Tag: Palestine

The General’s Son

In the book “The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” by Miko Peled, the General refers to Major General Mattityahu “Matti” Peled (1923–1995), an Israeli military commander who became a prominent peace activist, academic, and politician. A key architect of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, he later transitioned into a radical advocate for Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and a two-state solution.

Like his father, Miko was also an avid Zionist who believed in peaceful relations with his Arab neighbors in two sovereign states. When Milo’s niece Smadar was killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber in 1997, Miko’s reaction to his grief tells us all we need to know to understand the heart of this book. Rather than expressing hatred toward the Palestinian murderer of his beloved niece, he felt shame and anger toward his fellow Israelis for driving a Palestinian boy to take his own life in this way. The book relays Miko’s journey upto and beyond this tragedy and sets out a more balanced history than you might have heard.

Having settled in San Diego to teach karate, Miko began to participate in mixed Jewish/Arab groups (San Diego Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group) discussing their experiences in and hopes for Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) and became hopeful for two sovereign states living peacefully next to each other. When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat meet with President Bill Clinton at Camp David in Maryland, Miko was sure peace was at hand. When the talks fail to achieve agreement and Clinton seems to blame Arafat, Miko is shocked.

“Arafat had been consistent for years. For the sake of peace he was willing to give up the dream of all Palestinians to return to their homes and their land in Palestine. He was willing to recognize Israel, the state that destroyed Palestine, took his people’s land, and turned them into a nation of refugees. He was ready to establish an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza—which make up only 22 percent of the Palestinian homeland—with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.

“He was ready to do all this, but he was not going to settle for anything less. He had always been clear about what he saw as the terms for peace.

“In the end, it turned out that… what the Israelis had demanded at Camp David was tantamount to total Palestinian surrender…. Barak demanded that Arafat sign an agreement to end the conflict forever and in return, he would be permitted to establish a Palestinian state on an area of land that could not be defined clearly because it was broken into pockets with no geographic continuity. Instead of Arab East Jerusalem, he would receive a small suburb of East Jerusalem as his capital. To that Yasser Arafat refused to agree.” (p. 126)

Miko’s love of Israel and increasing exposure to Palestinians (both in San Diego and in the West Bank, which he visited often to teach Karate and promote mutual understanding) exposed him to the shocking mistreatment of Palestinians in their own land. His compassionate heart and wisdom led him to strongly advocate the two-state solution to the struggles between the Arabs and Jews occupying the area.

During a visit to Ramallah to meet Abu Ali Shahin, Fatah commander and leader of the Palestine political prisoners for more the two decades, Miko exclaimed that: “Immediately after the war, while still in uniform, my father said that Israel must recognize the rights of the Palestinian people. He said that if we don’t do this, the Israeli army would become an occupation army and would resort to brutal means to enforce the IsraeliOslo occupation on the Palestinian people. He said this while still in uniform and he never stopped saying it and advocating for Palestinian rights till he died.” (p. 229)

In my own work with the IMF helping to establish the Palestine Monetary Authority called for by the Oslo Accord, I was disheartened to observe Israel’s abusive treatment of the Palestinians. The Oslo Accord itself did not provide for a fully independent and sovereign state for the Palestinians (themselves semitic children of Abraham). It provided what was hoped would be the first trust-building steps toward such a true state. However, Israel carved up the West Bank with highways only usable by Israelis. Palestinians driving to their new capital of Ramallah had to wait hours to enter via the Israeli-controlled check point. With my UN passport I could sail in via the Israeli entrance with no wait. Israel isolated the Palestinian population of the WBGS in every way imaginable.

Though declared illegal by the UN, Israeli Jews increasingly stole Palestinian land to establish Jewish settlements, carving up and often destroying Palestinian farms in the process. The number of Jews living in illegal settlements in the West Bank grew from about 80,000 in 1990 to almost 530,000 in 2025. But this pales compared to the shocking mistreatment reported by Miko.

At the end of Miko’s meeting with the 72-year-old Fatah leader, Abu, Ali Shahin, stated:

“We all belong to this land and need to live together. No one is safe in one Jewish state. Judaism is a religion, and I am speaking of a secular state of all its citizens. That is the only way to live here. Being Jewish or Muslim or Christian or atheist, that is a personal choice, not for me to dictate and not to be dictated to me. I don’t want a priest or a rabbi or a sheikh to govern my life. We belong in this land, and we need to live here as equals.”

