As of Thanksgiving Eve, 2023, Senator Bernie Sanders has outlined a path forward and a means to achieving peace in Palestine. This, according to him, is only if Palestine, the Palestinian representatives, and those Israeli’s who denounce Netanyahu’s “between the Sea and the Jordan [River] there will only be Israeli sovereignty” premise gain the control of any future platform to outline any solution. Sanders also pointed out in his opinion piece the ultimate price one Arab leader and one Israeli leader paid for their valor and wisdom in supporting this two-state solution. I did not have this information in this blog and would like to correct that omission through applauding his comments. Sander’s call for ending such expansion into the West Bank and removing Israelis from beyond the Green Line is fabulous, but I would hope he would also agree to a support of the combined agreements reached by the Carter and Clinton hopes and talks decades ago. Wouldn’t it be nice to think that next Thanksgiving, while President Carter-and Clinton- are still alive, such a peace could be reached with the West Bank fully under Palestinian control with any accepted incursions by Israel beyond the Green Line compensated by equally valuable territory from Egypt in this new Palestine. One of the world’s intractable and 75-year-old problems could be placed in its proper context for future generations. Amen. Presidents Carter and Clinton would deserve great credit, but this would now need the support and leverage of President Biden, who would join the trilogy of future historians’ praises for concluding such a peace settlement. Just after Thanksgiving, the NYTimes Editorial Board wrote a piece in their paper outlining their hopes for the world of the future. They endorse a two state solution. But, their call for new leadership in the PLO, or even a new Arab organization, in my opinion, is necessary. If we also stipulated an age limit on the new leadership, with no one over the age of 30, or perhaps 35, making the final decision. It is their world and they have the most to gain, and lose. In mid-December, the Atlantic piece, by Daniel Kutzer, addresses the skewed and improbable options from either side as the war rages on. Perhaps the most comprehensive attempt at addressing the question, What about the Day After?, belongs to Fareed Zaharia, speaking on India Today. A must watch only if you also read through the critiques of his answers in the comment section below. Another important voice, one speaking out for historians’ sake, is John Mearsheimer. His Substack is here. Mearsheimer is a Realist Historian, though not as dark and Machiavellian as Kissinger, the diplomat. His conversation on a blog is useful to analyze. I would challenge his pronouns for Israel and the “they” he refers to at present. In his assessment, there is no two-state solution possible because of the present Israeli leadership. This, I agree, is true. My contingent argument has always been that the horrific scale of Hamas’ actions on October 7th, and the misguided and horrific response by “those” Israelis afterwards, renders an Israeli/Palestinian solution impossible. Like Mearsheimer’s opinion (click on this link to hear his arguments), though, with some disagreement to his nouns and pronouns within this clip, I feel we need to eliminate the extremists from any solution. Bibi, Hamas, perhaps even the PLO, will have to abdicate all power to a more reasoned and inclusive solution. All reasonable Palestinians, who outnumber their Jewish neighbors when considering their aggregate numbers within and without Israel, must be brought into the equation. Land, power and resources need to be shared in some better fashion for peaceful coexistence to flourish. It is assumed that occasional, radical, reactions to such an arrangement will be endured. But, like Ireland, Germany, the former Yugoslavia, Vietnam and other formerly intractable regions, these are examples of possibility. Or, how have we Americans handled Black History and these citizens place and power in our society? We are not out of the woods yet. These issues have to move from the “intractable” column to the “resolved” column for all of our sakes. What is written beyond here is from the earlier posting……
In this exploration of history as it relates to the current conflagration occurring in Palestine/Israel, a term used in conceit to illicit an emotive and focused response from readers, I would like to utilize the assistance of two of my favorite writers, Nicholas Kristof and Heather Cox Richardson. In doing so, we can use this time to further enjoy their enormous talents for widening any discussion to include as many factors in any issue to allow us to comprehend more fully a possible outcome that would allow those factors in such an issue to gain traction, while allowing all participants in the discussion/negotiations related to the issue to see those factors not in alignment with their own goals, but also understands their importance in including them in any future settlement of the arguments about the issue. That each are supremely talented in avoiding ad hominem attacks, that they are always reasonable and inclusive in any attempt at promoting understanding, that they are actually fantastic teachers and instructors for us all and promote humanitarian values with every fiber of their existence, utterances and enumerating the many ways to understand any issue in written form. This last skill they share will allow future historians, Richardson’s stated goal for her Letters From an American Substack, to make sense of the early 21st century (as well as the other events yet to happen during their lifetimes). Starting with Kristof, if you are not completely familiar with his accomplishments, will then be followed by Richardson, who, at this moment in time, is a rock star and is being interviewed by persons of importance all over the media related to her new book, Democracy Awakening.
