Pinned
It’s so exhausting having to constantly prove antisemitism. People will believe someone is racist or homophobic based on the flimsiest hearsay but anytime someone is accused of hating jews we’re expected to pull out detailed receipts dating back decades like some kind of IRS audit
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani sparked an uproar among Jewish community leaders when, on his first day in office, he revoked an executive order that adopted a definition of antisemitism equating some criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice.
But the mayor has yet to articulate which, if any, definition of antisemitism he will abide by, raising questions about his views toward escalating anti-Jewish hate in the city as he continues to weigh in on high-profile issues affecting the Jewish community.
His recent comments responding to pro-Hamas protesters in Queens last week and an arson attack on a synagogue in Jackson, Miss., over the weekend illustrate what Mamdani’s critics interpret as a core tension animating his assessment of antisemitism.
While Mamdani released a statement on Sunday calling the arson a “violent act of antisemitism,” his comment on the demonstration outside a synagogue in Kew Gardens Hills where protesters openly voiced support for Hamas was delayed and came only after he faced growing pressure from media outlets and Jewish community leaders to denounce the demonstration.
In contrast with several of his top allies on the left, Mamdani, who has long been an outspoken critic of Israel, ultimately chose not to the call the protesters antisemitic, even as he otherwise denounced Hamas as a “terrorist organization” and said that the chants heard at the demonstration “are wrong and have no place in our city.”
The statements on two separate issues in different states helped distill how Mamdani has traditionally reacted to individual instances of antisemitism. He has unequivocally condemned as antisemitic recent incidents where Jews have faced violent attacks and have been targeted by vandalism, among other acts. But the mayor has been slower to react decisively on protests near Jewish institutions involving anti-Israel activism.
Mamdani, who has long identified as anti-Zionist and refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, drew backlash last November after he admonished a Manhattan synagogue that was also targeted by anti-Israel demonstrators who chanted slogans including “death to the IDF” and “globalize the intifada,” a phrase he has declined to renounce.
Even as he distanced himself from the language used by protesters in objecting to an event about immigration to Israel, Mamdani said that “sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law,” a statement he later revised. He did not label the protest antisemitic, as other elected officials had done. On the recent Queens protest outside an Israeli real estate event, Mamdani used similar language when asked why he hadn’t condemned “both sides.” He answered, “I absolutely have an opposition to the sale of land in the West Bank. It’s a violation of international law and that comes from my belief in the importance of following international law.”
His ongoing reluctance to explicitly identify such protests as antisemitic underscores how his record of pro-Palestinian activism has long been central to his self-conception. While he moderated on several key issues in the election, Mamdani notably resisted softening even some of his most controversial views relating to Israel — such as a pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of war crimes.
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, who leads Stephen Wise Free Synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, said in an interview with Jewish Insider on Monday that he has spoken with Mamdani repeatedly about what he called a clear connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism — which, he noted, the mayor has not acknowledged.
Even as Hirsch conceded “it’s not necessarily the case in every circumstance” that “anti-Zionism is, ipso facto, antisemitism,” he said such discussions are “completely divorced from reality,” disagreeing with Mamdani’s assessment of the Queens protest last week. “What Jews mean by anti-Zionism is not what Hamas means by anti-Zionism,” he explained. “If you are pro-Hamas, then you are, by definition, an antisemite.”
“On an ideological level, it’s a very problematic issue to be a proud anti-Zionist — especially if you are the mayor of New York City,” Hirsch argued to JI. “On a practical level, wherever anti-Zionism has been normalized,” he said, “as night follows day, it leads to antisemitism, in every single case, and it is the case today. There won’t be an exception simply because the mayor, at this time, insists on being an anti-Zionist and is proud of it.”
The working definition of antisemitism Mamdani rescinded, which is promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, has long been a target of anti-Israel activists and some progressives who believe it stifles legitimate criticism of Israel — even as it is widely accepted as useful guidance by mainstream Jewish groups.
A spokesperson for Mamdani did not respond to a request for comment from JI asking how he would define what he has frequently called “the scourge of antisemitism” while pledging to ensure the safety of Jewish New Yorkers.
Mamdani has yet to announce key administration hires for areas related to antisemitism, such as the office to combat antisemitism, which he has vowed to retain, and he has sent mixed messages regarding his efforts to fight antisemitism — voicing interest, for example, in a city curriculum embraced by leading Jewish groups that promotes a definition of Zionism seemingly at odds with his own views on Israel.
