[GK3]

The following Foreign Affairs article is worth a read.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/is...ESPAZ004F1

I agree it is worth a read, but their interpretation of what Dyan was saying is 180 degrees incorrect.

But as framed in the 1950s, his speech was remarkably sympathetic toward the perpetrators. “Let us not cast blame on the murderers,’’ Dayan said. “For eight years, they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages where they and their fathers dwelt into our estate.”

What he, as a soldier, was telling the listeners is that these murders are engaged in a war. In war, wise soldiers respect their enemies and try to understand them. He pointed out that the "murders" had a very strong (and possibly justifiable) motivation to redress their expulsion. This wasn't a random attack. These people are dangerous and will remain dangerous for the foreseeable future. Do not blame them for fighting for their cause. Israel does the same. Israel must understand these people are not to be cast as "outlaws". They see themselves as soldiers, and are therefore much more dangerous. Not at all a "generous" evaluation, but rather a pragmatic soldier's view.
The conclusion of the article states:

This is the lesson the country should have learned from Dayan’s age-old warning. Israel must reach out to Palestinians and to each other if they want a livable and respectful coexistence.

That is not at all what he said. He said "These people have reason to want to destroy us and they will do what is necessary to make it happen". In the 1950s it was reasonable to assume that as the "older generation" died out, the intensity of the conflict might go down. Dayan’s "warning" was in fact that as things stood, that will not happen anytime soon and Israel must be ready for whatever comes.

If there will ever be peace in the Middle East, a solution to this issue needs to be found, but is it even rational to think one can be found?

IMO, no. Unlike Japan in China or the US in Vietnam, Israel doesn't have the option of quitting  the war and going home. They need a strategy that will continue their existence, hopefully in a condition that allows them to thrive. They can't accept any outcome that risks this goal. The Palestinians OTOH want "their" land back, all of it. They have shown no signs of actually willingness to compromise on that goal. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. All the outside influences that use this conflict to their own ends exacerbates the situation, but IMO they aren't "causing" it. The two-state solution suffers from the fact the Israelis fear (with good reason) that a gerrymandered Israel would be indefensible (and perhaps not economically viable). The Palestinians realize that a two-state solution requires them to give up their goal of getting all "their" land back. It doesn't solve the problem of the incompatible goals. It didn't in 1948 and it still doesn't, unfortunately.

I agree that there appears to be no solution that works for both sides.  Continual fighting doesn't solve the problem either.  It always seemed to me that if Israel allowed the Palestinians living in Israel to become citizens of Israel with the rights and privileges a two state might have worked but that seems to be a pipe dream at the moment. This NYT article on the various decisions underlying Netanyahu's policy is interesting. It is unclear to what extent his intelligence people either agreed with him over were over ridden. Better intelligence might have helped, but better intelligence is only better if the people getting it accept it and act on it appropriately. People at the top also tend to be given the intelligence that they are known to want, and not just the facts as they are. Bureaucrats want to survive too

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world...hamas.html

 We seem to have arrived at a position where we are required to be the country that will guarantee Israel's survival as no one else seems willing to step up in any major way. How long will the majority of our voters agree with that approach?  Can things reach the point in the future where we say make peace or else?

I realize that all this is probably out of bounds as it is really politics at its worst, but it is the world we have to live in. Thank you for the feed back on the Foreign Affairs article.

[GK3]

The following Foreign Affairs article is worth a read.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/is...ESPAZ004F1

I agree it is worth a read, but their interpretation of what Dyan was saying is 180 degrees incorrect.

But as framed in the 1950s, his speech was remarkably sympathetic toward the perpetrators. “Let us not cast blame on the murderers,’’ Dayan said. “For eight years, they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages where they and their fathers dwelt into our estate.”

What he, as a soldier, was telling the listeners is that these murders are engaged in a war. In war, wise soldiers respect their enemies and try to understand them. He pointed out that the "murders" had a very strong (and possibly justifiable) motivation to redress their expulsion. This wasn't a random attack. These people are dangerous and will remain dangerous for the foreseeable future. Do not blame them for fighting for their cause. Israel does the same. Israel must understand these people are not to be cast as "outlaws". They see themselves as soldiers, and are therefore much more dangerous. Not at all a "generous" evaluation, but rather a pragmatic soldier's view.
The conclusion of the article states:

This is the lesson the country should have learned from Dayan’s age-old warning. Israel must reach out to Palestinians and to each other if they want a livable and respectful coexistence.

That is not at all what he said. He said "These people have reason to want to destroy us and they will do what is necessary to make it happen". In the 1950s it was reasonable to assume that as the "older generation" died out, the intensity of the conflict might go down. Dayan’s "warning" was in fact that as things stood, that will not happen anytime soon and Israel must be ready for whatever comes.

If there will ever be peace in the Middle East, a solution to this issue needs to be found, but is it even rational to think one can be found?

IMO, no. Unlike Japan in China or the US in Vietnam, Israel doesn't have the option of quitting  the war and going home. They need a strategy that will continue their existence, hopefully in a condition that allows them to thrive. They can't accept any outcome that risks this goal. The Palestinians OTOH want "their" land back, all of it. They have shown no signs of actually willingness to compromise on that goal. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. All the outside influences that use this conflict to their own ends exacerbates the situation, but IMO they aren't "causing" it. The two-state solution suffers from the fact the Israelis fear (with good reason) that a gerrymandered Israel would be indefensible (and perhaps not economically viable). The Palestinians realize that a two-state solution requires them to give up their goal of getting all "their" land back. It doesn't solve the problem of the incompatible goals. It didn't in 1948 and it still doesn't, unfortunately.

I agree that there appears to be no solution that works for both sides.  Continual fighting doesn't solve the problem either.  It always seemed to me that if Israel allowed the Palestinians living in Israel to become citizens of Israel with the rights and privileges a two state might have worked but that seems to be a pipe dream at the moment. This NYT article on the various decisions underlying Netanyahu's policy is interesting. It is unclear to what extent his intelligence people either agreed with him over were over ridden. Better intelligence might have helped, but better intelligence is only better if the people getting it accept it and act on it appropriately. People at the top also tend to be given the intelligence that they are known to want, and not just the facts as they are. Bureaucrats want to survive too

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world...hamas.html

 We seem to have arrived at a position where we are required to be the country that will guarantee Israel's survival as no one else seems willing to step up in any major way. How long will the majority of our voters agree with that approach?  Can things reach the point in the future where we say make peace or else?

I realize that all this is probably out of bounds as it is really politics at its worst, but it is the world we have to live in. Thank you for the feed back on the Foreign Affairs article.