Am I missing something, or does this proposal just literally say, “we should just find some Palestinians who don’t support terrorism and put them in charge”? This is much easier said than done. Few Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel, and even if some (unspecified) nation-builder found and “empowered” them, they would immediately be targeted by the terrorists and accused of collaborating with Israel. Which might even be true, since that Israel is the only country in the world with any incentive to make an effort at doing the nation-building here. At any rate, such a regime would be completely dependent on some outside force for security, at which point Gaza is really being run by that outside force. And I don’t see anyone but Israel being willing to do that job.
The involvement of Arab states and the UN in postwar Gaza will lead to the same situation again. Gaza must be run for some years on the same principles as post war Germany and Japan.
As some others are saying here, this is a facile proposal, the kind that sounds great to the west and would have substantial support in Israel even today. Unfortunately, polls of actual on-the-ground Palestinians show they overwhelmingly support Hamas. If this sort of system was ever possible, it would have been done long ago
hamas openly said they aren't there to take care of Gazans, that's other people's job. So unwra does that job, leaving hamas to do what(???) with the money and materials. Oh that's right, militarize. Build a corrupt funding arm. Shake down Gazans for money.
unwra paid teachers were exposed by UN Watch supporting the hamas attack. What were they teaching kids? Hate? Of course.
hamas had a major computer operation under unwra HQ -- with cables providing communications and electricity coming from unwra's offices.
And several unwra employees were active participants in the 10/7 attack.
People are unpacking why this war happened and its clear, unwra was an essential part of making it happen.
60 years of failure AND aiding a massive terror attack leading to a massive war. What a horrifiying legacy.
The existing institutions are a major enabler, unwra is the worst and needs to go. But it essential that business as usual end on almost every front
The author states, "The existing political institutions are the problem, not the solution."
Yes. Mostly Yes.
Palestinians have been their own worst enemy (their "friends" are a close 2nd). When I saw attempts at forming unity governments, I couldn't help but laugh. Why not take the worst possible people and have them work together?
The reality is Palestinians don't really have much in the way of existing political institutions. Or even a way to determine who their leader is. Rule of law? No. Its rule of whim. Civil rights? None of our first amendment rights exist in Palestinian society. But lots of backwards prejudices do. And on the apartheid front, Jews can't own land or vote in a Palestinian society, which is the same restrictions as Black people in S. Africa under apartheid.
George Washington is the Father of our Nation. Yasser Arafat is the Father of Palestinian society. We are fortunate that our nation's first leader was remarkable. Palestinians are unfortunate that their first leader was a low life, a murderer, corrupt to the core and a thief. Everyone wants to admire their founders. Not every nation is that fortunate.
It is rare a nation rejects its founder, but not unheard of. China did this with Mao. China respected Mao's virtue as a founder, but quickly trashed most of his ideas once he died. A tricky balancing act, but it was successful. Likewise Palestinian need to look at their founding legacy and trash it, in order to build a viable state.
Feith assumes (heretic that he is) this isn't a zero sum game. Few Palestinian supporters think much of Feith, most reject him, often vociferously. But his piece is genuinely pro-Palestinian, looking for a better way forward. Something Palestinian supporters almost never do. Because the truth is, they aren't supporting Palestinians. Palestinians have the worst "friends" in the world.
Obviously the only people who could run Gaza after the war is the Democratic Party of the United States. Let Democrats do to Gaza what they have done to Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and every other "paradise" they run...
After a few years of Democrat rule the fucking Gazans will be BEGGING Israel to occupy the shit out of them...
Yes! While I appreciate the idealism of this article (hey, we all need some hope these days!) it seemed awfully simplistic and not very realistic. Like—duh! Of course this is what’s needed. The problem is HOW…
Gaza and Israel are case study examples of how culture trumps everything. These are two tribes with, sadly, mutually exclusive operating systems who are quite willing to fight over disputed terra firma. Their animosities are ancestral; their oral histories enshrine unforgiveness. Neither can escape the gravity of their family honor. The weaker will serve the stronger in a perpetual see-saw of successful counter aggression and defense.
Golda Mier said it best, "We can forgive [the Arabs] for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with [the Arabs] when they love their children more than they hate us..."