Miko then writes: “This was not the first time I had heard someone talk of the ‘one secular democratic state,’ as the right solution. It was the part of the Fatah manifesto to create a secular democracy in all of Palestine. In the past, I could not stomach it, but the more I met impressive, intelligent people like Abu Ali, people who were driven by principle, the more I thought that there was no point, indeed no future, in dividing the people and the land. Not to mention the fact that the settlements and the facts on the ground had succeeded in erasing the West Bank as a viable area in which a Palestinian state could be established.”

In my book on my travels in the area, “Palestine: The Oslo Accords Before and After”, I still strongly supported a two-state solution. But when I asked George Abed, my IMF colleague then Governor of the Palestine Monetary Authority I was there to help create, if he would write the Foreword to my book, he declined, saying the book was unfair to the Palestinians. I have now come to accept that he was right.

This book was published in 2012. From that year (January 2012) until October 6, 2023 Palestinians killed about 300 Israelis, who killed about 3,900 Palestinians. From the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel until now (June 2, 2026), Palestinians killed about 1,400 Israelis (of whom 1,200 were killed during Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack), who then killed about 75,000 Palestinians. The status quo is clearly not working for Israelis or for Palestinians.

The United States, home to about as many Jews as there are in Israel, is a secular state with large populations of Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and other religious groups. Our constitution forbids the government from adopting any one of them. They have each flourished. I have reluctantly concluded that Israel must annex the West Bank of Gaza and give full and equal citizenship and rights to all Arabs and Jews living there. “A one state solution”,  “A one state solution – 2”.

The wars and ethnic cleansing now underway by the Netanyahu government is not only destroying Israel, but also dragging the United States down with it and I haven’t even mentioned Iran.

Fixing Palestine

In 1995 and 6 I led IMF technical assistance teams to Israel to establish the Palestine Monetary Authority as called for by the Oslo Accord. We were excited by the prospects of contributing to peace between the Arab and Jewish populations who had occupied the area for millennia (as well as new arrivals). We spoke, as did many others, of the Oslo Peace Process establishing a two-state solution to the struggles between the Palestinians and Jews since the establishment of Israel in 1948. In fact, we should have referred to the Oslo Accords as establishing only a step, a rather small one at that, toward a two-state solution—two independent states following Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.

I wrote about these experiences in “Palestine-The Oslo Accords Before and After-My Travels to Jerusalem” Our work was greatly facilitated by the fact that the governors of the Bank of Israel, Stan Fischer, and of the newly created Palestine Monetary Authority, George Abed, had been IMF colleagues. I asked each if they would write the foreword to my book. Stan declined saying that it was too sensitive a topic and George declined saying that my book was unfair to the Palestinians.

I have just finished reading a new account of the efforts to find peace in the area by two insiders with much wider exposure than I had had:  “Tomorrow is Yesterday-Life, Death and the Pursuit of peace in Israel/Palestine” by  Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. And I concluded that George Aben had been right about my account.

The two authors had been intimately involved in the many efforts to find agreement between the relevant parties. Drawing on their experience advising the Palestinian leadership (Arafat and Abbas) and US presidents (Clinton, Obama, and Biden) and their participation in secret talks over decades, Agha and Malley expose the weaknesses of those efforts and point to the potential of a very different approach. “They stress that the two-state solution became a global goal only when it was no longer viable; that U.S. officials preferred technical schemes to a frank reckoning with the past; that Hamas’s onslaught [on Oct 7, 2023] and Israel’s war of destruction were not historical exceptions but historical reenactments; and that the gaps separating Israelis and Palestinians have less to do with territorial allocation than with history and emotions.” From Amazon Books website.

Robert Malley was the United State Special Envoy for Iran in 2021-23 and as Special Assistant to President Clinton from 1998 to 2001, he was a member of the U.S. peace team and helped organize the 2000 Camp David Summit. Hussein Agha, a Lebanese, is a senior associate of Oxford University’s St. Antony’s College was a senior associate fellow at Chatham House.