Shortly before his inauguration, Mamdani argued that a report issued by the Anti-Defamation League, which highlighted several members of his transition team who had used antisemitic tropes and justified Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, ignored what he called “the distinction between antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli government.” He did not address some of the most extreme comments made by appointees, but said the ADL report “draws attention away from the very real crisis of antisemitism we see.”
Mark Goldfeder, the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, said he suspects that Mamdani is now “gearing up to adopt” what he characterized as “one of the ‘IHRA-lite’ definitions” of antisemitism, citing those embraced by the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Project — which he called “a little better than JDA,” though neither are widely accepted by mainstream Jewish organizations. Both definitions, he argued to JI, “provide more cover to those who wish to hide their antisemitism behind the curtain of anti-Zionism.”
According to Goldfeder, applying the Nexus definition to the recent incidents addressed by Mamdani “would mean that attacking Jews at a synagogue,” as in Jackson, “would be antisemitic — but harassing them, as long as no physical attack” took place, as in Queens, “would be fine.”
“I, for one, am not OK with either,” Goldfeder said. “Neither are the federal government, the majority of U.S. states and the vast majority of Americans both Jewish and non-Jewish.”
Jonathan Jacoby, the president and national director of the Nexus Project, said in a statement to JI on Monday that Mamdani “and all public officials should be judged by the actions they take to protect Jewish communities — not by their adherence to any one controversial definition of antisemitism.”
“Mamdani has expressed a clear commitment to engaging a wide range of Jewish voices in the fight against antisemitism and hate, and affirmed that the city will continue to operate an office to combat antisemitism,” Jacoby added. “Instead of getting hung up on fights over definitions like IHRA that were never intended to be enshrined into law, we need to see more security funding for vulnerable institutions, more support for more education about antisemitism and bias, and the enforcement of civil rights laws to prevent actual discrimination and harassment.”
Rabbi Marc Schneier, who has spoken privately with Mamdani about issues concerning the Jewish community, said he was “pleasantly surprised” that Mamdani spoke out against the Queens protest and called Hamas a terror group, noting that the mayor had faced scrutiny for not even mentioning Hamas in his initial statement regarding the Oct. 7 attacks.
“We may be witnessing some evolution in terms of his understanding of Israel,” Schneier told JI, while adding that the Jewish community has “a long way to go.”
Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said that the “biggest question” for her “is not whether the mayor personally adopts a specific definition but, rather, how he will respond to acts of antisemitism and invest in a comprehensive strategy to counter it.”
“I’ve appreciated his willingness to engage with our community and evolve his position and I hope that he will continue to do so,” she told JI on Monday. “The pro-Hamas protests in Kew Gardens and the arson attack in Jackson are different examples of the many ways antisemitism is manifesting right now. All of it threatens Jews and our broader society and democracy.”
my synagogue was set on fire last night during Shabbat at 3:00 AM in an arsonist attack.
no one was injured, which i am extremely grateful for. they have several security cameras, so there is a suspect in custody. the details and motivation haven't been shared, but it can be reasonably assumed to be a hate crime.
this was the first synagogue established in the state, the only one that's not hours away, and certainly the largest in the area. two Torah scrolls are destroyed beyond repair, 5 are damaged. the library where children have religious school and morning Shabbat service is held has been completely burnt down, much of that section of the building that's left is covered in soot and ash. the administrative offices were also lost.
our Tree of Life, which was for important life events like bar/bat/b'nei mitzvahs, was destroyed. i was just looking at it this past Tuesday while waiting for a meeting with my rabbi. it was dozens of bronze plaques in the shape of leaves with commemorations on them placed above a trunk. there is a photo of the wreckage that makes me cry every time i look at it.
we have a rescued scroll from Nazi-era Czechoslovakia (it is thankfully unharmed). we have a Holocaust memorial garden. we have names of dead loved ones displayed. memories in and on the walls. there are so many deeply meaningful and largely irreplaceable things here.
my rabbi was out of state for the last several days. i cannot imagine how he's feeling.
im fucking pissed at the police department. they said that they would patrol the grounds more often in light of the worldwide rise in antisemitism. I have not personally seen them once. they let the only area for our community to gather be set on fire.
i am exhausted. i am angry. i am thankful it is not any worse, because it easily could have been, but tonight i am grieving that little library full of vintage Jewish books.
