover, The US gives Sisi's Egypt two billion dollars per annum. But where are the Leftist protests against Egypt's liberal use of torture, and its brutish culture of political oppression? The conduct of oppressive Egyptians doesn't capture the moral imagination. But when it comes to Jews, it's a different story.
For the record. substantial American support of Israel didn't begin until 1967. Before that, France was Israel's primary ally.
Again, thanks for your interest. But I would prefer more reasoned discussion and less demonization.
"Israel/Hamas War" – This not a war between nations, but an uprising of an oppressed segment of the Palestine population being crushed by another, larger and more powerful group.
"Israel's Palestinian neighbors" – As long as Israelis see the Palestinians as anyone other than their own people, there will be conflict.
"two-state resolution of the conflict" – What about a one-state solution?
"the Gaza war" – The Palestinian uprising. The Gazan retaliation to a decades long illegal blockade.
"a Palestinian State" – to encompass how much territory? The Gaza strip is 141 square miles, about 13% of the size of Rhode Island with more than twice its population. The state of Israel is about the size of New Jersey with a population about as large if you include the Palestinians. Who thinks this arrangement is fair, considering that the Gazan Palestinians once owned most of present-day Israel?
"an eventual full withdrawal of Israeli troops" – including an end to the blockade? Will the Palestinians be able to come and go as they please, or will they endure what the Arab Israelis must endure?
"Whether a new government of the kind I've alluded to will support a two-state solution--to my mind the only way this century-old conflict can be resolved--is unclear." – It is unclear to everyone else because it will never work until the Palestinians have the right to return to their own land.
"Jewish Israelis are heirs to the trauma of the Holocaust"– There have been many holocausts in this world. We may be living through another one.
"future wars endangering Israel's existence" – Israel has the right to defend itself against foreign invaders. It does not have the right to kill its own people. The Palestinians are Israelis, both within the borders of the state of Israel, and within Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
"We agree that the two-state solution is the only road to peace" – Do the Palestinians agree?
"Israel at this point in time will not allow for any part of the West Bank to become Palestine" – This statement reveals all anyone needs to know about the future relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, with the Jewish Israelis assuming that they can allow or disallow what is and is not part of Palestine.
Professor,
What you are proposing does not sound like a road to peace.
Somehow the American left hold Israeil to a higher standard than Russia. We don't hear the left condemning Russia nor the MAGA republicans. I think that after cycle upon cycle of Arab / Israeli conflict Israel has decided to be rid of Hamas in Gaza irrespective of world condemnation because its outlook is based on an assumption that the world court of opinion will let Israel be destroyed while Tsk Tsking. As for Israel, no peace until its government changes like your guest commentator suggests. I would throw in the towel on this one except for the example of Ireland. Appreciate the discussion.
I’m uncomfortable referring to the genocide of Palestinians by Israel as the Gaza war and also with referring to the Palestinian people as Gazans. What’s happening is the culmination of 75 years of brutal occupation and a Palestinian holocaust. Jews as victims are no longer the exception to horrific crimes against humanity but are now the perpetrators of genocide- a terrible irony after stealing land, home and culture from Palestine and Palestinians.
I am pleased that you have taken an interest in my essays. This is clearly an issue that evokes very strong passions and thoughts. In this time of divisiveness and politics driven by tribal loyalties and ideologies, it is my view that sober conversation across lines of difference is more important than ever. With that said, and as I have written in a previous essay, having worked in the human rights field, and studied the genocide convention, I conclude that the Israeli assault on Gaza does not fulfill the convention's definition of genocide. Yet innocent civilians as being killed in disproportionate numbers and it needs to stop.
The history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is very complex, and I don't believe lends itself to a simplistic analysis. There remain people who continue to work for a peaceful resolution, and I posted this piece with those people and their good and necessary efforts in mind.
I appreciate your interest in the site. When I initiated this project more than two years ago, my intent was to establish a forum of respectful and informed conversation. The current war understandably arouses strong passions, yet it is highly complex and I refuse to reduce its realities to simplistic ideologies and polemics, which have captured the imagination these days of too many on the Left. I remain highly critical of the Israeli occupation and feel that the loss of Palestinian life in the current war is a great tragedy and needs to stop. If peace is the objective, then I don't see how polemics and screeds are helpful.
