Israeli Arabs already have that, as a minority inside a jewish country.
As for the West Bank and Gaza Strip Palestinians: Not really. I think too many of them literally want to kill all the jews, and their education system encourages that (Hebrew Wikipedia, sorry) even in the West Bank which is considered more moderate. The Palestinian Authority pays handsome salary (Hebrew Wikipedia again) to every terrorist for every person they kill, be they military or civilian.
I think when enough people want peace we will get it, one way or another. Until then we will get one semi- stable bad equilibrium after the other.
Most people are the silent majority, who just want peace and don’t have leverage to make it happen. That applies to the Palestinians and Israelis, most of whom don’t know what to do, but want things to be peaceful and allow them to live happy lives. Unfortunately, political leaders on both sides have incentives to ensure that the easiest path to their near-term goals of staying in power involve continuing the cycle of violence.
The critical path in my mind is prosperity—if Palestinians had a median income of Jordanians and Iraqis, double the current level, or of Egyptians, which triple the current level, it wouldn’t matter that median Israelis had four or five times as much. But Iran has probably successfully maneuvered Israeli into undermining the Saudi deal, and I think that Israel’s narrow short term needs will continue the cycle.
Most people are the silent majority, who just want peace and don’t have leverage to make it happen. That applies to the Palestinians and Israelis, most of whom don’t know what to do, but want things to be peaceful and allow them to live happy lives.
Do you have a source for this? My impression was that a lot of Gazans were quite supportive of violence. For example, from the top results on google for ‘Gaza public opinion’, earlier this year:
See my reply to Yovel, but preferring violence to the status quo is very different than not wanting peace. And given that they keep getting bombed by Israel, it makes sense that they don’t want to simply lay down arms—but per the last link, a majority supported continuing the ceasefire.
The last attack was completely unprecedented in terms of cruelty and mercilessness towards civilians. I don’t know how much previous surveys about support for Hamas (who were perceived as “resisting occupation in the only way they can”) can tell us now.
Yeah—there’s an old marxist take that looks like “religion is a fake proxy battle for eminent domain and ‘separate but equal’ style segregation” that I always found compelling. I can’t imagine it’s 100% true, but Yovel implies that it’s 100% false.
First, election of Hamas and Hamas affiliated seats is very different than support for Hamas. These were local representative elections, not a national party election like Israel. So the 58% number seems misleading. And the reason there have not been elections since 2006 has much more to do with Hamas being unwilling to have elections than you seem to think
Second, I think there is a critical difference between support for a political group and support for violence. Most Gazans did not want violence, and a majority of Palestinians, when polled, would accept peace under various terms—they no longer support a two state solution with the current borders, though they did a decade ago, especially because such a deal still leaves Israel in control of the borders. However, there are a variety of scenarios which include concessions Israel is unwilling to offer, for political and/or security reasons, that would have a solid majority of Palestinians supporting a deal.
I agree those are heavy short-term and medium-term obstacles. But I was asking about the long-term. How do you persuade the population of Gaza to want peace?
Right now, Gazans are being born packed like sardines into a poverty-stricken strip that they can’t leave, and their primary exposure to Israelis is via blockades and bombs. Those conditions clearly contribute to a ripe recruitment ground for hatred and terrorism.
If instead Gaza was a relatively prosperous land, with freedom of movement and control over it’s own future, and the violence with Israel was a distant memory, then it seems unlikely the average citizen would jeopardize that prosperity by supporting terrorism.
The problem is how to get from point A to point B, given that it take time for hatred to fade, and that helping Gaza be prosperous might also help terrorists get more deadly.
Considered as a city-state, Gaza doesn’t seem notably population-dense? It’s less dense than all these cities, for instance. (Maybe lack of tall buildings is a factor here?)
Anyway, I think your analysis is interesting. My new idea is for Israel to set up microincentives related to peace and prosperity: e.g. from the start of every morning, Gaza gets as much electricity as it wants, but as soon as the first rocket is fired, reduce electricity to the restricted level for the rest of the day. That incentivizes Gazans to put social pressure on each other not to fire rockets.
The long-term goal would be to progressively remove all aspects of the blockade, and eventually give Gaza the status of an independent state, as peace-related milestones are met. (Note: I personally am uncertain whether I’m on board with any blockade, but I’m trying to brainstorm plans that would be acceptable to the Israeli electorate, once things have cooled down at least.)
A very good question, with no good answer. If I knew one I would be advising the prime minister, not writing on this forum :)
I imagine a model closer to the West Bank, where there’s some joint Israeli- Palestinian control. It’s not great, but way better than the current situation in Gaza, and hopefully might de- escalate somewhat the situation. In such case the blockade will probably be lifted, and Gaza might get some actual economic development.
Israeli Arabs already have that, as a minority inside a jewish country.
