Two Jews Duke It Out Over Palestine
A robust dialogue showcases the growing divergence within the Jewish community
The era of all Jews showing unilateral and unconditional support for everything Israel does is over. Fissures within the American and global Jewish community have been growing, paradoxically exacerbated by Israel’s stunning economic and military superiority. Once the David of the region, Israel is now the Goliath — often seen as a bully by younger Jews.
Palestinian strategists such as Hamas’ former leader Yahya Sinwar have not only been aware of this worsening schism, but waged asymmetrical warfare against Israel as a means to widen it. The October 7th attacks were designed to trigger typical 100x IDF retaliation, the inevitable bombing and invasion of Gaza perverse but effective means to realize Palestinian goals.
Not only are marginalized Palestinians again front page news, but the destruction in Gaza and the social media streams depicting thousands of civilian casualties have boosted sympathy for their cause, indefinitely paused the Saudi-Israeli security deal, and exponentially increased global anti-Israeli and antisemitic sentiment. Hamas’ mission: accomplished.
Icing on Sinwar’s cake is the continued fracturing of Jewish attitudes regarding Israel, too. Older and more conservative Militant Zionists show their unconditional support for everything Israel does with enhanced zeal, while younger, progressive liberal Leftist Apologists segments criticize Israel to the point of actively protesting against it, and even supporting Hamas.
An American Jew in neither camp, I’ve tried to understand the history of the region, and the ongoing conflict. My post What Bill Maher & Others Get Wrong About Israel-Palestine created a buzz on Medium, many readers across all sides of the issue weighing in. I argued that dismissing the Palestinians as “whiners” unwilling to accept defeat misses the point.
Three simple and obvious facts make the Israel-Palestine situation historically, geographically, and demographically unique: 1) the contested land is precious and tiny; 2) the Jewish-Arab populations are close to each other and about equal in size; and 3) neither tribe is going anywhere. The Palestinians haven’t acquiesced to their fate because they don’t have to.
The inevitable implication of that obvious reality is negotiate or perish. Failing for decades to create any lasting and stabile peace, the region has continuously oscillated from a simmering war of attrition to all-out wars, the post-October 7th multifront conflict yet another and exponentially worse flair up. Tragically the same behaviors have lead to the same results.
Pushback to my POV centered around the Palestinian leadership’s Islamist extremism being the biggest obstacle to peace, an ideology that makes negotiation impossible because their express goals are destroying Israel and taking 100% of the land — conversely justifying Israel’s forever policy of “never negotiating with terrorists,” and 100x retaliation to every attack.
After responding to several commenters, I consolidated my counterpoint to their counterpoint and posted a follow up, Israel’s Islamist Excuse. To simplify the debate, I tacitly assumed that the Palestinian Islamists want Israel destroyed, and the Militant Zionists never want Palestinian independence, while arguing that neither should preclude negotiations.
The Jewish Ghost examined my assertions point-for-point, and responded with thoughtfulness and detail. I reciprocated, and we went back and forth several times until agreeing to disagree. I’ve never met this writer, and don’t know anything about their background, but based on our exchange assume that we loosely but convincingly represent each Jewish perspective.
With the writer’s permission I’ve consolidated our sidebar comment thread on my “Israel’s Islamist Excuse” post, edited our dialogue slightly into a smoother flow, and elaborated a bit where the segues lent themselves to an added point or reference. Hopefully I’ve captured the essence of our opposing but often complementary POVs. We’re eager for you to join in:
Jewish Ghost
In the ongoing discourse, many well-meaning people argue that peace can only be achieved through renewed negotiations, regardless of the obstacles posed by extremist ideologies and fractured leadership on the Palestinian side. These arguments often dismiss the very real threats posed by groups like Hamas, oversimplify the complex history of failed peace attempts and other trust building and economic development gestures by Israel, and falsely equate Israel’s democratic government with terrorist organizations. I maintain that you need some baseline understanding before you negotiate (i.e. both peoples deserve a homeland and a peaceful existence).
The claim that Israel must sit down at the negotiating table, no matter what, ignores the fundamental issue at the heart of the conflict: there is no legitimate, unified peace-seeking Palestinian leadership to negotiate with.
Furthermore, suggesting that Islamist extremism is irrelevant to peace talks dangerously underestimates the role that violent ideology plays in perpetuating the cycle of violence. Peace cannot be achieved through negotiations alone, without first addressing the deeper issues of extremist leadership and existential denial of Israel’s right to exist. It would be a colossal waste of time and effort.
