I think that the frustration with the argument that "it's complicated" (and it absolutely is!) is that there is an unsaid but universally-practiced pivot to "and so we must carry on with the status quo of effectively limitless support for Israel, both materially and diplomatically, as they oppress the Palestinian people."
The situation is complicated, and I can understand the fear that many Israelis find themselves living in. However, after decades of pro-Israeli liberals saying "West Bank settlements must stop" and "Israel must do more do avoid civilian casualties" while doing nothing whatsoever to actually make Israel do any of these things, "it's complicated" reads more like cant excusing their disinterest in actually taking any action.
What also complicates your own narrative, though, is the question of what replaces that status quo. I personally see it as “obvious” that a two-state solution is the only one that wouldn’t devolve into sectarian violence on a massive scale, but for a pretty large majority of Palestinians that’s a non-starter.
Yes, and that’s how you end up with the status quo.
But one could argue that it’s a natural reaction to Palestinian insistence on a Right of Return that has simply never been granted to any other populace after a war involving ethnic cleansing: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-failures-of-zionism-and-anti
Netanyahu, though, has almost singularly been a force of suppression towards a two-state solution. Potential peace deals, some with legitimate counterproposals from Fatah, have been scuttled because Netanyahu was about to take power.
But contra this commenter (and, for that matter, Chuck Schumer), the U.S. doesn’t hold many cards to get Netanyahu to try and make a deal. Removing all military support will either cause Israel to be wiped out, a terrible look to the rest of our allies, or remove what small influence we actually have. And frankly, it’s a little insulting to Israel to be talked about as if they’re a mere client state of the U.S., with no motivations or power of its own.
This has been the justification for supporting Israel to the hilt for as long as I have been politically aware, the idea that "if we don't continue or increase current support, we will lose leverage." But Netanyahu has put lie to that, as he's realized that there is nothing that he can do that the U.S. will not support (issuing empty declarations of concern, grave concern, even alarm do not count). The U.S. government chose to believe Netanyahu over its own lying eyes when they concluded that Israel was intentionally blocking aid to Gaza, because Netanyahu said privately to them that he wouldn't do something like that (https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken).
To be clear, I don't think it's unreasonable for Israeli politicians to handle themselves this way. It's not a conspiracy or whatever. It's just a realization that if you have the world's largest super power supporting you effectively without limit, there's no reason for you to change your behavior. I think that Netanyahu is a particularly bad person, but it's odd that people claim he's some one-off bad actor rather than someone who makes self-interested (both for himself and, to a much, much lesser extent, Israeli interests as he understands them) choices in a system that the US has enabled.
So being told that really both sides are at fault, so we must continue to support Israel without condition because it's complicated is extremely frustrating.
You make a good case for reverting back to complexity. TNC seems determined to counter the lack of Palestinian vintage point by being solely committed to it. A revolution is necessary. The question is whether it will require a peaceful or a bloody one. What we can say is that it is certainly one sided when the world's superpower is providing arms for one side. I'm thinking of all of this and still holding off till the book arrives and I'm able to go through TNC's thoughts.
the problem is real ,seems it's a sort of corruption. interesting side to this is that there was a plan for a texas fracking outfit to drill into the tunnels in gaza and flood out the fighters. instead the plan was ditched and it's nard no to see that the war machine profiteers probably were influential in this choice. it's also clearly a land grab.
Sorry for my one-sided and practical view in advance. Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries on all sides. And they have more behind them. All ready to kill all the Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Oh...let's not forget Iran of course and its Hezbollah and Hamas. So all these countries instead of doing things to benefit their citizens insist on fighting Israel over a few square miles of land? Maybe remind them of "40 Acres and a mule" and let them try that. Or band together to create a mutual marketplace and hi tech stuff. They do have the capability. Oh well...I guess my view is simply "tough shit"...you had and have your chance to stop all this but you don't. FUCK YOU.
BTW...what if Mexico and Canada were shooting missles into Texas, Illinois, New York, Utah, California, South Dakota, etc etc. What would the USA do? Go to the United Nations? I don't think so. And also the USA is NOT fighting this war and dying. Israel is so get off your high horse and stop the bullshit that the USA can stop this humanely. War is hell...remember.