I define myself as a leftist and progressive and have been so since the 1960s. Yet, I find myself alienated from elements of the Left these days that have become overly ensnared with ideologies inspired by unnuanced and simplistic dichotomies of power inequities, inclusive of oppressors and the oppressed. Realities are far more complex in ways that defy such reductionism. This mentality has led to the position by some that refutes Israel's right to exist. What other nation needs to defend its very existence? Many on the Left support Vietnamese nationalism, Kurdish and Tibetan nationalism, (I do) but deny the right of Jews to national self-determination. Believe what you wish, but it is impossible for me to believe that the world, including many so-called progressives, don't entertain an unhealthy problem with Jews. For these reasons, I don't trust the BDS and kindred movements. Behind them lies a latent antisemitism (not with all adherents, of course). Fretfully there is a curretn outburst of antisemitism that is very overt, fretful, and ominous.
Consequently, I don't believe that "the only reason "the Left" is concerned is because billions of United States tax dollars go to fund one side of the conflict." As noted above, there are far more complex and unsavory causes that have to do with ideological fetishes internal to the evolution transpiring in sectors of the Left. Moreover, The US gives Sisi's Egypt two billion dollars per annum. But where are the Leftist protests against Egypt's liberal use of torture, and its brutish culture of political oppression? The conduct of oppressive Egyptians doesn't capture the moral imagination. But when it comes to Jews, it's a different story.
For the record. substantial American support of Israel didn't begin until 1967. Before that, France was Israel's primary ally.
Again, thanks for your interest. But I would prefer more reasoned discussion and less demonization.
Thank you, Joe, for sharing your conversation with Leonard Grob. I hope his ideas for peace can be achieved.
Professor Grob,
Please consider some of the language you employ:
"Israel/Hamas War" – This not a war between nations, but an uprising of an oppressed segment of the Palestine population being crushed by another, larger and more powerful group.
"Israel's Palestinian neighbors" – As long as Israelis see the Palestinians as anyone other than their own people, there will be conflict.
"two-state resolution of the conflict" – What about a one-state solution?
"the Gaza war" – The Palestinian uprising. The Gazan retaliation to a decades long illegal blockade.
"a Palestinian State" – to encompass how much territory? The Gaza strip is 141 square miles, about 13% of the size of Rhode Island with more than twice its population. The state of Israel is about the size of New Jersey with a population about as large if you include the Palestinians. Who thinks this arrangement is fair, considering that the Gazan Palestinians once owned most of present-day Israel?
"an eventual full withdrawal of Israeli troops" – including an end to the blockade? Will the Palestinians be able to come and go as they please, or will they endure what the Arab Israelis must endure?
"Whether a new government of the kind I've alluded to will support a two-state solution--to my mind the only way this century-old conflict can be resolved--is unclear." – It is unclear to everyone else because it will never work until the Palestinians have the right to return to their own land.
"Jewish Israelis are heirs to the trauma of the Holocaust"– There have been many holocausts in this world. We may be living through another one.
"future wars endangering Israel's existence" – Israel has the right to defend itself against foreign invaders. It does not have the right to kill its own people. The Palestinians are Israelis, both within the borders of the state of Israel, and within Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
"We agree that the two-state solution is the only road to peace" – Do the Palestinians agree?
"Israel at this point in time will not allow for any part of the West Bank to become Palestine" – This statement reveals all anyone needs to know about the future relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, with the Jewish Israelis assuming that they can allow or disallow what is and is not part of Palestine.
Professor,
What you are proposing does not sound like a road to peace.
Somehow the American left hold Israeil to a higher standard than Russia. We don't hear the left condemning Russia nor the MAGA republicans. I think that after cycle upon cycle of Arab / Israeli conflict Israel has decided to be rid of Hamas in Gaza irrespective of world condemnation because its outlook is based on an assumption that the world court of opinion will let Israel be destroyed while Tsk Tsking. As for Israel, no peace until its government changes like your guest commentator suggests. I would throw in the towel on this one except for the example of Ireland. Appreciate the discussion.
I’m uncomfortable referring to the genocide of Palestinians by Israel as the Gaza war and also with referring to the Palestinian people as Gazans. What’s happening is the culmination of 75 years of brutal occupation and a Palestinian holocaust. Jews as victims are no longer the exception to horrific crimes against humanity but are now the perpetrators of genocide- a terrible irony after stealing land, home and culture from Palestine and Palestinians.