Democrats don’t just need more nuance about Israel – they need a framework that centers both Israelis and Palestinians, and a policy that reflects that reality.
Thank you, Jeremy. As always, your statement and position is clear, precise and makes perfect sense. Keep staying on tack. It's bound to persuade all people of good conscience. The challenge is the condition of the body politic, ensconced in a limited perception of the world, or rather, transfixed to a material world.
This column makes important points, essential to success in the fall against the MAGA forces and for advancing peace with justice in the Middle East. I think that one additional point needs to be made. Yes, we disagree with the absolutists in the Pro-Israel camp and their support from AIPAC, and with absolutists in the Pro-Palestine camp and their boycotts of and discrediting of Israel as a state.
We criticize the lack from either tendency of any clear proposal of a path forward. But I think it is important to push back against over-the-top criticism of AIPAC often coming from "progressive" forces, such as recent criticism I seen of incumbents for accepting "blood money" from donors and demonization of candidates for accepting AIPAC money.
The way this is done is often distasteful and borderline antisemitic, and I do not consider it progressive at all. We should condemn it because it is just wrong and it is not how to influence incumbents or win over their supporters who cling to absolutist pro-Israel positions.
The fact is that AIPAC has been around a lot longer and is better funded and operates in areas where J Street and other PIN groups do not. And not all its rank-and-file local supporters support its most aggregious national stances. We have to win people over not box them in, and J Street understands that.
1000 % on this post. I might also add that both peoples have traumatized and been traumatized by each other at different times for over 150 years and both need and deserve a better future.
Another brilliant article, Jeremy, with an eye on a sound political strategy. Love it!!!
Here is something I wrote recently which is similar to what you said yet also different since I tend to sometimes employ more incendiary, emotionally-charged language.
My comment below was a response to people using the term "Zionism" in a uniformly disparaging manner.
I do not agree with the broad-brushed approach of sweeping generalizations describing Zionists as if they were all the same type of evil. I think Liberal Zionists are actually good, fellow travelers for peace (like J Street) and I think some aspects of early, democratic, egalitarian aspects of Zionism were quite noble even if the Nakba itself was evil, but, in my view, it was a necessary evil given the lack of good options at the time. So I think it was the least evil of only evil options at the time, the best of bad options, immediately after the Holocaust. And yes, I know the idea of Zionism as an idea long predated the Holocaust. But I think those secularists who created the notion and idea of Zionism did so because they understood how deep and prevalent and vicious European anti-Semitism was at the time and they were trying to craft an answer to that unbridled hatred in a way that would save the Jewish people from the Holocaust they anticipated years before their time.
While it could be argued that Zionism is also an imperialist project to project Western power into the Middle East, that does not mean that was the only factor or sole motivation. So I would reject the argument that it is the sole reason. But I would not reject that claim outright as balderdash either. I think it wiser and more realistic to accept that possibility as one factor amongst a multiplicity of varying factors that brought Zionism to fruition when Israel was established. So I would not argue that it was the chief reason but rather perhaps more of a minor influential factor. There exists a myriad of motives and impulses for establishing the State of Israel, chief among them being the survival of the Jewish people which came into sharp relief during and immediately after the Holocaust. The tragedy of the Holocaust and the fact that it left nowhere (or very few places) for Jews to hide or run since most nations refused entry to millions of Jews trying to emigrate out of Europe (including the United States) meant that the only true safeguard for the Jewish people was to create a state of their own where they would be well protected. For a variety of reasons, it made sense to do this in the same geographic area their ancestors of two millenia ago when they were expelled by another European Imperial conquest---the Roman sacking of Jerusalem at the time of the fall of the Second Temple.
So in a way, in an inhumane and brutal way, the Nakba was a return back to the ancestral home of the Jewish people before being forcefully expelled by the Roman Imperialists at that time. Granted, it was an injustice to the Palestinians, who also have every right to their own State but it was still the lesser of all evil choices at the time. What else could Jews do? Just stay in Europe and get over it? Maybe keep getting murdered? Please. Be serious. It was better to displace 750K people than to acquiesce to being murdered. Lesser of only evil choices, that is Israel's founding in a nutshell. It was ugly, it was evil but it was a necessary evil and the least evil of only evil choices at the time. So that is the ugly, uncomfortable, cold reality.