As for the West Bank and Gaza Strip Palestinians: Not really. I think too many of them literally want to kill all the jews, and their education system encourages that (Hebrew Wikipedia, sorry) even in the West Bank which is considered more moderate. The Palestinian Authority pays handsome salary (Hebrew Wikipedia again) to every terrorist for every person they kill, be they military or civilian.
I think when enough people want peace we will get it, one way or another. Until then we will get one semi- stable bad equilibrium after the other.
Strongly disagree.
Most people are the silent majority, who just want peace and don’t have leverage to make it happen. That applies to the Palestinians and Israelis, most of whom don’t know what to do, but want things to be peaceful and allow them to live happy lives. Unfortunately, political leaders on both sides have incentives to ensure that the easiest path to their near-term goals of staying in power involve continuing the cycle of violence.
The critical path in my mind is prosperity—if Palestinians had a median income of Jordanians and Iraqis, double the current level, or of Egyptians, which triple the current level, it wouldn’t matter that median Israelis had four or five times as much. But Iran has probably successfully maneuvered Israeli into undermining the Saudi deal, and I think that Israel’s narrow short term needs will continue the cycle.
Do you have a source for this? My impression was that a lot of Gazans were quite supportive of violence. For example, from the top results on google for ‘Gaza public opinion’, earlier this year:
and
See my reply to Yovel, but preferring violence to the status quo is very different than not wanting peace. And given that they keep getting bombed by Israel, it makes sense that they don’t want to simply lay down arms—but per the last link, a majority supported continuing the ceasefire.
The last attack was completely unprecedented in terms of cruelty and mercilessness towards civilians. I don’t know how much previous surveys about support for Hamas (who were perceived as “resisting occupation in the only way they can”) can tell us now.
Sure, if David is basing his view on more recent data he is welcome to share it.
Yeah—there’s an old marxist take that looks like “religion is a fake proxy battle for eminent domain and ‘separate but equal’ style segregation” that I always found compelling. I can’t imagine it’s 100% true, but Yovel implies that it’s 100% false.
The Hamas holds 56% of the Palestinian Legislative Council seats, elected democratically in 2006. Neither Presidency nor legislative council elections have not been held since 2006, because Hamas would win them.
What evidence do you have for a silent, peaceful majority?
First, election of Hamas and Hamas affiliated seats is very different than support for Hamas. These were local representative elections, not a national party election like Israel. So the 58% number seems misleading. And the reason there have not been elections since 2006 has much more to do with Hamas being unwilling to have elections than you seem to think
Second, I think there is a critical difference between support for a political group and support for violence. Most Gazans did not want violence, and a majority of Palestinians, when polled, would accept peace under various terms—they no longer support a two state solution with the current borders, though they did a decade ago, especially because such a deal still leaves Israel in control of the borders. However, there are a variety of scenarios which include concessions Israel is unwilling to offer, for political and/or security reasons, that would have a solid majority of Palestinians supporting a deal.
I agree those are heavy short-term and medium-term obstacles. But I was asking about the long-term. How do you persuade the population of Gaza to want peace?
Right now, Gazans are being born packed like sardines into a poverty-stricken strip that they can’t leave, and their primary exposure to Israelis is via blockades and bombs. Those conditions clearly contribute to a ripe recruitment ground for hatred and terrorism.
If instead Gaza was a relatively prosperous land, with freedom of movement and control over it’s own future, and the violence with Israel was a distant memory, then it seems unlikely the average citizen would jeopardize that prosperity by supporting terrorism.
The problem is how to get from point A to point B, given that it take time for hatred to fade, and that helping Gaza be prosperous might also help terrorists get more deadly.
Considered as a city-state, Gaza doesn’t seem notably population-dense? It’s less dense than all these cities, for instance. (Maybe lack of tall buildings is a factor here?)
Anyway, I think your analysis is interesting. My new idea is for Israel to set up microincentives related to peace and prosperity: e.g. from the start of every morning, Gaza gets as much electricity as it wants, but as soon as the first rocket is fired, reduce electricity to the restricted level for the rest of the day. That incentivizes Gazans to put social pressure on each other not to fire rockets.
The long-term goal would be to progressively remove all aspects of the blockade, and eventually give Gaza the status of an independent state, as peace-related milestones are met. (Note: I personally am uncertain whether I’m on board with any blockade, but I’m trying to brainstorm plans that would be acceptable to the Israeli electorate, once things have cooled down at least.)
A very good question, with no good answer. If I knew one I would be advising the prime minister, not writing on this forum :)
I imagine a model closer to the West Bank, where there’s some joint Israeli- Palestinian control. It’s not great, but way better than the current situation in Gaza, and hopefully might de- escalate somewhat the situation. In such case the blockade will probably be lifted, and Gaza might get some actual economic development.