By claiming that Islamist extremism shouldn’t be an obstacle to negotiations, you overlook the very real and immediate threats posed by groups like Hamas. Hamas’s charter calls for the destruction of Israel and absolutely no negotiations. It is their way or the highway. It is impossible to negotiate a peace agreement with an organization that want to purge the land of the State of Israel and refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist.
As long as Palestinian leadership is divided between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, with Hamas controlling Gaza, infiltrating the West Bank, and acting as a terrorist entity, there is no unified Palestinian side to negotiate with. Negotiations require at least a base-level acceptance of coexistence, which Hamas completely rejects.
Mookie
That begs the question of why it’s impossible to negotiate a peace agreement with an organization that refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist. As I’ll argue, words mean nothing, and actions are everything.
The action that needs to start again is peace talks that might even lead to Palestinian societal transformation, not continued escalation that has already been proven to create more radicals.
You also cite how Hamas and the PA are at odds, preventing a unified entity for effective negotiations, which is true, but fail to mention Netanyahu’s central role in encouraging and facilitating that fracture.
You also insist, begging the next question, that a base-level acceptance of coexistence is required, which I again ask, why? Negotiations begin at a beginning, not at the end. As long as two sides are talking to each other, the overall security threat is reduced. “Know thy enemy!” makes transparency superior to opaque speculation and festering hatred.
Start with securing your borders, then both sides agreeing not to attack and invade, and showing their cards. See what happens from there. What has either side to lose? The alternative is silence, and continued cycles of spiraling violence. The potential is movement toward a new direction.
JG
I am not talking about an end agreement. I am talking about a valid agenda to make the initial conversation meaningful. And what happens when in anticipation of the first meeting, drones, missiles, and rockets are lofted from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank, and Gaza. Every time Israel has made concessions — whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or elsewhere — those concessions have often been met with escalated violence.
After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas used the power vacuum to wipe out the PA leadership, take control, and turn Gaza into a launching pad for thousands of rocket attacks and infiltrating terror tunnels. There is no reason to believe that further concessions will be met with anything other than more violence.
Mookie
You seem to have a crystal ball, seeing the future clearly. You also consider Israeli concessions completely unilateral, with no contextual framing of Israeli actions that precipitate ill will, distrust, and yes, violence on the part of the Palestinians. Israel has lost patience with the continued violence, and now has an ultra-right-wing government.
I’m not saying that all Palestinian actions, especially violent ones, are justified — I’m saying that you paint a one-sided picture with your analysis, always making the Palestinians responsible for every failing.
JG
The rise of Netanyahu’s government is not merely due to a loss of patience. It is the result of decades of failed peace attempts, numerous terror attacks, attempts at trust building and economic development efforts in the West Bank and a genuine lack of a partner for peace.
Netanyahu’s policies, while controversial, are seen by many Israelis as necessary for security in a context where Palestinian leadership is unwilling or unable to control extremist elements.
Mookie
The failed peace attempts are a consequence of the failures, disinformation, and broken promises from both Israel and the Palestinians (well documented, and agreed by pundits on both sides who study them seriously and objectively, I can cite numerous sources if you’d like).
The numerous terror attacks against Israel were meant to disrupt the talks, but didn’t have to had Israel not walked away — just as, say, the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish terrorist, and continued illegal West Bank settlements are meant to disrupt the talks from the Israeli side, and now preclude them entirely.
And let’s not forget Netanyahu’s personal interest in staying out of jail by staying in power, and doing so by continuing the war in Gaza, and now the invasion of Lebanon.
Israeli actions, and most significantly reactivity to Palestinian intransigence, have contributed to the failure of negotiations, not to mention many Israelis not wanting negotiations under any circumstances, because they are unwilling to cede any power to the Palestinians.
You yourself acknowledge questionable and failed leadership on the right wing Israeli side.
Israel, after all, is the power — like any parent with a misbehaving but weaker child, tolerance is more effective, in the long run, than brute force — which the Palestinians have used to bring attention to themselves, and cast Israel in an increasingly bad light.
The IDF response to October 7th was exactly what Hamas hoped for. A good idea is to not do what your enemy expects you to do, especially if they are the ones triggering you to do it.
