The above is a picture I snapped yesterday at Harvard University. It is of a . . . how to describe this protest, or rally? “Pro-Palestinian”? “Anti-Israel”? I would say “anti-Israel,” from the remarks I heard. Because I think a truly pro-Palestinian person would want the Palestinians free of Hamas and other such groups: murderers, terrorists, gangsters.
I remember something that Bernard Lewis, the late historian, would often say, wryly: “Some people think that Arabs are born to be ruled by dictatorships — that democracy and basic human rights are Western notions, alien to the Arabs. This is known as the ‘pro-Arab’ view.”
The woman I heard addressing the rally was accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and the rest. The crowd was cheering — letting out a brief roar — after each of her statements. It was like a call-and-response. I found it creepy and stagey.
I also thought, “How lightly informed these people are.” The speaker gave the impression that the Israel Defense Forces were in Gaza just for kicks — or that they were like Putin, invading in order to brutalize and subjugate.
On October 7, Hamas killed more Jews in one day — about 1,200 — than anyone had killed since the Holocaust. Hamas pledges to do it over and over again: as often as they can. They exist to destroy Israel.
What would you do? It is a powerful question. It is one that Shimon Peres asked, in 2009. (I wrote about this here.) Erdogan of Turkey was saying that Israel was killing children on beaches, just for kicks. Peres said — shouted — “What would you do if you were to have in Istanbul every night a hundred rockets?” (That’s what Israel had been experiencing.)
In 1947, the United Nations proposed its partition: two states, side by side. The Jews said yes, and declared their state. The Arabs declared war on Israel, trying to kill this new nation — or reestablished nation — in its crib. Some have been warring on Israel ever since.
The Palestinians call May 1948 (when Israel was refounded) the “naqba,” or the “disaster.” It has been for them, yes. But it need not have been, as Tzipi Livni pointed out in 2008, when Israel turned 60. (For my post on this, go here.) Their state could be as old as Israel. They could have had it at many junctures since.
Peaceful coexistence has always been on the table, in one form or another.
Margaret Thatcher went to Israel in 1986. She was the first British prime minister to go there. Heaven knows I loved her (and was influenced by her). But she kept telling Israelis that it was not in their interest to be occupiers.
They have never wanted to be. They have never wanted to be an occupying nation or a warrior nation. These things have been forced on them — as matters of survival. From Gaza, they withdrew in 2005. (That was a dramatic decision by the government, roiling Israel.) The results have been ghastly.
If you want to sound smart, say, “The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is endlessly complicated. Layer upon layer.” It is, in a way. In another, it is not: Will the two sides agree to peaceful coexistence or not? Israel says yes, always has.
Egypt said yes. (Cost Sadat his life, to be sure.) Fifteen years later, Jordan said yes. (King Hussein died in bed.) In recent years, others have said yes.
Friends of the Palestinians, in my judgment, will ask them to eschew self-pity, not to mention terror, and agree to peaceful coexistence and get on with life. Not agree in an Arafat-y, Oslo-y way: really agree, with all the good that would follow.