Israel's "generous offer" to Palestinians is the myth that will never die. I've never met a single Palestinian who thinks the offer was "generous." Presumably what they think matters. Unless one thinks that there's something fundamentally irrational about Palestinians as a people
Israel's "generous offer" was not generous. But once the propaganda started (spread by Bill Clinton to deflect responsibility), it never stopped. I discuss the myth of the generous offer in this essay: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I'm glad folks are starting to say the quiet part out loud. It basically comes down to this: Palestinians don't know what's good for them. They're irrational and self-destructive. It's just a couple short steps from that to say that they deserve it. The dehumanization of a people
It's amazing to me. A large group that consists of millions of individual human beings—and we're talking about them like they're a monolithic mass of crazy people who should be grateful that Israel is giving them nice leaflets before it blows their homes into smithereens.
Another myth: that "Palestinians" (again, a mass of undifferentiated, genocidal people) all want to erase Israel. Some Palestinians want that. Many more Palestinians have wanted an equitable and just two-state solution. Most of the polling we have makes this abundantly clear.
If only the Palestinians had an actual partner for peace—but no one can argue, in good faith, that Netanyahu supports an independent, contiguous Palestinian state. Because he doesn't, and has said so. His far-right allies, meanwhile, have been quite open about ethnic "transfer"
Netanyahu's partners and allies—for years now—have been advocating annexation (without granting Palestinians citizenship), sending Palestinians to live in other Arab countries (as if we're all the same), and even expelling Arab *citizens* of Israel
I've never seen more dehumanization of Palestinians as a people as I've seen in the last two days. I'm sure it was similar during the last war in 2014. But this discourse of Palestinians being an undifferentiated mass of hateful, genocidal people with a death wish has to stop
Talking about Palestinians as if they're less than human—without rights and dignity—is still normal in in Washington and in American public debate. It's remarkable. But this is where we're at.
Are we honestly meant to pretend that an occupied people isn't occupied and that they should be grateful to their occupiers?
There are honestly people on this website, while entire apartment blocks are decimated, who insist that the Israeli army is the most just, humanitarian army in the history of warfare and that no one cares for Palestinians lives more than they do. I'm not joking. Come on.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Gaza, the death toll is up to 119, including 31 children. All just in the matter of a few days. This is the "proportional" response we keep hearing about.
In the last Gaza war, which lasted 7 weeks, around 100 of the over 700 Palestinians killed were children. So this is not new. If anything, it could become worse.
Yet Palestinians face indignity not just in life but in death. It's not Israel's fault, according to this particular narrative. Palestinians brought this upon themselves. They are being blamed for being killed.
Israel is not aiming for "proportionality" or trying its best to minimize civilian casualties. The goal is to inflict overwhelming pain on the Palestinians so that they learn their lesson. This isn't new. That's always been at the heart of Israel's deterrence strategy in Gaza 1/x
This from @dbyman is probably the best thing to read on how Israel approaches deterrence. Basically it's an "eye for a tooth." And it may even be understandable from an Israeli perspective. But let's not pretend Israel is trying to protect Palestinians 2/x foreignpolicy.com/2014/07/24/an-…
This part is key:
"Disproportional military operations...are at the core of deterrence, which demands disproportionate 'eye for a tooth' operations to succeed"
I have a new essay that delves deeper into one of my preoccupations—whether "unity" or "consensus" are good things, or whether they are best avoided in democracy. Here's my case against consensus. 1/x
In his address to Congress, Biden said something that stood out to me, because it seemed to misunderstand at a rather fundamental level why democracies are better than autocracies. 2/x
The framing of the problem betrays a technocratic bias—that regime types should be judged based on whether they work. "What works-ism" provides us with a purely instrumental argument, and one that wades into the democracy vs. autocracy contest on autocrats' terms. 3/x
What you'll get is three good friends debating in good faith, trying to figure out how and why they diverge. Based on the conversation, I think that some of our disagreements are foundational, but I mean that in the best way possible. We don't need to agree on the foundation
.@AkyolinEnglish is proposing a particular path that Islam could follow, and the direction that I think Islam will follow is quite a bit different. Depending on which direction you think is preferable and more realistic, there are some major implications for U.S. foreign policy
We should take pleasure in the generative possibilities of conflict. That's what makes us who we are—and we are better for it. Consensus, on the other hand, is not what democracy is meant to produce.
This piece is part of a new series for subscribers—"The Friday Essay," where @dmarusic and I alternate essays each week. This is our sixth installment. Last week, Damir wrote a fascinating piece with a fascinating title, which you should read
My first Friday Essay was on 'Why Christianity Failed,' where I tested out some new (and perhaps controversial) arguments. It also featured some wonderful art selection courtesy of @dmarusic: wisdomofcrowds.live/why-christiani…
Like other Friday Essays, it's for members only, so make sure to subscribe to get access: wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe/
For those of you who are new to @WCrowdsLive, Damir and I alternate essays each week. These are meant to be "anti-opeds," more tentative and exploratory than what you'll see elsewhere. Here's one of our previous entries if you missed it: wisdomofcrowds.live/why-christiani…
Our inaugural Friday Essay came out last month, on "The Paradox of American Faith" by @dmarusic, which I still think is one of the best essays I've read in some time. wisdomofcrowds.live/american-faith/