The same Synogogue was also bombed in 1967. This is the best article I could find so far this soon after the fire.
yes, this is my synagogue. Beth Israel Congregation was firebombed by the KKK in 1967 along with the rabbi's house because he was an outspoken supporter of civil rights for Black Americans.
here are some photos of the aftermath of the most recent fire:
I have been asked about fundraising, so I will be providing a link to donations.
Please help us rebuild if you can.
to absolutely no one's surprise, there was security footage of someone in a hood and mask pouring fuel all over the library and specifically targeted the Tree of Life i mentioned. so. will keep y'all updated as this develops
So glad I was born with the TTPD enjoyer gene and have appreciated its brilliance from the jump 🥰
We toss out over 80 pounds of textiles each year. These textiles are often made of plastic materials (polyester, nylon), made in unethical conditions, dyed with harsh dyes that often get put into the rivers, etc. Even a single cotton shirt releases carbon emissions and uses tons of water.
So the best thing to prevent the unsustainable growth of the fashion industry is to make sure that your clothing lasts as long as possible. To do so, mending clothing is a must. So here are some resources to help you learn how to do various things, such as sewing a button, to tailoring clothes, or even upcycling old clothing into new styles.
These are just a few of the things that you can do in order to make sure that your clothing lasts for a long time. Nobody wants to keep buying new clothing, as it is expensive and wasteful.
So making alterations to your clothing, or fixing small holes hen you see them can be hugely beneficial to your wallet, to garment workers, and to the environment in the long term.
Mending! It’s really satisfying, saves money, and saves the planet!
Mending is better than ending!
after volunteering at a harm reduction agency for a couple months i can confidently say that addicts and homeless people (and homeless addicts) are not the boogeymen people make them out to be. they all just want coffee and candy. there's all this fear mongering and meanwhile your local addict is just some guy drinking a double double with slightly smaller pupils than normal.
and before you bring up a bad thing an addict has done, please remember that sober people have also done bad shit and that the majority of addicts are totally safe to be around. if you want to talk about how scary addicts are, i will talk about all the customers i had at my old job who made me fear for my life. stop fear mongering and start actually meeting addicts. yes, they can be scary, but so can anybody. fear mongering about addicts only leads to discriminatory policies and policing, which increases violence against them and worsens the problem.
the scariest thing about addiction isn't the addicts. it's the blood on the hands of politicians.
1,113 days left
The fact that Trump is listening to SCOTUS telling him to remove the National Guard means a lot of shit could be avoided here if John Roberts wasn't made of 100% bitch.
I wasn't ever under the impression that leftists can't be antisemitic or whatever. But it wasn't always so acceptable the way it is now. It was expected that people would correct misinformation and call out nazi conspiracy shit.
And I'm not a jew but the culture change has been a mind fuck.
Since when was it ever okay to compare Jews to the people that literally did a genocide against them?? Or to act like all Israelis unilaterally support the government they live under? Or to laugh about Jews in America who are worried about antisemitism?
You can say "antizionism isn't antisemitism" all you want. But it really doesn't mean shit when you spend more energy condemning random Jews on social media as "zionists" than you do republican senators.
I've seen people who claim to be left wing sharing stone toss comics, for fucks sake.
It’s been such an eye-opening experience. It made me realize that far too many people do not have an internal sense of morality, and instead rely on the zeitgeist and other people to determine their sense of right and wrong. Which is terrifying, because that makes them absurdly easy to indoctrinate into hatred.
I hope Chappell Roan learns the important life lesson that we all must learn at some point to always google a french person before publicly mourning their passing
Today is the six year anniversary of the Chanukah stabbing attack in Monsey, NY. This was a hot topic of discussion at Shabbat tables for months after, and the reactions were mostly "well what can you expect" and "it was because of the school board" and "no wonder why they hate us", and I listened in quiet discomfort.
And then a couple years later I read this article by Dara Horn, who was furious, and made me realize I was furious too.
There was no way I could write about any of this for The New York Times, or any other mainstream news outlet. I could not stomach all the “to be sures” and other verbal garbage I would have to shovel in order to express something acceptable to a non-Jewish audience in 1,000 words or less. I could no longer handle the degrading exercise of calmly explaining to the public why it was not O.K. to partially amputate someone’s arm with a four-foot-long blade at a holiday party, even if one had legitimate grievances with that person’s town council votes. Nor could I announce, as every non-Jewish media outlet would expect, that these people whose hairstyles one dislikes are “canaries in the coal mine,” people whose fractured skulls we all ought to care about because they serve as a warning—because when Jews get murdered or maimed, it might be an ominous sign that actual people, people who wear athleisure, might later get attacked! I was done with this sort of thing, which amounted to politely persuading people of one’s right to exist.