Malley and Agha stress the diversity of players in the search for peace—ultra orthodox to nonreligious Jews—Palestinian groups that spent more energy fighting one another than fighting Jews. Selecting Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat for US lead negotiations at the Camp David summit left out most groups and many relevant issues. The authors end with the somewhat encouraging call to return to the beginning (1948 and before) and seating all Jewish and Palestinian groups at the table to take on the fundamental issues of history head on if there is any chance of finding the compromises needed to live together in peace with one, two, or more states as options.  https://wcoats.blog/2024/01/19/one-state-solution-for-palestine-israel/   Their narrative is a very enlightening account. 

Kurdistan

Though large numbers of Jews were scattered around the world for two thousand years, Palestine has always retained a significant number of them. Of the almost 11.3 million Jews in 1900, most were in Europe (9 million), Russia (3.9 million) and the United States (1.5 million). At the beginning of the WWII the global population of Jews had grown to 15.4 million of which one third were in the US.

Even before the holocaust there were movements to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The 1917 Belfour Declaration from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, pledged British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The local Christian and Muslim community of Palestine, who constituted almost 90% of the population, strongly opposed the declaration.

What became known as Zionism (as formalized by Theodor Herzl, it aimed to secure a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution and to revive Jewish culture and language) took many forms. For example, the question who is Jewish continues to be debated. Following World War I, Britian ruled the Lavant (Palestine). On September 3, 1947, the UN adopted the boundaries (green line) to divide the British mandate between a state of Israel and the rest. Israel was given 56% and Jerusalem (an important Christian, Jewish, and Muslim shrine) was made international. When Britten ended its Mandate, Israel declared its independence.

Most Zionists sought a democratic Jewish state. Upon its founding in 1947, Israel was roughly 60% Muslim, 40% Jewish and 10% Christian. That was an unacceptable problem for those wanting a democratic Jewish state. From the Nakba of 1948 (Jewish ethnic cleaning of over half of the Palestinians then living in Israel) Israel was about 90% Jewish in 1949. Currently the population of Israel is about 10 million, of which 73% are Jewish, and 20% are Muslims. Finding peace with the rest of Palestine has remained a challenge to this day. Are the prospects for a peaceful Kurdistan very different.

The Kurdish population worldwide is estimated to be between 40 and 45 million, making them one of the largest ethnic groups without a sovereign state. However, about 30 million of them live within what would be the sovereign state of Kurdistan should it be allowed to exist, made up of chunks of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Kurdish military forces have fought for territory but largely in pursuit of claims to rule what they considered home ground. It is extremely unlikely that the Kurds in this area would have any interest in expanding their territory. None the less Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey have generally been hostile to any effort of the Kurds to rule themselves. The formation of a Kurdistan raises the questions whether that would bring greater peace to the wider region and whether the “internal” politics would support domestic rule that would properly serve the Kurdish people (or all residents of the area). Intense opposing political views exist within Kurdistan, particularly in Iraq, where the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) compete for control, often leading to governance deadlocks, separate security forces, and split zones of control.

In addition, we must ask whether the Iraqi Kurds, Iranian Kurds, Turkish Kurds, and Syrian Kurds feel more loyal to the country they are located in or to their fellow Kurds in the surrounding countries. Does a nation function better toward the interests of its citizens when based on ethnic and/or religious commonality or when based on common principals of governance and rights?

Israel is an example of the first option—Jewishness. As a classical liberal (libertarian) I support the American approach of rights and laws applied equally without regard to ethnicity or personal religious beliefs. For Kurdistan, the question with whether the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq, Iran or Syria feel greater loyalty to other Kurds or to the country they live in.

I started this blog expecting to build the case for a Kurdistan. I have talked myself out of it.

Palestine

Starting in July 1995, I led IMF technical assistance teams to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza to help implement the provisions in the Oslo Accords to establish a monetary authority (Central Bank). These visits were at the invitation of the Israeli government and began and ended with briefing meetings with officials at the Bank of Israel in Jerusalem. I later led the IMF’s Financial Stability Assessment of Israel. The last of my eleven visits was in December 2013.

Following Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Stripe (WBGS) in 1967, it allowed Palestinian skilled workers to fill labor needs in Israel. In the mid 1980s 40% of the Palestine workforces was employed in Israel. But prior to my first visit Israel closed that door and began importing workers from North Africa to fill the resulting shortage.

