The entire conflict has thrown my liberationist worldview for a loop. What I've settled on is this: until we recognize the role of religion, and religious motives, we can't make morally or logically consistent assessments of either the conflict or the history.
For example, what was the incipient cause of the initial Palestinian violence against Jewish settlers among them from 1850-1920? I don't believe the view that they interpreted it through a settler-colonial framework holds water. Looking at how Jews were treated in other Arab lands (bc Palestine was part of an empire, not a sovereign country), I conclude it was likely motivated principally by anger at Jews living on "holy lands". The direct association of early Palestinian leaders with the Nazis is especially troubling.
This tracks with the total abandonment of their homes in the rest of middle east (not only Arab countries. Iran isn't Arab) by Mizrahi Jews after the establishment of Israel. Why would 100% of a country's Jewish population leave their friends, family and ancestral homes, if not under severe threat?
So how do we characterize that threat? The case of Iran is most telling. As a non-Arab country, Iran and its people have no incentive for pan-Arab solidarity. And yet animus toward Israel is/has been the chief foreign policy position of Iran.
What about defense of imperiled Muslims more generally? Iran cooperated with Serbia (Yugoslavia) as part of the Non-Aligned Movement despite Serbian genocide against Muslim Bosniaks and Albanians. With Russia despite the first and second Chechen war and leveling of Grozny. And with China despite the Uighur genocide. Ditto for a host of other Arab and Muslim nations. Even Edward Said was against NATO intervention against Serbia to prevent genocide.
The only consistent position all these governments seem to hold is "defense" of Palestinians, or put another way, hostility to Israel. Especially damning is the behavior of Hamas itself. They want us to believe theirs is an anti-colonial struggle in behalf of the civil rights of their people. This is the narrative packaged for secular western audiences. And yet I can't square that with their total lack of concern for Palestinian people during their 20 year rule. And Palestinian support for this government leads me to believe that a majority are willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the same goals.
So what are those goals, really? If we look at ethnic-political minorities in the United States, every single movement with any popular backing recognized the need to build political power, find leadership, and push for a democratic process. If your goal is to eventually gain equality and then share a country with your current oppressors, this is the only logicall path.
I don't believe Hamas or Palestinians generally are illogical. So I conclude that the goal has never been, at least for leadership and a significant portion of Palestinians, peaceful cohabitation. Active sabotage against a two-state solution is evidence of this. So what's left to conclude? To me, the only explanation consistent with everything above is that Jews living in the "holy land" is intolerable to enough Muslims and Palestinians that they're willing to make enormous sacrifices to stop it. And from a humanist perspective this position is intolerable. The message-makers know this, and so they package the cause as a secular human rights struggle like the US civil rights movement. The confusion comes when we try to square that explanation with what we see on the ground.
All of the above is my personal attempt to cut through to the truth. As for Israel's motivation, there's a lot less obfuscation. Legitimate defense goals are clearly being polluted by fundamentalist ones who likewise seek to claim "holy land" for themselves. However, in a country with a mostly-free press and a mostly-democratic government, this ugly and indefensible motivation is clear for the world to see, and they're right to hate the current government for it's cooperation with fundamentalists and the violence that comes from it.
In short, in a religious war there are no good guys, despite Mr. Coates' assertions.
Thanks for reading. Definitely a thought dump, but I guess it's a reflection of how difficult it's been to get at anything resembling a nuanced and honest look at the whole thing.
The entire conflict has thrown my liberationist worldview for a loop. What I've settled on is this: until we recognize the role of religion, and religious motives, we can't make morally or logically consistent assessments of either the conflict or the history.
For example, what was the incipient cause of the initial Palestinian violence against Jewish settlers among them from 1850-1920? I don't believe the view that they interpreted it through a settler-colonial framework holds water. Looking at how Jews were treated in other Arab lands (bc Palestine was part of an empire, not a sovereign country), I conclude it was likely motivated principally by anger at Jews living on "holy lands". The direct association of early Palestinian leaders with the Nazis is especially troubling.
This tracks with the total abandonment of their homes in the rest of middle east (not only Arab countries. Iran isn't Arab) by Mizrahi Jews after the establishment of Israel. Why would 100% of a country's Jewish population leave their friends, family and ancestral homes, if not under severe threat?
So how do we characterize that threat? The case of Iran is most telling. As a non-Arab country, Iran and its people have no incentive for pan-Arab solidarity. And yet animus toward Israel is/has been the chief foreign policy position of Iran.
What about defense of imperiled Muslims more generally? Iran cooperated with Serbia (Yugoslavia) as part of the Non-Aligned Movement despite Serbian genocide against Muslim Bosniaks and Albanians. With Russia despite the first and second Chechen war and leveling of Grozny. And with China despite the Uighur genocide. Ditto for a host of other Arab and Muslim nations. Even Edward Said was against NATO intervention against Serbia to prevent genocide.
The only consistent position all these governments seem to hold is "defense" of Palestinians, or put another way, hostility to Israel. Especially damning is the behavior of Hamas itself. They want us to believe theirs is an anti-colonial struggle in behalf of the civil rights of their people. This is the narrative packaged for secular western audiences. And yet I can't square that with their total lack of concern for Palestinian people during their 20 year rule. And Palestinian support for this government leads me to believe that a majority are willing to sacrifice their own well-being for the same goals.
So what are those goals, really? If we look at ethnic-political minorities in the United States, every single movement with any popular backing recognized the need to build political power, find leadership, and push for a democratic process. If your goal is to eventually gain equality and then share a country with your current oppressors, this is the only logicall path.
I don't believe Hamas or Palestinians generally are illogical. So I conclude that the goal has never been, at least for leadership and a significant portion of Palestinians, peaceful cohabitation. Active sabotage against a two-state solution is evidence of this. So what's left to conclude? To me, the only explanation consistent with everything above is that Jews living in the "holy land" is intolerable to enough Muslims and Palestinians that they're willing to make enormous sacrifices to stop it. And from a humanist perspective this position is intolerable. The message-makers know this, and so they package the cause as a secular human rights struggle like the US civil rights movement. The confusion comes when we try to square that explanation with what we see on the ground.
All of the above is my personal attempt to cut through to the truth. As for Israel's motivation, there's a lot less obfuscation. Legitimate defense goals are clearly being polluted by fundamentalist ones who likewise seek to claim "holy land" for themselves. However, in a country with a mostly-free press and a mostly-democratic government, this ugly and indefensible motivation is clear for the world to see, and they're right to hate the current government for it's cooperation with fundamentalists and the violence that comes from it.
In short, in a religious war there are no good guys, despite Mr. Coates' assertions.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I think it's filled with truth.
FYI, I just read this piece which is a very cogent repudiation of Coates' arguments (from a Palestinian): https://www.newsweek.com/what-ta-nehisi-coates-doesnt-understand-about-us-palestinians-opinion-1968854
Thanks for reading. Definitely a thought dump, but I guess it's a reflection of how difficult it's been to get at anything resembling a nuanced and honest look at the whole thing.
And thanks for the link. I'll check it out.