Israel should do what they were chosen to do from antiquity. Teach the Torah's obligations, the Laws of Noah, to Gazans (non-Jews). Since Gaza is a district of the nation of Israel, also enforce these seven universal legal categories upon which civilization is established. The strictest application of these laws are potentially capital in punishments, but lesser punishments are encouraged if they produce obedience.
A noble ambition but unlikely to succeed. The endless conflicts involving the Middle East over the last 75 years originate from three widely held Islamic beliefs: All other religions than Islam are apostate, the secular West is culturally evil, and jihad against the infidels is the preferred solution. Western idealists cannot surrender the notion that the majority of Muslims harbor no ill will and that the endless violent aggression of Islamists is the responsibility of a minority of extremists and--in the minds of some Westerners--even justified. Over and over we are told that if we displace the extreme leaders, peace will blossom. This dream has been reiterated without success ad nauseam and is more a fantasy than a likely outcome.
Historians long ago concluded that the atrocities of Germany in the first half of the 20th century derived from an innate German mindset of militarism and cultural arrogance that empowered the Nazis. All Germans then living shared the responsibility and the guilt, without the excuses of "I didn't know" or "I was just following orders". They were defeated not by simply "cutting off the head" and installing new leadership via regime change; they were defeated by bringing the entire German speaking populace to its knees, sometimes with brutality that included generous and deliberate collateral damage. Ditto Japan.
While I am not suggesting the West subdue Islam in that way, I think it naive to believe that peace through negotiated regime change will work. The precondition to ending violence from Islamists requires a self-generated cultural reorientation in the Moslem world on a scale equivalent to the Renaissance or the Protestant Reformation. Islam was once a culture so sophisticated and erudite that it preserved most of what we know of our Greek and Roman heritage and gifted it back to us at the end of the Dark Ages. Until it becomes that again it will never relinquish its hatreds and bloody intentions and we endanger ourselves in the process.
Feith underestimates the widespread genocidal Jew-hatred of the Palestinians - which is allowed to flourish because most Muslims and leftists share it.
Respectfully, do we need to be concerned with this? After almost 80 years of stealing the aid and largesse of the international community to build these useless tunnels, and digging up a clean water system to build these garage band rockets, maybe the better approach would be to let them figure it out without any involvement whatsoever from the international community. There are communities who need help that are grateful for it, and it might just be time to focus on them.
This is not even mentioning that enough aid was siphoned to Ismail Haniya’s pockets that the international community should simply insist that he, personally, fund the reconstruction of his country that he broke.
I can't see an immediate solution to this, considering the indoctrinated hatred that that has been demonstrated in Gaza. The Palestinians chose Hamas, knowing what they stand for. Extinguishing this ideology has to be the prime directive, so "choice" doesn't seem to be in the cards for those that seemingly chose the path they're currently on.
The real issue is, should Gaza be rebuilt? From strictly business perspective, the cost of rebuilding Gaza coupled with the current and future aid needs of the strip is a much greater cost than paying the people of Gaza to leave, and ceding it to Israel, as is. If they are paid, they could probably live lives as millionaires in many Arab countries and could come back to Israel for a visit to see what they've done with the place. This might even be the basis for a peace plan. If it works for Gaza, might it work for Judea and Samaria (West Bank)? Pay the people to leave, it’s got to be a lot cheaper to pay them, the Palestinians, once. They could live in so many Arab countries with wealth. Consider the cost of war! Consider the cost of aid! Especially, consider the suffering!
Western countries have opened their borders to tens of millions of Middle Eastern immigrants, demonstrating unprecedented generosity for decades. At the same time many Gulf States import legions of non-Arab guest workers from places such as India, Africa, and East Asia. What if, instead of these guest workers, the Gulf States just opened their borders for the far less numerous Gazans to relocate? Two birds, one stone? It's a much smaller number of migrants than has been absorbed by Germany alone. Why are there Sri Lankans working in Qatar while Gazans are stuck in the armpit of the world? If you were Gazan would you rather live in poverty with little hope of a future in Gaza or in Dubai? Or are only Western countries obliged to shoulder the responsibility for refugees of Islamic countries?