🚨
HEADS UP: The U.S. Postal Service quietly changed how postmarks work.
Mail is no longer automatically postmarked with the date you drop it off. Instead, the postmark now reflects the date it’s first processed by an automated sorting facility — which can be days later.
If you mail something right at a deadline, the official postmark could be later than your drop-off date and may be considered late.
If mailing date matters to you, go inside the post office and request a hand-stamped postmark.
This will invalidate votes too
This will invalidate votes too
ding ding ding ding ding
grabbingyou by the collar extremely roughly to tell you that:
the moment you can make an excuse for killing jews you can make any excuse for killing jews. you can accuse us of creating capitalism, creating communism, being pedophiles, being cannibals, killing children, killing the planet— you can just say anything. the moment our murder becomes tolerable is the moment in which it is viewed as natural and inevitable. i don’t care what you think zionism means, fuck you and also die. forever
christmas eve what about christmas adam
happy christmas adam to all men’s rights activists
Please stop pestering us with things like this. This has nothing to do with men fighting for their rights. Eve is short for ‘evening’. Please don’t turn activism into a joke. Thanks.
Someone isn’t having a good christmas adam
Christmas Adam: December 23rd. Comes before Christmas Eve and is generally unsatisfying.
Happy Christmas Adam everyone
Happy Christmas Adam
You seemed like a good person to ask about this! I (American goy) have been in favor of a two-state solution for the I/P conflict for a long time, as it just seemed the most practical and respectful option. However, I've also seen a lot of Jewish and Israeli creators express worry that this option isn't feasible, as Palestinians have been so indoctrinated and manipulated by ring-wing extremists that they would never accept Jewish neighbors at all. I don't want to believe that's true, but what''s your personal thought on the matter? What do you think can be done for de-radicalizing and de-escalating with Israel's neighbors.
Love your blog btw, you're a real one 😎
Thanks for the question, Molly. It's enormous, unwieldy, and totally inappropriate for this format.
So of course, I've spent days trying to answer it. To make the answer more readable, I'm going to split it into multiple parts.
In seeing a two-state solution as practical and respectful, you're in very good company. That was the consensus view for decades...at least among Israelis and the international community.
The UN's partition plan proposed taking the 30% of Mandate Palestine which hadn't been turned into the Arab state of Jordan, and creating from it two more smaller states, one Jewish, one Arab.
Who supported it?
The UN, the UK, the US, and the Jewish leadership
Who opposed it?
The leaders of the surrounding Arab states and many of the Arabs of the Levant
What happened?
Instead of supporting a two-state solution, five Arab armies invaded the day after Israel declared independence.
After Israel fended off that attack, Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt occupied Gaza, and the Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN was not created. From 1948 to 1967, none of these Arab powers suggested a Palestinian state because a Palestinian state was never their goal. Palestinianism was driven not by Palestinian nationalism, but by a rejection to Jewish nationalism.
Israel offered to return captured territories in exchange for peace and recognition.
Who supported a two-state framework?
Israel, the US, much of the international community
Who opposed it?
The Arab League responded with the "Three No's" of Khartoum: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel
What happened?
No progress toward Palestinian statehood.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a Palestinian state on approximately 94% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Who supported a two-state solution?
Israel, the US (Clinton administration), the international community
Who opposed it?
Yasir Arafat walked away without a counteroffer.
What happened?
The Second Intifada - a wave of about 140 suicide bombings and violence explicitly targeting civilians.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered even more generous terms, including a Palestinian state on territory equivalent to 100% of the West Bank (with land swaps), and a shared, divided Jerusalem.
Who supported this two-state solution?
Israel, the US, the international community
Who opposed it?
Abbas told Olmert that the offer "was very serious," and that he needed to study the map, but he never responded or returned to the talks.
What happened?
A lot of things, none of them Palestinian statehood.
Throughout the 2000s-2010s, polls consistently showed Israeli public support for a two-state solution at 60-70% when coupled with security guarantees. American Jews overwhelmingly supported it. The international consensus embraced it.
The major obstacle to a two-state solution has been consistent over time.
If Palestinian leadership had ever actually sought a state, they'd have one. Instead, they sought maximalism and the death of Israel. At every turn, they've chosen war and ruin over the hard work of actually building a state.
This tells us a great deal about their goals and motives - and building a Palestinian state is not at the top of their list.
