I like Matthew Yglesias’ analysis on the Gaza assault, his willingness to be critical of both sides and of the unfortunate pro-Israel glossing that minimizes the Palestinians’ grievances. Quoting a Michael Cohen piece on the Democracy Arsenal Web site, he agrees that “Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence” if Israel dismantled its settlements, while the converse — “the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve” were “Hamas … to recognize Israel.”
Yglesias, however, offers a corollary proposition that is no less true:
If Hamas were to recognize Israel tomorrow tomorrow, Israel would not turn around and renounce settlements; but if Israel were to dismantle all settlements the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.
Yglesias points out that Cohen’s analysis (and the general bias of the American media and political elite, I would add),
by arbitrarily shifting the standard, so that Israeli actions are judged according to whether or not they would magically cause the other side to become reasonable, whereas Palestinians are merely asked whether or not making unilateral concessions would in some sense make reconciliation easier to achieve, … has managed to put a heavily pro-Israel spin on the banal observation that both sides could do more to improve the situation but that achieving real peace requires steps on both sides.
Meanwhile, of course, there’s still such a thing as ethics and so forth. Vaguely pointing rockets at civilian areas and hoping they kill as many people as possible is wrong, completely independently of whether or not Israel is also doing things that are wrong. I think that’s a point that’s pretty well-appreciated in the American conversation on this. But by the same token, Israeli actions that are wrong are wrong independent of whether or not Hamas is launching rockets.
I think that is key. Neither side in this horrible situation has acted particularly well and both need to back away from the precipice.
Hank Kalet 