JG
Hamas deliberately targets civilians, knowing Israel will respond, so they can leverage the civilian death toll for propaganda. The claim that this cycle is Israel’s fault ignores the fact that Hamas uses human shields, stores weapons in civilian areas, and diverts humanitarian aid for military purposes. The core issue isn’t Israel’s retaliation but Hamas’s strategy of embedding itself in the civilian population to provoke these responses.
Mookie
Your argument is circular. Sinwar attacked on October 7th with the tacit assumption that the IDF would 1000x retaliate like it normally does — and that’s exactly what the IDF did. The result has decimated Gaza, killed many thousand civilians, and now precipitated a multifront conflict.
Knowing that Hamas embeds itself within the civilian population doesn’t justify or absolve Israel of accountability for bombing all those civilians. Like that Islamist extremism one, “human shields” are yet another excuse for the IDF to kill anyone who gets in the way of their terrorist targets.
Imagine a bus full of people with a terrorist at the wheel. You can wait until the terrorist is exposed, and the bus is stopped to take him out. That isn’t as fast and efficient, as satisfying from a vengeance point of view as taking out the terrorist driver and saying to hell with all the passengers, but it can work, at least with mid-level to senior leadership.
In contrast the IDF is savage and brutal in Gaza, and now pulverizing Southern Lebanon, too. The rockets need to stop flying, and yes, Hamas must be dismantled as a governing body, but the IDF needs to stop blowing up thousands of women and children.
Israel needs to do better — not only for humanitarian reasons, but its own global PR reasons. Not only is anti-Israeli and antisemitic sentiment worse than ever before, but Gaza and now Lebanon are again the breeding grounds for another radicalized Arab generation.
JG
While global antisemitism and criticism of Israel have indeed surged, much of this criticism is fueled by disinformation, biased media coverage, and double standards applied only to Israel. The idea that Israel’s actions alone are responsible ignores the longstanding anti-Israel sentiment that exists irrespective of the country’s actions.
Mookie
Part of Sinwar’s strategy was to fragment American Jewish sentiment, too, and that of the younger American population in general, and he succeeded brilliantly at both. Not only are American campuses erupting with protests, but younger American voters are putting pressure on Congress to rethink their bipartisan and unconditional support of Israel.
Why should Israel care about global public opinion, since they and the Jews are already hated anyway? My answer: Because the negative publicity engendered by the IDF doing so much damage in Gaza — and now Lebanon — streams minute by minute on TikTok, and that real time, continuous exposure, justified or unjustified, fair or unfair, is having an enormous impact on the American electorate, and ultimately Israel’s future.
The narrative created by Hamas is resistance to occupation, isolation, and segregation, which they can indefinitely sustain due to the factors I cited in the original Bill Maher blog post: the land is tiny and precious, the Jewish-Palestinian populations close to each other and roughly the same size, and neither side going anywhere.
JG
Resistance is not some noble stance against oppression here; it’s driven by extremist ideology that glorifies martyrdom and the destruction of Israel. The root of the conflict is not just about land or grievances, but about existential denial of Israel’s right to exist. Until that ideological barrier is addressed, resistance is not going to be productive or lead to peace.
Mookie
That again begs the question of Palestinian resistance continuing regardless of it being effective, which it will, especially with the IDFs continued 100x retaliatory strategy, and the benefit to the Palestinians of Israel’s PR descending into global revulsion.
I agree with you that Islamist extremist ideology is terrible and inhibitory to peace, that it fuels the entire mess, but disagree with you on how to deal with it. Keep beating them, and they’ll keep biting. Hamas can’t be “destroyed,” because underlying is an idea and an aspirational movement that will only morph into a new, and likely worse, incarnation.
Stop the endless war of attrition, and return to peace talks.
JG
This argument completely ignores the failure of past peace talks. The 2000 Camp David talks and the 2008 Olmert proposals offered the Palestinians almost everything they were asking for — including large parts of East Jerusalem — and were still rejected.
The idea that peace talks will succeed by just showing “good faith” is naive when there is no cohesive Palestinian leadership willing to agree to a lasting solution.
Also, the bullshit refugee problem is a non-starter for Israel. The only thing that makes sense is Israel should offer some reparations and the Arab countries need to finally properly absorb them and provide citizenship to them.
Mookie
Again, history cites in detail both sides blowing it at the peace table, with ancillary terror attacks and provocations from both sides deliberately meant to disrupt and destroy the talks doing exactly that.