Looking back, in light of Israels on going attacks on Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, (what a Financial Times article headlined as “Israel’s Spiraling Offensive” https://www.ft.com/content/cbe18019-752f-4770-be40-fe4b2dc5abd7?d )  I am surprised at what we close our eyes to officially and unofficially.

We knew that Jewish settlements in the West Bank (and earlier in Gaza) on land stolen from Palestinians were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory. But in our Financial Stability Assessment of Israel, we ignored the financial implications for Israeli bank loans to setters on the grounds that the Israeli government would bail them out for any loses incurred. Looking back, I don’t really know where this judgement came from, but we understood that we were to ignore the Settlements.

During one of my missions we saw a new Jewish settlement being born before our eyes. A few dozen Jewish families had parked their trailers on Palestinian land. When Palestinians protested the theft of their land, the Settlers call on the Israeli Army for protection. Subsequently they would build permanent houses on this property.

On most of my missions to the WBGS we stayed in the famous American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem (Laurence of Arabia had stayed there as had Peter O’Toole while later filming the movie). From there we had to drive each day to Ramallah, the headquarters of the Palestine Authority and future home of the Palestine Monetary Authority we were helping create.  Two features of our daily drive confronted us with how Israel was treating the Palestinians in the territories it occupied.

Israel was building separate Jewish only highways through the West Bank and to Gaza. Most Palestinians working in Ramallah commuted each day on their own roads.  There were separate entry check points for Palestinians and for Jews (and the international community such as us). We sailed through the Jewish entry, where our UN passports were quickly reviewed, while it took an hour or two for most Palestinians lined up at their check point to enter every day. I was amazed that Palestinian anger at such treatment was so subdued and seldom expressed.

Our several trips to Gaza and my meeting with Yasser Arafat and near abandonment in the desert are a fascinating story in their own right that you can read in my book:  “Palestine-Oslo Accords – My Travels to Jerusalem” Hearing the explosion of a terrorist attack on a Jerusalem bus while eating breakfast in the American Colony Hotel and subsequently fleeing to Jordan across the tiny Allenby Bridge over the Jordan River are also discussed in the same book.

From the River to the Sea

The subtitle of my memoire is “From the River to the Sea, All should be Free.” I deliberately chose this potentially provocative statement to warn readers to expect to encounter my political views and to refuse to allow the English language to be twisted by the political views of others. In the same spirit, I always stated that “All Lives Matter” rather than the more restrictive “Black Lives Matter.”  I have always defended the rights of All people to peace, justice and equal rights.

I asked my AI search engine the following:

What different groups chant “From the River to the Sea “ and what does each group mean by that?

The reply was:

The phrase “From the River to the Sea” is used by various groups with differing interpretations:

  1. Pro-Palestinian Activists: For many, it symbolizes the aspiration for Palestinian liberation and equality across the region from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, often seen as a call for peace and justice.
  2. Jewish and Pro-Israel Groups: Many perceive it as a threat to Israel’s existence, viewing it as a call for the elimination of the Jewish state, especially when used by groups like Hamas.

“When someone says from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, I question, ‘Where do you see the Jews going?'” said Yair Szlak, president and CEO of Montreal-based Federation CJA. ‘That is hate speech, right, because it is into the sea that they seek to send the Jews.’”

Take a close look at this amazing statement. Mr. Sziak implies that the only way Palestinians can be free is by getting rid of the Jews!!  Aside from being a absurd statement, it is sadly revealing of the thinking of some Israelis.

“Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine-Israel program at the Arab Center Washington D.C., has written extensively about the meaning of the slogan before and since Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7, which led to Israel’s current bombardment of the Gaza Strip. 

“Munayyer says today, the phrase is used to reference the lack of freedoms Palestinians have in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes the state of Israel as well as the Gaza Strip and the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

“’That’s what has to change. That doesn’t mean that there should be any violence against Israelis,’ Munayyer said.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881

From the River to the Sea

I oppose the death penalty, but on occasion have said (and perhaps written) that I am tempted to relax my opposition for those who deliberately spread lies (or bomb babies). This is my cherished right in the U.S. where we enjoy (still to some extent) our freedom to say whatever we want. I strongly oppose antisemitic statements as well as false claims that condemning acts of the Israeli government is antisemitic. But I defend the right of people to says such things (but would never invite them to my home). It is also my right to condemn their rudeness.