Am I missing something, or does this proposal just literally say, “we should just find some Palestinians who don’t support terrorism and put them in charge”? This is much easier said than done. Few Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel, and even if some (unspecified) nation-builder found and “empowered” them, they would immediately be targeted by the terrorists and accused of collaborating with Israel. Which might even be true, since that Israel is the only country in the world with any incentive to make an effort at doing the nation-building here. At any rate, such a regime would be completely dependent on some outside force for security, at which point Gaza is really being run by that outside force. And I don’t see anyone but Israel being willing to do that job.
The involvement of Arab states and the UN in postwar Gaza will lead to the same situation again. Gaza must be run for some years on the same principles as post war Germany and Japan.
As some others are saying here, this is a facile proposal, the kind that sounds great to the west and would have substantial support in Israel even today. Unfortunately, polls of actual on-the-ground Palestinians show they overwhelmingly support Hamas. If this sort of system was ever possible, it would have been done long ago
Just another point about another institution
unwra is in this war up to their eyeballs.
hamas openly said they aren't there to take care of Gazans, that's other people's job. So unwra does that job, leaving hamas to do what(???) with the money and materials. Oh that's right, militarize. Build a corrupt funding arm. Shake down Gazans for money.
unwra paid teachers were exposed by UN Watch supporting the hamas attack. What were they teaching kids? Hate? Of course.
hamas had a major computer operation under unwra HQ -- with cables providing communications and electricity coming from unwra's offices.
And several unwra employees were active participants in the 10/7 attack.
People are unpacking why this war happened and its clear, unwra was an essential part of making it happen.
60 years of failure AND aiding a massive terror attack leading to a massive war. What a horrifiying legacy.
The existing institutions are a major enabler, unwra is the worst and needs to go. But it essential that business as usual end on almost every front
The author states, "The existing political institutions are the problem, not the solution."
Yes. Mostly Yes.
Palestinians have been their own worst enemy (their "friends" are a close 2nd). When I saw attempts at forming unity governments, I couldn't help but laugh. Why not take the worst possible people and have them work together?
The reality is Palestinians don't really have much in the way of existing political institutions. Or even a way to determine who their leader is. Rule of law? No. Its rule of whim. Civil rights? None of our first amendment rights exist in Palestinian society. But lots of backwards prejudices do. And on the apartheid front, Jews can't own land or vote in a Palestinian society, which is the same restrictions as Black people in S. Africa under apartheid.
George Washington is the Father of our Nation. Yasser Arafat is the Father of Palestinian society. We are fortunate that our nation's first leader was remarkable. Palestinians are unfortunate that their first leader was a low life, a murderer, corrupt to the core and a thief. Everyone wants to admire their founders. Not every nation is that fortunate.
It is rare a nation rejects its founder, but not unheard of. China did this with Mao. China respected Mao's virtue as a founder, but quickly trashed most of his ideas once he died. A tricky balancing act, but it was successful. Likewise Palestinian need to look at their founding legacy and trash it, in order to build a viable state.
Feith assumes (heretic that he is) this isn't a zero sum game. Few Palestinian supporters think much of Feith, most reject him, often vociferously. But his piece is genuinely pro-Palestinian, looking for a better way forward. Something Palestinian supporters almost never do. Because the truth is, they aren't supporting Palestinians. Palestinians have the worst "friends" in the world.
Obviously the only people who could run Gaza after the war is the Democratic Party of the United States. Let Democrats do to Gaza what they have done to Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and every other "paradise" they run...
After a few years of Democrat rule the fucking Gazans will be BEGGING Israel to occupy the shit out of them...
Yes! While I appreciate the idealism of this article (hey, we all need some hope these days!) it seemed awfully simplistic and not very realistic. Like—duh! Of course this is what’s needed. The problem is HOW…
The big question is ‘should there be a Gaza after the war’?
Gaza and Israel are case study examples of how culture trumps everything. These are two tribes with, sadly, mutually exclusive operating systems who are quite willing to fight over disputed terra firma. Their animosities are ancestral; their oral histories enshrine unforgiveness. Neither can escape the gravity of their family honor. The weaker will serve the stronger in a perpetual see-saw of successful counter aggression and defense.
Golda Mier said it best, "We can forgive [the Arabs] for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with [the Arabs] when they love their children more than they hate us..."
