What Bill Maher & Others Get Wrong About Israel-Palestine
The blame game fails within a densely populated, tiny, and coveted land
Bill Maher is a comic force of nature, brilliantly straddling the extremes of our increasingly polarized, decreasingly rational public discourse. An old school centrist Democratic with a libertarian flair, Maher isn’t shy about criticizing the excesses of both sides in his own smart, cynical, and uproariously funny style. I watch and agree with him 95% of the time.
Part of the 5% I disagree with him — and in this case, strongly — is his assertion that the Palestinians are “whiners,” and, unlike other vanquished people throughout history, need to “get over it.” Watch the clip here to get the essence of his argument, citing multiple cases where other groups from the Irish to the Germans to the Jews have been forced to accept defeat:
The essence of my counter-argument is this: the land occupied by the Israelis and Palestinians is tiny — about the size of New Jersey — and precious — all the world’s religions claim it — and their populations are about equal. Neither side is going anywhere, which means they are forced to either wage an endless war of attrition, or negotiate some sort of viable solution.
Notice that I’m not arguing as to who is wrong or right in this conflict, who is or isn’t justified in their actions throughout this seven decade long disaster. The point I’m making is that in terms of sheer logistics, the reality of what’s on the ground, the Palestinians haven’t “accepted their defeat” and continue to fight not because they’re “whiners,” but because they can.
Bill cites historical examples which aren’t relevant, so I’ll cite counter-examples that are: the indigenous populations in North America were conquered by European white people, who took the land and forced the natives into “reservations” where they since haven’t “whined” about defeat. Why? Because the continent is vast, their population and tech no match.
Another example: Why has Japan accepted their unconditional surrender, and not launched post-WWII terrorist attacks against the United States? Because the island is on the other side of the planet, and they have a sovereign country. The Palestinians, in contrast to Native Americans and Japanese people, are too close and too populous to “move on” as losers.
These simple facts make the decades-long Israeli strategy of 100x retaliation, Gaza isolation, West Bank annexation, and racial segregation untenable, and eventually self-destructive. As Israel’s population and government shift to the extreme right, and the Palestinians get more radicalized, the future looks grim, with no discernible end state but chaos.
Conversely on the Palestinian side, “From the River to the Sea!” is incendiary rhetoric that will never happen, the Jews not going anywhere, either. Accepting a 22% maximum of the land is a best case scenario under any circumstances, and that must be the foundation for the Palestinians to reasonably negotiate and move toward lasting peace, too.
To say it again, and again — I’m not stating that either side is wrong or right, justified or unjustified, aggressor or victim. Instead, I’m calling out what to me seems obvious: the Israelis aren’t going anywhere, the Palestinians aren’t going anywhere, their populations are roughly equal, the land is tiny and considered precious, and therefore both must compromise for peace.
And lastly, understanding these simple facts is relevant because dismissing them throws not only the region but the entire world into peril. The Israeli-Saudi security deal is a major breakthrough, but as we’ve been reminded since October 7th, leaving the Palestinians out of the Middle East peace equation isn’t — and has never been — possible. Negotiate, or perish.
Thanks to everyone commenting on this post. Here’s another post addressing the most prevalent pushback, that of Islamic extremism being the intractable obstacle to peace in the region, check it out:
And take a look at an Instragram video where I discuss this topic…
Watch our entire discussion here…
And here’s a robust debate inspired by the Bill Maher post…
What do you think? Of course I welcome a Bill rebuttal, and one from Sam Harris while we’re at it…