Palestinian statehood has never been the goal of Palestinianism. Palestinianism was created and has been sustained for the explciit purpose of the prevention/elimination of a Jewish state in any borders.
To come:
Part 2: If the two-state solution is possible, how can the prerequisite of Palestinian deradicalization be accomplished?
Part 3: If the two-state solution isn't possible, what does the future of the Levant look like?
Continuing an attempt an answer to @avantegarda's questions:
You've heard, Molly, that Palestinians have been so indoctrinated and manipulated by ring-wing extremists that they would never accept Jewish neighbors at all...and that's not exactly wrong, but this framing is incomplete and has two big problems:
First, it strips Palestinians of agency, treating them purely as victims of manipulation rather than as intelligent people making choices. It's a form of "noble savage" bigotry that the far left appears to be unable to see in the mirror. Recent polling shows that Palestinian support for a two-state solution (which is usually tepid at best) has dropped significantly, and majorities consistently oppose it. Support for Hamas increased dramatically after October 7th, including in the West Bank where Hamas doesn't govern.
As others point out, radicalization in Palestinian society is not limited to one part of their political culture - it's not just Palestinian right-wing extremists.
Broadly-shared Jew-hatred and determination for Israel to die are not just the results of people being brainwashed against their will, but reflect genuine popular sentiment, however much we might wish otherwise.
Second, this gets the history backwards. It's not that an entire population was successfully radicalized from some prior neutral starting point. There was never a time when the Arabs of the Levant welcomed any kind Jewish state, any kind of Jewish self-determination, in any borders. Palestinian leadership has chosen total rejectionism consistently since well before 1947. At every major juncture where a Palestinian state was on the table, the leadership said no. Not "yes, but with different terms." Just no.
This isn't about Palestinians being irredeemably radical, but it's also not honest to pretend this is purely a top-down problem with no popular support. The path forward requires acknowledging that building a culture of coexistence will take genuine work, leadership that chooses statehood over rejectionism, and a population invested in supporting that choice.
So I think you're right to recognize that this is a cultural problem...and cultural problems historically get solved only at a painful, glacial pace over long periods of time.
Part 2 here assumes both (1) that deradicalization is possible and that (2) Israelis could once again be persuaded to buy into the two-state hope.
(Lets be clear that many people feel deradicalization isn't possible (see Part 3 tomorrow) - and that others claim (incorrectly, IMO) that the resurgance of the far right in Europe in recent years proves that even post-WWII de-Nazification was a failure.)
1. End the glorification of violence
The PA's "martyr fund" pays families based on how many Israelis their terrorist killed. Streets are named after suicide bombers. No society moves toward peace while lionizing mass murderers.
2. Reform education
Palestinian textbooks erase Israel from maps, describe Jews in dehumanizing terms, and glorify the murder of their neighbors. Education has to date sought to build perpetual conflict - it must choose instead to build coexistence.
3. New leadership
Abbas is in year ~20 of his 4-year term. Hamas hasn't held elections since 2006. Their power depends on continued conflict. Deradicalization will require leaders who have something to gain from peace.
4. Economic development not tied to conflict
Aid flows when tensions are high. UNRWA creates permanent refugee status across generations. An actual economy gives people something to lose and something to work for.
5. Acceptance of reality
Like Germany accepting lost territories or Japan its empire, Palestinians must accept no "return" of millions of multi-generational, thoroughly settled "refugees" (like Bella Hadid) to Israel proper, Jerusalem not under exclusively Arab control, and 1947 borders not coming back. Put another way? They must accept Israel's continued existence.
The mechanics are harder than they should be because the international system is in the habit of rewarding the status quo.
The internation community must do the following:
The PA gets billions with no strings attached. Make it simple: Want aid? Stop paying terrorists to murder. Want legitimacy? Hold elections. Want partnership? Reform textbooks.
This is basic conditionality we apply everywhere else. No more blank checks, especially for those who have repeatedly proven their corruption and insincerity.
UNRWA uniquely makes refugee status hereditary forever. They insist a 25-year-old born in Jordan is a "refugee" because his grandparents left in 1948. Here's the thing: Bella Hadid, born in Washington DC, is not a refugee.
No other group works this way. Not Afghans, Syrians, or the ~850,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. Replace with UNHCR, which works toward resolving refugee status, not perpetuating it.