Nicholas Kristof; One of my favorite human beings. He works for the NYTimes and he and his life partner, Sheryl WuDunn, have won Pulitzer Prizes for their efforts to expose wrongs and giving voices for the voiceless. They also sometimes live in Oregon, seeking the quiet life Nicholas grew up with during his evolving childhood within a family with a European/Armenian father, ‘Kris’, born Władysław Krzysztofowicz. He changed his name after fleeing hatred and death in the mid-20th century and because he grew weary of yet again explaining how the names sounded. If you would like to know more about Ladis, to which he changed his difficult to pronounce name, and the wonderful “Boston Lady” who welcomed him to America after World War Two, click on this link. His father and mother were professors at an Oregon university that anchored young Nicholas in his love of farm life and academics. Somewhere in that early life Nicholas also got the bug to spread the word, the reasonable and inclusive word. Perhaps my favorite is his and Sheryl’s work found in their book, Half the Sky. But, I digress even if the embedded review in the link substantiates my claim of inclusiveness. We are now looking at Nicholas’ recent take on the mess in Gaza. Let’s accompany this blog with a few select photos of Nicholas in various emotive poses. First, his frontal/to the camera/here I am in official status
His recent opinion piece in the NYTimes is one begging the world’s leaders, and more specifically America’s, and the rest of us, to engage in a discussion about what is happening as a result of October 7th as an opportunity for assessment, healing and a path forward. Would that this could be so. We should always listen to his wise words. But, I would also like to analyze those words in their aggregate and seek a wider understanding from what has not been covered in the article. His more wise readership, in their comments to the article, also weighed in with this assessment. It is all part of the growing voice, of the voiceless and those who have some weighty throats, that is speaking out in more vociferous language, numbers and volume, on college campuses, in columns, the world capitols’ streets, and outside the offices and buildings of those in power. As in all crises, those in power have many ulterior motives, which are the ones that need to be illuminated before this tragedy gets any more hopeless. Kristof has always been the voice of hope. Let us help him.
Assuming you’ve now read the article, do you agree with the following? 1 He does not bring up the issue of religion in the article in any strategic way of weighting his solution to the problem. 2 The comment and support for a Two State solution is not well-developed, leaving us without a clear understanding of what would have to be given up by each side to gain a better future based on major concessions from both sides. 3 A repudiation for each sides’ apocalyptic visions and actions means an end to all those Apocalyptic Pronouncements from Hamas and a dissolution of the extreme conservative positions within Israel’s political make up. A future that believes in a God-given right to expropriate land, or that God is engaged in determining the outcome of the situation and He is on our side leaves no room to maneuver (our own U.S. ultraconservative and Evangelical Right Wingers also believes their future needs Armageddon and rebuilding the Temple prior to the Second Coming. This is not viable for the world’s future health). Establishing an official religion for the United States was not in our own country’s founding fathers’ pronouncements for a very clear reason; we grew out of a European history of bloodletting over religious differences and the Founding Fathers specifically allowed for anyone to follow any religion they wished. They accepted that God had sanctioned the exception for revolutionary actions to fight the War for Independence and religion and a sound grasp of morality were critical to any republic, with education and a free press built into the structure of any successful governing principles. We have not done well in our own history with that admonishment and advice. 4 Lastly, any solution going forward cannot be determined by only the two main players, the Israelis and the Palestinians. We, the world, could never agree with who the representatives for each of these entities are. The present ones are either dangerous or feckless as viewed on the world’s stage. How we go forward must include all the relevant players, which is a huge list. In that list we must include some very provocative players who need to sign off on, or at least acquiesce to, any final solution. Final Solution, let’s recast this term, one that has such ominous gravity in the Jewish World could now take on a supremely hopeful one that moves the whole world forward in all its countries’ goals for existence. This is truly an existential need now that we (anytime such a pronoun is used there will be outliers who need to be either educated or irradiated, which is not very humanistic, but, oh well) earthly inhabitants are being taught by nature, history, science and possibly AI that we better acknowledge our new reality. Any one individual has existential power within his grasp. That Hamas has entertained the use of biological or worse weaponry, carried by a suicide agent, is terrifying. We are proving the detriment to us all by allowing for any individual or renegade group to control too huge a swath of the world’s intelligence, economy or information. Collective understanding is our only salvation, which should never fall under one single religious authority or spokesperson.
So, to address the omissions of Nicholas, ones he surely knew were too grand for his piece, let’s go there.