It never ceases to amaze me how each tribe is such an expert at revisionist history. Seems soon as Israel and Palestine are close to a deal, a bus blows up in Tel Aviv, an IDF soldier is kidnapped, or a Prime Minister is assassinated.
And yes, the Netanyahu-encouraged fragmentation of Palestinian leadership has left a power vacuum, not to mention the idea of ever negotiating peace with Hamas is a non-starter post-October 7th — especially considering the IDF goal is their “destruction”. That said, the Palestinians should be encouraged to find surrogates, maybe from Qatar.
Far as the “bullshit refugee” problem goes, and your idea for “reparations” — sounds like the only solution you’re proposing is one of exiling the Palestinian populations out of Gaza and West Bank. Good luck with that, both on the part of the Palestinians who want to stay in Palestine, and the surrounding Arab countries (especially neighboring Egypt) who not only don’t want them, but refuse to meaningfully help them.
So we go full circle: stop bombing and invading, and start talking. Get the surrounding Arab countries involved in the peace and rebuilding process. The Islamist extremist argument is an excuse, and irrelevant.
JG
This statement fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the conflict. Islamist extremism is not a peripheral issue — it’s central to the conflict. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups are not interested in peace with Israel; they seek its destruction. Ignoring this reality only leads to more wasted efforts and lives.
Mookie
I completely agree with you that these radicalized groups are not interested in peace with Israel, and seek only its destruction. Yet I also insist that the only way to calm the ideology is to transform the society around it. Continue blowing up falafel stands and grandmas, and the ideologues win support and new recruits.
So what should Israel do? Secure the borders, conduct only targeted precision assassinations of senior leadership, and in parallel chit chat, maybe even do cross-border exchanges and some kind of treaty. People hate the people they don’t know, and become peaceful with the people they do business with. And then, if someone blows up or some people are wounded or killed, don’t freak out and cancel the whole deal. Be patient.
By analogy, Israel is the powerful parent, Palestine is the misbehaving but weaker kid. Stop the war — with peace, Islamist extremism will morph into secular moderation.
JG
This idea has been proven wrong time and again. Extremist ideologies do not simply dissipate because of concessions or gestures of goodwill. In fact, Hamas and other groups view concessions as signs of weakness. The peace process with groups like Hamas has no track record of leading to moderation. The Gaza withdrawal resulted in more extremism, not less.
Mookie
Continued West Bank settlements and treating Palestinians like shit isn’t “goodwill” — and regardless of the reasoning, isolating 2.14 million people in a tiny plot of land that’s 141 square miles total isn’t “goodwill,” or a “concession,” either. Not to mention periodically “mowing the lawn” in 100x retaliatory response to attacks broadcast around the world.
Historical counter-examples might be useful here, as I cite in the source post. Consider George Mitchell and Bertie Ahern in Northern Ireland, or Richard Holbrooke and Igor Ivanov in Yugoslavia, where peace finally broke out thanks to old school negotiating.
JG
These comparisons are flawed. The conflicts in Northern Ireland and Yugoslavia were fundamentally different, both in terms of their causes and dynamics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves religious, historical, and existential elements that are not present in these examples.
The Palestinian leadership is deeply fragmented, with Hamas and the PA having entirely different goals and visions for the future. Furthermore, Hamas’s ideology is not one that lends itself to pragmatic compromises.
Mookie
No, no, and no. They are similar in that they had what appeared at their core an intractable religious and cultural conflict spanning generations, and yes, religious extremism, too.
What worked was the opposite of IDF strategy: STOP retaliating, and START talking. And the reasons you cite for there being a difference I have repeatedly tried to refute above, namely the opportunity to ignore extremist ideology, and a history of failed talks, and start anew without the cycles of endless and progressively worsening violence.
The culprits here aren’t the Israeli or Palestinian people, but their failed leadership. Netanyahu and Sinwar have poisoned the well.
JG
While Netanyahu’s policies may be criticized, equating him with a terrorist leader like Yahya Sinwar is both irresponsible and inaccurate. Netanyahu is an elected leader of a democratic state, while Sinwar is a terrorist leader who openly seeks Israel’s destruction. Moral equivalence between the two distorts the reality of the conflict.
Mookie
No, the comparisons are valid, and crystallizes the essence of the conflict. Netanyahu is a corrupt opportunist, and Sinwar is an ideological maniac. But they both have only their own interests at heart, and their strategies perversely complement and reinforce each other.
Given the opportunism of leadership from both sides, and the decades-long legacy of failure, violence, and hatred, neither side has the moral high ground.