The Abraham Accords demonstrated that more Arab states can normalize with Israel successfully.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and the UAE must declare without ambiguity to Palestinians that their support and aid for Palestine is conditioned on Palestinian decisions seeking peace and to become a part of a prosperous new Middle East.
They must underline Palestinian agency to Palestinians and frame this as the choice that it is.
(I anticipate gripes from some Israelis for this) Israel can demonstrate that cooperation and reduced restrictions come from reduced violence. Israel can support Palestinian moderates when they exist (and they do). Israel can partner with Arab states on incentives. Israel can get a better handle on its own extremists. Israel can radically improve its public diplomacy.
Real deradicalization, if possible, will require what Germany and Japan faced after WWII, a total defeat making the old path's failure undeniable and attempts at replication functionally impossible. (More on that in Part 3.)
Both Germany and Japan changed dramatically after defeat, imposed reform, and generational leadership change and it took decades of the international community demanding change. Instead of doing that with Hamas and the PA, the international community has instead made excuses and rewarded violence at almost evert opportunity.
Deradicalization will not happen until the international community stops rewarding rejectionism.
Deradicalization won't happen until Arab states make the consequences of continued rejectionism clear.
Deradicalization won't happen until Palestinians understand their future will be determined by their choice to either build a real state or be left behind.
_____
Sill To Come:
Part 3: What will the future of the Levant look like if this kind of Palestinian cultural change (deradicalization) can't be accomplished?
For that dim perspective, we'll turn to old-school Israeli leftist Daniel Schueftan, who most agree was the primary intellectual parent of the 2005 total withdrawal from Gaza.
Check out this conversation between Schueftan and Haviv Rettig Gur - they start discussing deradicalization at about 32 minutes in:
Shueftan flatly rejects the idea that Israel or anyone else can deradicalize Gaza.
Schueftan calls discussions about deradicalizing Gaza a "fantasy" and asks Gur not to "waste my time and your time to discuss it."
He asserts that Gaza's problem is fundamentally cultural, not material. The issue isn't poverty or lack of opportunity, it's that Palestinian society, particularly in Gaza, is obsessed with the destruction of the Jewish state.
Shueftan emphasizes that polls show the vast majority of Gazans supported October 7th, and their primary source of pride comes from violence against Jews, including schools named after those who killed the most Jews.
Schueftan argues that Palestinians have no incentive to change because behaving as they have "brings them billions of dollars" and support from Western institutions, media, and universities. The international community rewards their violence, so "why should they change?"
Rather than deradicalization or solutions, Shueftan imagines a future of "damage control" in which Hamas would be prevented from rebuilding its military capabilities through continuous Israeli military action. He describes this as "violent maintenance," similar to what Israel does with Hezbollah in Lebanon. His "best realistic hope" for Gaza is simply "effective damage control," not nation-building or societal transformation.
Depressing, isn't it?
Shueftan's position is that Israel should abandon hopes that Palestinian society might change and instead focus exclusively on its own security, preventing the buildup of military threats while accepting that the ideological conflict will continue for generations.
I want Schueftan to be wrong. I don't want to believe his assessment is accurate.
If I set aside those feelings, though, I discover that I think he'll be right until/unless international and regional powers stop enabling Hamas and only give aid to efforts to build a Palestinian state which seeks peace with its neighbors (See Part 2).
Palestinianism, to date, hasn't been about building a Palestinian state, it's been about murdering the Jewish state.
When that changes, peace will become possible.
Israel can't make that cultural change among Palestininans. The International community and the Arab world can apply pressure, but they can't make this cultural change among Palestinians either.
Only Palestinians can do that.
That's the argument that two veteran negotiators, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, make in their book "Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel-Palestine."
Agha and Malley assert:
If the book is too much to take in, The New Yorker's David Remnick did an interview with Malley and Agha about their book:
...or you could check out this article (paywall bypassed):
Ahmed Al Ahmed reportedly owns ans runs a fruit stand at Bondi Beach in Sydney.
When shooters opened fire on a Chanukkah event (reports right now say 12 were killed, 29 were hospitalized), Ahmed, a 43yo unarmed father of two, disarmed one of the shooters.
It is reported that he was shot in the attack and is himself hospitalized.
I hope you'll join me in hoping for his quick and total recovery.
This is what heroism looks like.
This is what we should valorize, celebrate, and commemorate.
I fear that much of Australian society, in which Judenhass is increasingly normalized, will instead valorize the shooters.
I hope that Ahmed Al Ahmad is not targeted for having stood up to hatred in the most visceral way possible.