In the initial PostWar world, the inclusion of a land for the survivors of the Holocaust made sense. But, the new U.N. decided to place it within the strange territory established by the British Mandate associated with Sykes-Picot and later Balfour, called Palestine (the world since the late 19th century, and even Hitler, had considered many alternative places for a Jewish homeland). This region was a young semi-political entity that did not have the granted authority, engagement or respect of nearly every inhabitant who lived there. The U.N. and, more importantly, this new bohemeth world power, the United States, pushed through the two-state solution in the land of Palestine….without getting support from the Arab side of this country, which far outnumbered the Jewish inhabitants. Those Jewish inhabitants were diverse, though the newly arrived settlers were far more united. Existential issues were hard on their minds after the previous few decades and more of existence for them. That most of them were not born in this region is a fact. That they were willing to die for a new land was also a fact. That the original, non-Jewish inhabitants did not accept this arrangement is what historians need to address and we, today’s inhabitants of the world, need to engage to correct the problems and mistakes of 1947 and 1948. I will return to this thought to conclude.
I spent some time trying make sense of the Israeli/Palestine Issues in a recent blog. In that blog I opined that the Two State Solution is the world’s only solution, and one that is best for Israel and a new, and improved, state of Palestine. This was addressed in Point 2 above. As noted in my blog, this was proposed in 1947 by a small number of the world’s countries who had initially formed a United Nations to replace the faltering League of Nations that was terminally hampered by the decision of the isolationist Senate of the United States’ in the post war world of the 1920s not to join that body. The United States was a critical, almost omnipotent, leader in 1947 that would soon find itself in an existential conflict with communism and authoritarianism of a different PostWar ilk now that nuclear weapons were available. Historians are continuing to parse the decisions of the newly formed CIA, or the decisions made by the truly omnipotent J. Edgar Hoover, and the shift in U.S. politics, especially of the Republican Party, as the nation addressed long held ills associated with racism, gender equality, inequity in social classes, shifting technologies and our place as the preeminent military power in the world. Nation building and our foreign policy decisions will also need much more adjudicating from the future historians for this post war period. The mess in the Middle East has huge invasive roots in European and American policy decisions related to Sykes-Picot, Balfour, leading to truly unwise boundary decisions that continue to fester. The post 9/11 record of the United States is currently on the block of historians slicing and dicing as enough time has passed to clearly see the mistakes associated with the U.S. and the world’s leaders since then. The Palestinians, also major deniers towards a sound solution, and the rest o those who needed to engage in a solution for them, now need to stand with those more moderate and liberal voices in Israel to grapple with a real solution.
This is the point where I wish to add Heather Cox Richardson to the discussion. She is the recent historian rock star who has been on nearly everyone’s blog, show or news program. How she articulates today’s issues in their proper historical context is capturing millions of peoples’ attention. Her reasoned approach is what any individual needs to aspire to in addressing difficult issues.
Richardson continues with her skills at contextualizing the Palestinian/Israeli conundrum of history, at least including the last few presidents. She places the question about the “morning after” squarely in front of her readers. The November 17th “Letter” articulates the issues and possible solutions. She concludes with highlighting King Abdullah II of Jordan’s own op-ed in the Washington Post titled: “A two-state solution would be a victory for our common humanity.” Amen
“[L]et’s start with some basic reality,” he wrote. “The fact is that the thousands of victims across Israel, Gaza and the West Bank have been overwhelmingly civilians…. Leaders everywhere have the responsibility to face the full reality of this crisis, as ugly as it is. Only by anchoring ourselves to the concrete facts that have brought us to this point will we be able to change the increasingly dangerous direction of our world….
“If the status quo continues, the days ahead will be driven by an ongoing war of narratives over who is entitled to hate more and kill more. Sinister political agendas and ideologies will attempt to exploit religion. Extremism, vengeance and persecution will deepen not only in the region but also around the world…. It is up to responsible leaders to deliver results, starting now.”
Some further links to Nicholas Kristoff’s thoughts below:
https://nickkristof.substack.com
https://achievement.org/achiever/nicholas-d-kristof/
https://nickkristof.substack.com
2008: The President of Liberia Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, in a lighter moment with Academy of Achievement members Archbishop Desmond Tutu and journalist Nicholas Kristof during the International Achievement Summit in Hawaii.
King Abdullah II of Jordan published his own op-ed in the Washington Post titled: “A two-state solution would be a victory for our common humanity.”
“[L]et’s start with some basic reality,” he wrote. “The fact is that the thousands of victims across Israel, Gaza and the West Bank have been overwhelmingly civilians…. Leaders everywhere have the responsibility to face the full reality of this crisis, as ugly as it is. Only by anchoring ourselves to the concrete facts that have brought us to this point will we be able to change the increasingly dangerous direction of our world….
“If the status quo continues, the days ahead will be driven by an ongoing war of narratives over who is entitled to hate more and kill more. Sinister political agendas and ideologies will attempt to exploit religion. Extremism, vengeance and persecution will deepen not only in the region but also around the world…. It is up to responsible leaders to deliver results, starting now.”
Maine Musing 