Israel should do what they were chosen to do from antiquity. Teach the Torah's obligations, the Laws of Noah, to Gazans (non-Jews). Since Gaza is a district of the nation of Israel, also enforce these seven universal legal categories upon which civilization is established. The strictest application of these laws are potentially capital in punishments, but lesser punishments are encouraged if they produce obedience.
A noble ambition but unlikely to succeed. The endless conflicts involving the Middle East over the last 75 years originate from three widely held Islamic beliefs: All other religions than Islam are apostate, the secular West is culturally evil, and jihad against the infidels is the preferred solution. Western idealists cannot surrender the notion that the majority of Muslims harbor no ill will and that the endless violent aggression of Islamists is the responsibility of a minority of extremists and--in the minds of some Westerners--even justified. Over and over we are told that if we displace the extreme leaders, peace will blossom. This dream has been reiterated without success ad nauseam and is more a fantasy than a likely outcome.
Historians long ago concluded that the atrocities of Germany in the first half of the 20th century derived from an innate German mindset of militarism and cultural arrogance that empowered the Nazis. All Germans then living shared the responsibility and the guilt, without the excuses of "I didn't know" or "I was just following orders". They were defeated not by simply "cutting off the head" and installing new leadership via regime change; they were defeated by bringing the entire German speaking populace to its knees, sometimes with brutality that included generous and deliberate collateral damage. Ditto Japan.
While I am not suggesting the West subdue Islam in that way, I think it naive to believe that peace through negotiated regime change will work. The precondition to ending violence from Islamists requires a self-generated cultural reorientation in the Moslem world on a scale equivalent to the Renaissance or the Protestant Reformation. Islam was once a culture so sophisticated and erudite that it preserved most of what we know of our Greek and Roman heritage and gifted it back to us at the end of the Dark Ages. Until it becomes that again it will never relinquish its hatreds and bloody intentions and we endanger ourselves in the process.
Feith underestimates the widespread genocidal Jew-hatred of the Palestinians - which is allowed to flourish because most Muslims and leftists share it.
Respectfully, do we need to be concerned with this? After almost 80 years of stealing the aid and largesse of the international community to build these useless tunnels, and digging up a clean water system to build these garage band rockets, maybe the better approach would be to let them figure it out without any involvement whatsoever from the international community. There are communities who need help that are grateful for it, and it might just be time to focus on them.
This is not even mentioning that enough aid was siphoned to Ismail Haniya’s pockets that the international community should simply insist that he, personally, fund the reconstruction of his country that he broke.
I can't see an immediate solution to this, considering the indoctrinated hatred that that has been demonstrated in Gaza. The Palestinians chose Hamas, knowing what they stand for. Extinguishing this ideology has to be the prime directive, so "choice" doesn't seem to be in the cards for those that seemingly chose the path they're currently on.
The Palestinians need what every successful post-Ottoman Arab nation has: A Monarchy strong enough to defeat all threats to its rule.
Peace is not made, it is enforced.
The real issue is, should Gaza be rebuilt? From strictly business perspective, the cost of rebuilding Gaza coupled with the current and future aid needs of the strip is a much greater cost than paying the people of Gaza to leave, and ceding it to Israel, as is. If they are paid, they could probably live lives as millionaires in many Arab countries and could come back to Israel for a visit to see what they've done with the place. This might even be the basis for a peace plan. If it works for Gaza, might it work for Judea and Samaria (West Bank)? Pay the people to leave, it’s got to be a lot cheaper to pay them, the Palestinians, once. They could live in so many Arab countries with wealth. Consider the cost of war! Consider the cost of aid! Especially, consider the suffering!
How about this:
Western countries have opened their borders to tens of millions of Middle Eastern immigrants, demonstrating unprecedented generosity for decades. At the same time many Gulf States import legions of non-Arab guest workers from places such as India, Africa, and East Asia. What if, instead of these guest workers, the Gulf States just opened their borders for the far less numerous Gazans to relocate? Two birds, one stone? It's a much smaller number of migrants than has been absorbed by Germany alone. Why are there Sri Lankans working in Qatar while Gazans are stuck in the armpit of the world? If you were Gazan would you rather live in poverty with little hope of a future in Gaza or in Dubai? Or are only Western countries obliged to shoulder the responsibility for refugees of Islamic countries?