JG
This moral equivalence argument ignores the significant differences between the two sides.
Israel is a democratic state that, despite its flaws, has repeatedly shown a willingness to make concessions for peace (Egypt, Jordan, and several offers to the Palestinians).
Hamas, on the other hand, is a terrorist organization that uses civilians as human shields, indoctrinates children with hate, and glorifies violence. The comparison is not only inaccurate but dangerously misleading.
Mookie
I find comparisons between Israel and the Palestinian groups — at least in terms of their malignant strategies — painfully accurate, too, more mirror reflections of each other.
Hamas pokes the Lion trying to kill it, while the Lion bites Hamas in order to calm it. The end result is seven decades of cyclical and escalating violence. Nobody is at the bargaining table.
It’s Israel’s move.
JG
This is the core reality. The Palestinian leadership is divided and incapable of presenting a unified front. Hamas controls Gaza and refuses to negotiate with Israel, while the Palestinian Authority lacks the authority and popular support to implement any agreement. Any negotiations under these conditions are doomed to fail, as there is no partner capable of enforcing a peace deal.
Mookie
So what? Get started anyway. Pick up the phone and call Qatar, maybe even Egypt, too. Get somebody to show up in a hotel, even if by proxy. Who cares? Just start talking. They’ll show up.
Let them fight amongst themselves. Let the talks go nowhere at first. Baby steps. Just agree not to attack each other. When any attacks happen, strike back with a targeted killing of the contested leadership, then keep the talks going.
Stop being infantile and unrealistic about this nonsense — and stop using all this as a series of excuses for not wanting to give any concessions to the Palestinians in the first place. Many in Israel mirror the stubbornness and extremism of their radical counterparts: they want more land, not less; they want weaker Palestinians, not stronger ones.
Negotiations must begin in good faith — from both sides. And since Israel has the military might to make the call, they need to initiate.
JG
I hate the civilian deaths on any side and I see partial merit in your suggestion to initiate dialogue and explore a compromise solution, perhaps with the PA. However, Hamas will reject any conciliatory steps and will view them as a sign of weakness. They are a death cult. They are arrogant, stubborn, and are willing to sacrifice themselves, their families, and the entire Palestinian population if it leads to the annihilation of Israel. Their second charter (the politically correct, toned down one) expresses a clear vision of Palestine that leaves no room for Israel. It rejects Israel’s legitimacy, rejects peaceful negotiations, and commits to armed resistance (code for destruction of Israel). I am not interested in repeating history; I want something to actually work. I maintain that Israel needs a credible, peace seeking partner.
My reasoning is rooted in the need to return to the principles set forth in 1947 and 1948, when a vision of peace and a two-state solution was originally placed on the table. On November 29, 1947, the UN passed resolution 181 (by a vote of 33 (60%) in favor 13 (23%) against, and 10 (17%) abstentions), which offered a two-state solution where both Jews and Arabs would coexist in separate, independent states. On May 14, 1948, the Israeli Declaration of Independence specifically referenced Resolution 181 and expressed Israel’s willingness to cooperate with the United Nations in implementing the partition. Israel’s Declaration did not claim the entire land of Israel; it acknowledged the borders outlined in the UN plan and focused on establishing a Jewish state within those boundaries. It is noteworthy that the right wing Revisionist Zionist movement and the underground Irgun, supported the idea of a Jewish state encompassing all of Mandatory Palestine, including both sides of the Jordan River. In the Declaration, Israel also extended a hand to the Arab inhabitants of the land, inviting them to participate as equal citizens and to work toward peace.
This acceptance of the partition boundaries underscores Israel’s initial commitment to the two-state vision proposed by the UN. Jews were the majority population in the areas designated for the Jewish state in Resolution 181. The plan was designed to reflect demographic realities at the time, placing most Jewish-majority areas within the Jewish state and most Arab-majority areas within the Arab state. According to the UN’s assessment in 1947, about 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs lived in the area designated for the Jewish state, making Jews the majority population there. Conversely, in the territory designated for the Arab state, Arabs were the clear majority. The partition plan sought to respect these demographic distinctions, which is why it divided the land in a way that aimed to minimize displacement while still providing for both a Jewish and an Arab state.