I think that the frustration with the argument that "it's complicated" (and it absolutely is!) is that there is an unsaid but universally-practiced pivot to "and so we must carry on with the status quo of effectively limitless support for Israel, both materially and diplomatically, as they oppress the Palestinian people."
The situation is complicated, and I can understand the fear that many Israelis find themselves living in. However, after decades of pro-Israeli liberals saying "West Bank settlements must stop" and "Israel must do more do avoid civilian casualties" while doing nothing whatsoever to actually make Israel do any of these things, "it's complicated" reads more like cant excusing their disinterest in actually taking any action.
I think that’s fair.
What also complicates your own narrative, though, is the question of what replaces that status quo. I personally see it as “obvious” that a two-state solution is the only one that wouldn’t devolve into sectarian violence on a massive scale, but for a pretty large majority of Palestinians that’s a non-starter.
My understanding is Netanyahu isn’t currently too hot on it either. I agree that solutions are in short supply!
Yes, and that’s how you end up with the status quo.
But one could argue that it’s a natural reaction to Palestinian insistence on a Right of Return that has simply never been granted to any other populace after a war involving ethnic cleansing: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-failures-of-zionism-and-anti
Netanyahu, though, has almost singularly been a force of suppression towards a two-state solution. Potential peace deals, some with legitimate counterproposals from Fatah, have been scuttled because Netanyahu was about to take power.
But contra this commenter (and, for that matter, Chuck Schumer), the U.S. doesn’t hold many cards to get Netanyahu to try and make a deal. Removing all military support will either cause Israel to be wiped out, a terrible look to the rest of our allies, or remove what small influence we actually have. And frankly, it’s a little insulting to Israel to be talked about as if they’re a mere client state of the U.S., with no motivations or power of its own.
> or remove what small influence we actually have
This has been the justification for supporting Israel to the hilt for as long as I have been politically aware, the idea that "if we don't continue or increase current support, we will lose leverage." But Netanyahu has put lie to that, as he's realized that there is nothing that he can do that the U.S. will not support (issuing empty declarations of concern, grave concern, even alarm do not count). The U.S. government chose to believe Netanyahu over its own lying eyes when they concluded that Israel was intentionally blocking aid to Gaza, because Netanyahu said privately to them that he wouldn't do something like that (https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken).
To be clear, I don't think it's unreasonable for Israeli politicians to handle themselves this way. It's not a conspiracy or whatever. It's just a realization that if you have the world's largest super power supporting you effectively without limit, there's no reason for you to change your behavior. I think that Netanyahu is a particularly bad person, but it's odd that people claim he's some one-off bad actor rather than someone who makes self-interested (both for himself and, to a much, much lesser extent, Israeli interests as he understands them) choices in a system that the US has enabled.
So being told that really both sides are at fault, so we must continue to support Israel without condition because it's complicated is extremely frustrating.
Uhhhhhhhhhh
You make a good case for reverting back to complexity. TNC seems determined to counter the lack of Palestinian vintage point by being solely committed to it. A revolution is necessary. The question is whether it will require a peaceful or a bloody one. What we can say is that it is certainly one sided when the world's superpower is providing arms for one side. I'm thinking of all of this and still holding off till the book arrives and I'm able to go through TNC's thoughts.
the problem is real ,seems it's a sort of corruption. interesting side to this is that there was a plan for a texas fracking outfit to drill into the tunnels in gaza and flood out the fighters. instead the plan was ditched and it's nard no to see that the war machine profiteers probably were influential in this choice. it's also clearly a land grab.
Sorry for my one-sided and practical view in advance. Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries on all sides. And they have more behind them. All ready to kill all the Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Oh...let's not forget Iran of course and its Hezbollah and Hamas. So all these countries instead of doing things to benefit their citizens insist on fighting Israel over a few square miles of land? Maybe remind them of "40 Acres and a mule" and let them try that. Or band together to create a mutual marketplace and hi tech stuff. They do have the capability. Oh well...I guess my view is simply "tough shit"...you had and have your chance to stop all this but you don't. FUCK YOU.
BTW...what if Mexico and Canada were shooting missles into Texas, Illinois, New York, Utah, California, South Dakota, etc etc. What would the USA do? Go to the United Nations? I don't think so. And also the USA is NOT fighting this war and dying. Israel is so get off your high horse and stop the bullshit that the USA can stop this humanely. War is hell...remember.
Sounds kinda hawkish for me. Hmm.