That ignores history though. There’s a very clear right and wrong here. Israel was artificially constructed through ethnic cleansing. The Balfour Declaration and Nakba pretty much explain it all.
How come?
But my point is-- this is completely unhelpful and almost irrelevant for conflict resolution now. Because what are you gonna do? Throw all the Israelis back to Europe or wherever their ancestors used to live at some point? Give all the military power to Palestinians and just... find out what happens?
It's also important to note that pretty much every modern nation has figurative ethical skeletons ins its closet, and frequently in the rather recent past-- would you sanction/break up the US for segregation (or, worse, their past with native americans)? White South Africans for apartheid? France for colonialism/Vietnam? I'm just saying that it is very difficult to deal with historical injustice consistently...
If you got to call the shots, what would you do with todays Israel?
PS: thank you for the discussion-- i really appreciate getting feedback from a different PoV in a civil manner!
This is a very principled move, but I think it overestimates the short-term political effect that sanctions can achieve by a lot-- consider Cuba, North Korea or Russia: even heavy, comprehensive sanctions were completely unable to steer those in a different political direction (what sanctions do guarantee is that the affected countries growth is stunted-- fifty years down the line Israel would be pretty much guaranteed to be economically weaker than unaffected neighbors-- but that is a double-edged sword, and unhelpful for peace efforts).
On the other hand, you have significant costs for establishing such a drastic policy: Israeli public opinion would consider you a backstabbing traitor after October 7th, and probably proceed to enact the exact opposite of your demands for the next decade or so out of spite. But an even bigger problem would be that you back the Israeli government into a corner, denying them the ability to weather Palestinian (rocket) attacks passively-- instead, the next clash would probably escalate completely. And that's extremely bad-- Israel absolutely has the military capabilities to enact genocide the conventional way, and by reducing their other options you incentivice exactly that (think current Gaza offensive but with tanks and infantry instead of airstrikes, half a million dead at the end instead of ten thousands plus a large mixed bag of warcrimes).
> I wouldn’t deny Palestinians a military option if that was all they had.
If you give Palestinians workable military options, a lot of them (most certainly the majority in Gaza, maybe a minority for Westbank residents) are going to try and exterminate every jew in Israel, which is just not an improvement. That is one of the biggest difficulties-- even if you managed to wrangle territory from the jews, a right to return for expatriates and their descendants, monetary reparations and legal representation-- that is still quite likely to simply not be good enough for a significant number of fanatics on the palestinian side (and there is no way to get concessions like that from the jews except at gunpoint anyway).
Still, I can see at least the Westbank situation slowly improving over the years. I have talked with a few residents (pre-Covid): People are bitter, there is a lot of repressed anger and helplessness and opportunities are also often (ab-) used to radicalize (e.g. schools or educational autonomy in general), but I could see this slowly mending over a century or two-- Gaza on the other hand... :(
Kamala Harris and the whole democratic party lost because of a lot of things. I wouldn't put the Palestinians in the top 5.