The Arabs unfortunately were arrogant and stubborn, thinking that they could easily wipe out this fledgling state with their regular armies. Thus, the Arab leadership rejected the offer and instead launched attacks against the newly formed Israeli state, igniting a conflict that tragically displaced people on both sides. Even today, roughly 20% of Israel’s population is Arab, with full citizenship rights, serving as a living counterpoint to any arguments about exclusion. The complex history of this region can’t be reduced to simplistic accusations; the only exclusionary stance was that of the Arab leaders who refused to coexist and instead chose violence over peace.
The Arabs and Palestinians since that time and after the 1967 war where they lost additional land have, as Bill Maher said, whined and adopted personae of victims, which they certainly are — victims of their own arrogance, stubbornness, and military failures, not victims of Israeli actions. I maintain that to secure a lasting peace we need two partners that have roughly similar visions.
Mookie
I appreciate your thinking, and the details of your argument, but I find it classic Israeli apologist rhetoric, rationalizing a failed strategy, regurgitating now irrelevant historical details, and justifying brutal retaliatory and escalatory tactics.
As I mentioned in the original Bill Maher blog post, I’m not stating that one side is right or wrong, merely what I think works or doesn’t given the region’s unique geography and demographics. A such, you can cite all the history you want, but that’s not going to change the present circumstances.
As a closing proposition, try this reductio ad absurdum argument:
“OK, let’s say you’re absolutely right: Israel can’t and shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists. Then what? What, exactly, aside from continuing this endless cycle of progressively worsening violence, do you propose as a viable solution? Wait around for the Palestinians to unify and not hate Israel? Or worse still, continue to bomb and invade them — eventually losing younger Americans from both sides of our political aisle, who will within a few years run the country, and ultimately deny Israel the luxury of its legacy bipartisan and unconditional support?”
JG
Mookie, this has been a great conversation, and much fun especially not having to respond to these “all-knowing propagandists”.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter. I understand your point about picking up the phone and discussing a compromise solution. What I’m suggesting, though, is that the U.S., other Western countries, and the Arab states should focus their efforts on helping the Palestinians find or develop leadership that’s genuinely willing to negotiate, while leaving Israel to manage its own course. That should be the priority.
My specific proposal is that the US, other Western nations, and neighboring Arab states (especially Egypt and Jordan who both have peace treaties with Israel, and each receive >$1billion annually from the US) to immediately expend a dramatic and emphatic effort to assist the Palestinians in cultivating or identifying leadership genuinely committed to meaningful negotiations, allowing Israel to complete their dismantling of Hamas with a promise of significantly fewer civilian casualties. But the focus on helping the Palestinians is paramount.
What do you think?
Mookie
Indeed! That’s a potentially viable solution we barely discussed, seeing how we were too busy duking it out, Jew vs Jew, in terms of “accountability” from this side or that. I think we both want what’s best for Israel, but disagree on the Israeli strategy and tactics that have been used to realize those goals.
That said, I think you’re absolutely right that a better Israeli and regional strategy must center on the necessary and significant role the surrounding Arab nations must play — especially those like Egypt and Jordan that have a direct vested interest across their own borders.
They can’t and won’t take the Palestinians in, but they could be instrumental in helping to guide the creation of new Gaza and West Bank leadership, stabilize the region, shift Palestinian society to a more secular, practical, and peaceful path, and encourage the necessary and overdue negotiations with Israel for a long-term solution.
Far as the specificities of your plan goes, $1B sounds great but I’m not sure if money is the issue — more the desire for these Arab partners to step up, especially considering how that would appear to their own populations in terms of “cozying up” to Israel and its — in this case however strategically expedient — decision to not move forward with negotiations until Hamas is completely replaced by more secular and sympathetic leadership.
Much of the Arab world has sat back doing nothing, pleased that the Palestinian problem is a thorn in Israel’s side. Instead, leadership throughout the region must facilitate and encourage these negotiations by, as you mention: 1) replacing Palestinian leadership with a unified, non-Islamist governing body, and 2) enforcing reform throughout the Palestinian territories that encourages building schools and businesses, instead of rockets and tunnels.
As quid pro quo, Israel must take Palestinian independence seriously, and start by 1) stopping West Bank settlement expansion, and even pulling back, and 2) treating Palestinians better, and eventually becoming a significant trading and business partner to Gaza and the non-occupied West Bank as the security situations improve.
Let’s continue the dialogue through our respective posts, and encourage feedback from others who can embellish, clarify, and perhaps even reconcile our opinions.
For reference, here are a few of my related posts. Feel free and add your own:
