The Impossibility of Bibi Agreeing To Peace

A hypothetical question for Israel supporters.

Suppose Israel was asked to craft the contours of a peace deal in Gaza. And suppose they were allowed to put any conditions they wanted into that deal, subject to just two limitations:

1. Palestinians cannot be compelled, directly or indirectly, to leave the Gaza Strip;
2. Palestinians must be given full citizenship and democratic rights in whatever sovereign nation agrees to control Gaza.

The first is essentially a rule against ethnic cleansing, the second a rule against apartheid.

Beyond those stipulations, Israel is allowed to put any conditions it likes into the deal.

I do not claim, to be clear, that so long as these conditions are met any agreement between Israel and Palestine would necessarily be just. Rather, I present these as the absolute, barest-of-the-bare minimum redlines that must be respected no matter how one-sided the remaining conditions are in Israel's favor. And the point of the exercise is that, so long as these minimums are acceded to, Israel can load up the "deal" as favorably as it wants.

Given that, my question is simple: could this Israeli government come up with a deal that meets these parameters?

And my suspicion is no, it couldn't. The "unthinkable thought" of 2019 is now a reality. And the impossibility of Israel agreeing to a peace deal that abides by even this extraordinary minimums is a large part of why Israel drags this war on and on and on.

Start with the second proviso. The framing is a requirement of equal citizenship in "whatever sovereign nation controls Gaza", and that ambiguity is intentional: it could encompass an independent Palestinian state, or it encompass Israeli annexation. But of course, this makes the dilemma apparent: Bibi and his coalition are dead-set against allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, but they are also implacably opposed to incorporating Gaza Palestinians into the Israeli state (at least, on equal citizenship).

This (for Bibi) conundrum inspires increasingly desperate and fanciful efforts to escape the impossible bind -- for example, proposing that some other Arab state assume control of Gaza (for obvious reasons, nobody seems interested in stepping up). The increasingly open gestures towards full ethnic cleansing also can be understood through this "dilemma" -- the fewer Palestinians who remain in Gaza, the less daunting annexation looks.

And ultimately, the impossibility of resolving this problem makes all the other conditions we sometimes talk about moot. Questions about return of the hostages, demilitarization, right of return, reparations, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state -- I don't want to say they're unimportant, but while Bibi is in charge they're epiphenomenal. Even if Israel got what it says it wants along all these fronts (immediate return of the hostages, a demilitarized Palestinian state, rejection of right of return, compensation for 10/7, recognition), I genuinely don't think that this government could say "yes" to the deal if it meant either accepting an independent Palestinian state or incorporating Palestinians into Israel as full and equal citizens. Maybe if you loaded up some comically evil and implausible conditions ("reparations to the tune of $1 trillion/year") -- but that would just emphasize that the response of the Israeli government to this hypothetical would be to search frantically for a way to not make the deal.

For what it's worth, this toxic feature of Bibi and his cronies does I think mark out a tangible and meaningful difference between the current Israeli governing coalition and its realistic rivals. It's become popular to denigrate the belief (or "fantasy", as Ezra Klein said) among liberal Zionists that "Bibi is the problem" by observing that a core hostility to Palestinian rights and equality is shared among a much broader segment of Israeli society (including leading opposition figures) than many would care to admit. There is, regrettably, something to this critique -- but the hypothetical I'm pursuing here does I think suggest how it might be overstated, because I do think that the main opposition would be substantially different along these lines. They have no eagerness to create a Palestinian state, but it is not an immovable object for them; opposition to it does not lie at the center of their entire ideological being. It's not guaranteed or even easy, but given the right conditions, one can imagine them making a deal. With Bibi, one can't -- and that's a big difference.

But in the meantime, it is Bibi in control of Israel, and with Bibi in charge of Israel the impossibility of resolving this problem is a critical reason why the war continues. Agreeing on the contours of a peace deal only is relevant when peace is at hand. So long as Israel remains at war, it can delay having to decide an impossible choice. (The fact that once the war ends Bibi probably has to reckon with his criminal charges is also a factor, and a related one -- it goes to the point that Bibi wants the war to continue and is endangered by the prospect of it ending, no matter what the terms are).