With that said, however, what Israel has become today is a little more than a highly militarized, perpetual-war waging, aggressive, neo-fascist state captured almost completely by the Kahanist hard-right, namely, the settler class. This kind of government coupled with its expansionist policy in the context of maintaining an apartheid cannot be allowed to continue. It is pretty darn evil. So you should speak up and protest against any US tax dollars or weapons being sent to Israel until this policy changes. Ignore the inevitable accusations of antisemitism for the pure comedy that they are in this context and keep waging peace and justice. Do not relent. But think in more nuanced terms too. Do not fall prey to the absolutists of either extreme.
The world is not black-and-white; it is grey and complicated and nebulous and difficult to discern and understand. That fact is key to questioning everything you read, hear and see. All information should be subject to critical analysis, fact-and-evidence-based examination and genuine analytical rigor before deciding on your own what to believe with one key consideration in mind: that you may never fully understand it all but that you will also not let this lack of full comprehension paralyze you from action---to speak out, to write and to try to help inform others, and to compel them to such action too.
Your essay is very interesting and thought provoking. Many good thoughts and some good information. But, if you don't mind my indulging in some constructive criticism. You present a strong argument criticizing anti-Zionists and being ineffective when they go overboard with disparaging remarks. True. But then you do exactly what you criticize them for when you, as you admit, become emotionally charged, and call Zionism evil. To be more accurate and effective, I'd think and broaden your understanding of 'Zionism' and Zionists so you don't fall into the same trap you accuse the haters of doing.
Here is an example, and you actually allude to it yourself: Many of the early Zionists, I'd say, in the first two decades of the 20th Century, believed that there would be a way to live together with Palestinians. My understanding is, and I admit I need to study this period much more, was that there were many chalutzim during the early Jewish settlement (i.e. kibbutzim and moshavim) who made a point of getting along with their neighbors. The problem, at least for this aspiration, was that once others not so peaceful, both Arab and Jewish settlers, got violent, the violence grew out of control and became hardened. I know this is quite simplistic, but my point is that not all Zionists are cast from the same mold.
Also, you infer that the only reason for Zionism was a response to global anti-semitism, and, of course, the Holocaust was the ultimate statement for the need for a Jewish State. But again, in the aspirational sense, Judaism and Jews haven't survived for millenium for no insignificant reason. Faith and Torah are powerful forces and guidelines for a good life, and I'm not just talking about orthodoxy, although I am about traditions. Zionism proposed a plan for the People of the Book, the "Chosen People", to create a nation of Jews coming from a heritage that instilled practicing important values. Being chosen by God meant they would lead lives and build a nation that would be a light for others.
At this point, Netanyahu and his right-wing extremists appear to have taken the rest of us out of the ballgame, bringing on the wrath of the world against Israel and Jews, with no good option, at least for a long time, other than aspirational ones.
Thank you for your reply, thank you for taking the time and effort to express important ideas and share a brief conversation with me. I appreciate your thoughtful insight and cordiality in this conversation. I wish more people would openly express themselves and engage in conversation so thank you for engaging with me. In response, let me say that I mostly agree with what you wrote above. But allow me to dissect a few points in the interest of our mutual dialogue and examination:
Above, you wrote this: "You present a strong argument criticizing anti-Zionists and being ineffective when they go overboard with disparaging remarks. True. But then you do exactly what you criticize them for when you, as you admit, become emotionally charged, and call Zionism evil."
First, let me say thank you for recognizing the strength of my argument. Yes, some do go overboard with their disparaging remarks. But allow me to clarify my viewpoint here. I do not think all Zionism is evil and if you read the first paragraphs of my comment above, I state that explicitly when I wrote: "I think Liberal Zionists are actually good, fellow travelers for peace (like J Street) and I think some aspects of early, democratic, egalitarian aspects of Zionism were quite noble." I recognize the same point that you recognize above when you wrote: "chalutzim during the early Jewish settlement (i.e. kibbutzim and moshavim)." Yes, that is indeed true and I think that also emerges from the socialist origins and preferences of many Ashkenazi Jews of the day who were emigrating from war-ravaged Europe.
So allow me to clear by saying explicitly that I do not think that all Zionism is evil and I go out of my way to make that point clear. However, what I do think was evil was the Nakba (the catastrophe as described by Palestinians) that forcibly displaced 750k of them, murdered some others, erased many villages and began a policy of oppression that continues even today. So, yes, I think the Nakba was evil but I would also argue that it is a necessary evil due to the horrible circumstances of that era. It was the best of bad options. Plus, given all of the back-and-forth terrorism in the decades leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel and when I say terrorism, I mean from both sides----both the Palestinian factions and, conversely, the Jewish terrorist groups like the Irgun, for example, it became clear that creating a single state where Jews were not the majority was not going to work. It was going to be ceaselessly violent. That endless internal violence would have doomed the Zionist project, especially with the massive inflow of refugees fleeing Europe. But a state with a Jewish majority would achieve that kind of survivability that early Zionists sought to create for the Jewish people. So to restate my position once again, I do not think that all of Zionism is evil, no, I think some forms of Zionism are good and I have all the respect in the world for current Liberal Zionists, like J Street, who I see as fellow travelers for waging peace and justice together in a broader tent.
But with that said, and in light of the current genocidal policies by the Netanyahu-Settler-neo-fascist settler dominated government of Israel, it is obvious that the Palestinian people also deserve a State of their own, a state of Palestine, for many of the same reasons Jews deserve one----for survivability first and as you stated, to create a light unto nations secondarily. Also, I am glad that you recognize that "being chosen" is not a form of ethnic superiority as some ignorant absolutists claim but rather is a weighty responsibilty bestowed by God upon the Jewish people to lead by example based on humanistic principles that may serve to become a light unto nations. It is an important point that illustrates the genuine meaning of "chosen" that couches it as a responsibility to humankind not a term of superiority.
My second response----you wrote: "Also, you infer that the only reason for Zionism was a response to global anti-semitism, and, of course, the Holocaust was the ultimate statement for the need for a Jewish State." I do not agree that I inferred that was the "only" reason for Zionism, that is as a global response to anti-Semitism. In fact, I noted above when I wrote that "There exists a myriad of motives and impulses for establishing the State of Israel, chief among them being the survival of the Jewish people which came into sharp relief during and immediately after the Holocaust." I also wrote above that "While it could be argued that Zionism is also an imperialist project to project Western power into the Middle East," alluding to the fact that there is more than one reason, in fact there is a myriad of reasons for establishing the State of Israel and achieving the objective of Zionism. So I think I have clear about that too.
But to your comment that the Jewish people have survived for several millenia, well yes as an ethnic people that is true, but as individual Jews it is not true at all. Many individual Jews experienced expulsions like in Spain centuries ago, many pogroms, many murders, much discrimination, many blood-libels and other injustices and culminating in a vast genocide of exponential proportions in the Holocaust, where 2/3 of all European Jewry were murdered at the hands of hateful bigoted fanatics. So with that in mind, the question then becomes: Has Israel saved millions of Jews and saved the Jewish people from extermination since 1945? We shall never fully know the answer to that question but what we do know is that it has served as a safe home for millions of Jews since then and it is a place of refuge, physically and psychologically for millions of other Jews.
So does that mean that I approve of the Nakba? No, it does not. Does that mean I approve of everything Israel does today? Absolutely not. But it does mean that I think of all the available choices at the time following the Holocaust, that it became clear as day that establishing Israel as a state with a Jewish majority became an utter imperative given the mass slaughter of unimaginable proportions that had just swept across Europe during the Holocaust. I do not think the Holocaust is the only reason for establishing the State of Israel but I think it is the chief reason, and I think Theodore Herzl presciently recognized, years before it happened, that a Holocaust against Jews could happen in Europe sometime in the future. I think he understood this. There are a myriad of reasons why Israel was established as a nation but no other reason is as urgent, as evident, as utterly necessary and as emotionally vexing as the Holocaust as the chief reason why the survival of the people could best be achieved by establishing a State of their own, Israel, in a land that they once inhabited before being themselves expelled by another European Empire two thousand years ago.
Once it was claimed that establishing Israel was impossible. Until others said, "It is possible if you will it to be." Nowadays, some say it is impossible to create two-states living side-by-side. But I say, echoing the rhetoric of history by other brave other fellows, "It is possible if you will it to be." Yes, two states for two peoples is possible if only we together will it to be and so I ask you to join me and others like J Street so we can enhance our numbers and broaden our coalition so that together we can create the kind of sustained political pressure to "will it to be" into fruition. Two states for two peoples is possible if we work together, unite in a broad movement and continue to pressure the powers-that-be. We can do it if we "will it to be." Yes, we can.
Thank you for this explanation. It is clear you are informed on this subject more than most. Your comments clear up much, and produce additional common ground. I realize this forum is not perfect for thoughts and points and our positions to become clear. You're right. We need on-going dialogue and respect. So thank you for advancing this goal.
It seems that U.S. policymakers often act in accordance with their own personal religious beliefs, rather than stepping back to objectively look at what is the best policy. For Jews, it is their personal connection to Israel. For many Christians, like current ambassador Mike Huckabee, it is a belief that Jews should govern Israel until the Apocalypse, when Christ will rise again, and everyone will be forced to convert to Christianity.
In order to give Palestinians equal consideration, language used in discussions about the situation must change. Ryan Grimm of Drop Site News has begun an investigation of mainstream media's disparate depictions of Israeli and Palestinian actions. For example, Palestinian attacks on Israelis are characterized as terrorist far more than similar attacks by Israelis on Palestinians. This language disparity also applies to government officials. Ryan Grimm has a point: language used influences policy.
Thank you Jeremy for using the word "legitimacy" instead of talking about Israel's or Palestine's "right to exist." A country's right to exist is derived from the respected legitimacy of a people's self governance, sovereignty and political statehood in secure territories. Israeli-Arab peace agreements have been grounded in Israel's reality not its legitimacy. But any Israeli-Palestinian resolution will have to address the legitimacy of both Jewish and Palestinian Arab people's sovereignty within agreed borders in what must ultimately be a shared homeland with guaranteed rights for all citizens. This mutual legitimacy is what must be at the center of American policy discussion and leadership.
A better conversation on Israel has to include the antisemitic appeals by the Democrats to their progressive wing. The idea J-Street has that Israel should be denied ballistic missile and rocket interceptors isn’t “Zionist” it’s genocidal antisemitism. We need to leave the Democratic Party because J-Street’s allies turned it into the Antizionist Socialist Party, and Anzis and indistinguishable from Nazis. https://substack.com/@havivgur/note/p-197075361
We democrats are also making a mistake when we ignore the larger regional conflict, especially the role of the Iranian republic. It’s not really an Israeli - Palestinian conflict. The reality not Hezbollah and Hamas’ roles as Iranian proxies cannot be ignored.
Israel (and the Us) is not the only state curtailing the rights and dignity of Palestinians - notice that the Arab states are not calling for equal treatment. They don’t want Israel to treat Palestinians better, their strategy is to force Israel’s most aggressive hands against Palestinians to reinforce the narrative opposing the legitimacy of Israel.
Neither can we ignore the challenge of supporting Israeli, Palestinian, (and Iranian) civilians without out supporting or being complicit in the worst of each of their political and military representatives - which currently have a stronghold on each of their respective countries.
I was wondering if you could at some point in your postings comment on why you disagree with Palestinian Christian Jonathan Kuttab who proposes a multi ethnic multi religious rhythem to Israeli-Palestinian life rather than an Israel that is Jewish and a Palestine that is Palestinian. Can you not imagine a Zionism that sees the goal of Israel not being a homeland for Jews but Israel Palestine a shared homeland for Jews and Palestinians.