The demonstrations of Jewish (Israeli) and Arab (Palestinian) students condemning Hamas’ Oct 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent attack on Gaza (and increased violence against Palestinians in the West Bank) are understandably intense. To be clear, violence from demonstrators toward anyone (such as blocking access to class) is not protected by our First Amendment right to free speech and would be certainly condemned by me. But shouting death to the Palestinians or to the Jews without actual threats of violence is protected. The First Amendment is not needed to protect speech we agree with or like but speech we disagree with and/or are offended by. The benefits of such freedom in our society are huge but seem to need renewed support.

I am particularly annoyed by deliberate distortions of the meaning of chants like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” I share that aspiration. Indeed, everyone from the river to the sea should be free. Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, was censured by House lawmakers for saying it.

Unfortunately, disapproval and disagreement have morphed into inappropriate sanctions:

“The brother of a British-Israeli man who had been killed during Hamas’ attack on 7 October… told the BBC that he found the marches in the UK for Gaza upsetting and intimidating. Chants like ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ were, he observed, evidence of deep-rooted and growing antisemitism in British society.

“The problem is not just that many British Jews assume the UK has an antisemitism problem based on a highly dubious interpretation of the chant’s meaning. It is that establishment media organisations are echoing that misunderstanding and treating it as more newsworthy than Israel killing Palestinian babies, with the UK government’s blessing. It is just one illustration of a pattern of reporting by western media outlets skewing their news priorities in ways that reveal a racist hierarchy of concern. Jewish fears are of greater import than actual Palestinian deaths, even babies’ deaths. 

“The hypocrisy is especially hard to stomach, given a central Israeli justification for its subsequent genocidal rampage through Gaza. Israel promoted the claim that Hamas had beheaded 40 Israeli babies on 7 October – a story that was widely reported as fact, even though no evidence was ever produced for it.”  “Israel-Palestine war: Gaza slogan bigger news than murder of babies”

New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik’s attack on the President of MIT, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania for defending free (if repugnant) speech was particularly disgusting and alarming. The President of the U of Penn, Liz Magill, was evening forced to resign. While there may be some grey areas between shouting that all Arabs or all Jews (or Trumpeters) should die and actually threatening their lives, the attacks we have been seeing on the freedom to say nasty things is dangerous to a valued American institution. So is the increasing loss of civility (good manners). To preserve (or reestablish) the society we cherish, we need to use our freedom to speak to defend both speech and manners.

Golda

 The natural, instinctive reaction to abuse is revenge. Civilization requires taming many instincts useful for survival by hunters/gatherers, including the urge for revenge. Aggressive war is one of the worst and ugliest forms of revenge, but in “modern” society most of us are far removed from war’s realities when the war is “over there.”

Many movies do the best job possible in confronting us with the individual, personal tragedies of war for those of you who only experience it on TV news. I have no doubt that if more people understood the nature and consequences of war, they would advocate it far less often.

One of those movies you should watch is Golda. Golda Meir was the Prime Minister of Israel during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. It very well depicts the pain, confusion, and tragedy of war (in this case an attack on Israel by Egypt, which Israel obviously could not avoid). We watched it last night and cried yet again.

Dear Congressman Kevin McCarthy

The Times of Israel and other press report that you “would remove Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota Democrat, from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in part because of her criticism of Israel.” We should all speak out against antisemitism or any other hateful characterizations of other religious and ethnic groups. However, when you criticize the Biden administration, we would be wrong to call you unamerican. Similarly, you are wrong to conflate criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism. 