In a different context almost 20 years ago, Ehud Olmert mocked those who obsessed over the exact acreage of a peace deal as having supposedly existential stakes for Israel's existence. 

“With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”

He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”

The hills don't matter, but pretending like the hills do matter, and matter so much that we couldn't possibly make a deal unless we are absolutely guaranteed to control these hills is a way of forestalling having to make a decision on the deal. And the same thing feels true in Gaza. All the talk about needing to destroy one more Hamas battalion, root out one more tunnel network, take out one more "second-in-command" -- who seriously thinks that is what will make the difference? They're delaying mechanisms -- so long as Israel can say "we still must do these military things", they can avoid having to commit to a choice on peace they're fundamentally unwilling to make. Like "airstrikes while you wait", it's something to do while you can't think of what else to do.

All that said, I open to being persuaded otherwise. Tell me a set of provisions -- I wouldn't even demand that they be realistic, so long as they aren't utterly absurdist -- that comports with the above two limitations that you think Bibi would accept, and I'll consider it. But I'm skeptical they exist.

Thomas Massie Opposes All Foreign Aid. Also, He's Antisemitic

The JTA has an article about the backlash AOC is experiencing for voting against an amendment that would defund Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system. It's interesting reading, and I'm curious whether the backlash will have the desired effect (pushing AOC to a more uncompromisingly anti-Israel position) or the exact opposite (convincing her that there is no pleasing these people and she's better off ignoring them).

But that's not the part I want to talk about. Rather, there was a tiny aside in the article that I suspect most of you didn't notice but which jumped out at me.

While AOC voted against the amendment, the article lists off the six House Representatives who voted in favor. The two sponsors, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ilhan Omar, plus four others:

In addition to Omar and Greene, Democrats Al Green of Texas, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania also supported it, as well as Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who opposes all foreign aid.

Do you see it? It's that explanatory qualifier for Massie. The other five are implied to be motivated by anti-Israel hostility, but Massie is presented as operating on a larger isolationist principle. We shouldn't group him in with the other five.

The thing is, it's true that Massie opposes all foreign aid. But it's also true that he's one of the most antisemitic members of Congress, and his votes against Iron Dome should absolutely be read in that light. He was the sole vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism. He introduced a "Dual Loyalty Disclosure" bill clearly inspired by neo-Nazis who think Jews are secret Israeli agents, for crying out loud.

So why isn't that the relevant explanatory context? Yes, Massie is an isolationist, but there's a long history of paleo-conservative isolationists guzzling antisemitic broth, and Massie seems clearly to be of that ilk. Yet for some reason, the instinct is to elide that history -- no, worse, to actively obscure it. One could defend doing with him what JTA did with his three colleagues -- simply noting their votes without elaboration. But if one is going to single Massie out and say "this guy needs more context", it is absurd to offer a framing that is predominantly exculpatory to the guy who once tweeted about pitting "Zionism" against "American patriotism".

It's often suggested that Republicans think they have a get-out-of-antisemitism-free card so long as they are "pro-Israel", and too many Jewish institutions accept that card as fair currency. But I really think the rot runs deeper than that -- there's just a deep, fundamental resistance to identifying Republican antisemitism at all. Massie is a clear case -- he's certainly not "pro-Israel" under any normal definition, but even he gets favorable framing of the sort that would never be extended to the Ilhan Omars of the world (even though I think Massie's "Zionism" vs "patriotism" tweet is far more egregiously antisemitic than, say, Omar's "Benjamins" remarks). I'm not going to say it's impossible to overcome -- Greene's "Jewish Space Lasers" bit seems to have penetrated -- but it seems that even anti-Israel Republicans still benefit from the halo that assumes, against all evidence and logic, that Republicans who might appear to be acting on hostility to Jews must have some nobler or more reasonable excuse behind their actions.