In fact, the U.S. government has been embarrassingly negligent in criticizing the Israeli government’s illegal and abusive treatment of the Palestinian residents of the Palestinian territories.  Amnesty International has declared Israel an apartheid state. “Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful under international law due to its permanence and the Israeli government’s de facto annexation policies, a UN-appointed Commission of Inquiry said in its first report, published on Oct 20, 2022.” It is reassuring that the US is undertaking an investigation of the recent shooting death of Palestinian American Shireen Abu Akleh by an Israeli soldier.  “FBI investigation—killing of Shireen Abu Akleh by Israel military”

I was born and raised in Bakersfield and now live in the Washington, DC area, and I have worked extensively in Israel and the WBGS for the International Monetary Fund. I hope for more from you.   “Israel and Palestine”   My travels to Jerusalem”  

Sincerely,

Warren Coats

Israel and Palestine

Who started the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys? Who is to blame? In the case of the new nation of Israel in the land of Canaan (Palestine) we might go back to Adam and Eve or more recently to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (see the brief history in my book “Palestine-Oslo Accords-My Travels to Jerusalem”) to see where the feuding began.

Who started it?

But let’s start this current, tragic round of fighting with the Israeli police attacks on demonstrators “rallying against the forced expulsions of Palestinian families from the occupied East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah…. At least 90 Palestinians were wounded on Saturday [May 8] during an Israeli police crackdown on protesters outside the Old City of Jerusalem, while another 200 Palestinians were injured on Friday when Israeli forces stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Al-Aqsa Mosque, known as the Dome on the Rock in English, is Islam’s third most sacred site. Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended to heaven from this site.

 “Jerusalem court delays Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah eviction hearing”

Israel’s Supreme Court “is reviewing a judgment to evict Palestinian families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem. Their homes sit on land that was owned by Jews before Jordan occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem in 1948. Israeli law allows the heirs of the original owners to reclaim property in East Jerusalem. Yet Palestinians cannot claim their former homes in West Jerusalem (or anywhere else in Israel). No wonder Palestinian residents of the city are always ready to protest.

“The injustices elsewhere are worse. Palestinians in the wider West Bank, like those in Jerusalem, have watched Israel confiscate land and build settlements on occupied territory, which is illegal under international law. They must also deal with Israeli checkpoints and an onerous permit regime. In Gaza more than 2m Palestinians have been cut off from the world by Israeli and Egyptian blockades since 2007, when Hamas grabbed control.” “The Economist: Only negotiations can bring lasting peace to Israel and Palestine”

That is the immediate background to the dozens of rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza starting on Monday (May 10): “Palestinian militants launched dozens of rockets from Gaza and Israel unleashed new air strikes against them early Tuesday, in an escalation triggered by soaring tensions in Jerusalem and days of clashes at an iconic mosque in the holy city.” “Israeli police Palestinians clash Jerusalem holy site”

At least 30 Palestinians, including 10 children, and three Israelis were killed as tensions in Jerusalem spread west toward the seacoast Tuesday. Israeli airstrikes flattened a multistory apartment building in Gaza and rockets fired from the Gaza Strip reached Tel Aviv in an unusually far-reaching barrage that sent residents of Israel’s largest city scrambling into bomb shelters.  “Israeli clashes Palestinians turn deadly Jerusalem tensions spread”

More concerning than the exchange of rockets between Gaza and Israel, is the sharp rise of violence between Arab Israelis in Israel and between Palestinians and Israelis throughout the West Bank.  A major problem is that there are no good guys on either side. “Most Israelis are comfortable with the ‘anti-solutionism’ of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, who shows little interest in pursuing a permanent settlement with the Palestinians….  Fatah, has not done much better in the West Bank. The party’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is in the 17th year of a four-year term as Palestine’s president. He seems concerned mainly with preserving his own power.”  “The Economist: Only negotiations can bring lasting peace to Israel and Palestine”

Critically, the United States has failed to promote Palestinian rights, giving one-sided support to whatever Israel does.

Sadly, the winners, if we can call them that, of today’s tragic fighting are the status quo leaders (Netanyahu, Abbas, and Hamas), who have failed to address the central issues of the coexistence of Israelis and Palestinians in the land of Canaan. War, or the threat of it, are historically tested instruments for strengthening public support of existing leaders.  In a recent report on the situation in Israel, the Human Rights Watch pronounced Israel an Apartheid state.  “Israel report apartheid” The Jewish diaspora are increasingly speaking up against the policies of Israel. The United States could make a major contribution by conditioning its very large financial aid to Israel on its respecting the rights of Palestinians.  “A New U.S. Approach to Israel-Palestine”  

I shudder to think what might be happening by the time you read this.