I think it's possible for both an Israeli Jewish State and a Palestinian Arab state to be multi-ethnic, multi religious in rhythm. I would argue that such a reality exists within the Green Line, and could be strengthened at the end of this conflict.
But the fact is remains that the Jewish people want a country of their own where they will never have their rights deprived or their culture erided based on the will of a non Jewish majority. That cannot be guaranteed in a country where Jews are a minority. No country in history where Jews have lived has been able to achieve this. Not even the United States which has the best track record so far.
If in the future the 2 states are so comfortable that Israel and Palestine choose to join together, Mazel Tov. But both sides are far from such a world. And we should respect Jewish people's right to self determination.
Are you not aware that Israel already is multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious? Compare and contrast to the 99% Sunni Arab that is Hamastan Gaza or the Judenfrei Palestinian Authorify Area A&B of the West Bank.
Like most progressives, you got reality completely backwards.
This is what Israeli multi ethnic, multi religious pluralism looks like right now. It could use improvement. As for the West Bank and Gaza, again, Israel rules those areas. And neither wants to allow a Palestinian state to emerge or integrate them into Israel. Only permanent disenfranchisement under Israeli rule or some form of ethnic cleansing. That has to change.
I forgot that violent cops don’t exist in other countries.
That gross incident aside, nothing changes in the fact that Israel has more Muslims than Europe or the Arab World has Jews, and a higher percentage of Muslims than any country in the West - all citizens. Your Palestinian Territories are Judenfrei, not multi-ethnic. What your Pals and Free Palestine cult members want is to ethnically cleanse 7.7 million Israeli Jews from their homeland.
I didn't say Israel was the only place where things aren't going well. But that's very different from saying things are fine. They're not fine and they need to get better. That was just one of hundreds of incidents this year. People who support Israel need to take it more seriously.
And I'll point out that is the stated public opinion of a large part of the Israeli coalition to make the West Bank and Gaza Arabfrei. And the rest of the Government and half the opposition to reduce Palestinians to second class citizenship forever under Israeli rule. That's better than the ethnic cleansing Ben Gvir and Smotrich want. But that's not anything close to a liberal multi ethnic, multi religious Democracy. And supporters of Israel have to take that seriously as well and stop saying "But the Arabs" in response.
We're not doing what we're supposed to do. Not according to our values or our own standards. What is going on in Israel the West Bank and Gaza in regards to Palestinians would be unacceptable if Jews were suffering under it in any other country. Regardless of the excuses they had for why. So let's stop making excuses.
Tzeddek. You argue like an excellent attorney with facts and great cogency. Keep it up. I admire. your strength to hang in there with absolutists on the other side. You are helping elucidate the arguments, just as is in our tradition, to argue back and forth for understanding and light to shine for both arguers. Thank you!!
Stay focused, will you? You claimed that Israel isn’t multi-ethnic and that’s factually a lie. Europe and the Arab world are who ethnically cleaned and committed genocide against their Jews. The number of Muslims in Israel increased every year since its inception. The number of people in Palestinian Territories has increased every year, including during your alleged “genocide”. Israel has a higher percent of Muslim citizens than any democratic country, and Israel has been a democracy for 78 years, longer than most EU countries including Spain, Greece and Portugal. Arab Israeli citizens are deeply integrated in the country. Basically progressives like you and Free Palestine cult members lie about everything.
I actually I said that I thought a multi ethnic and multi religious reality existed within the Green line and could be strengthened in the future.
Do you approve of Smotrich and Ben Gvirs calls for ethnic cleansing? Are you against it? Because you haven't addressed them once. You keep talking about Rome and the Czars. I'm talking about the Israeli government in 2026.
And Israel has not been a full Democracy since 1967 precisely because it rules over and administers a land that it simultaneously considers part of Israel but whose people are not. And by building towns and villages in that territory, and settling Jewish citizens in it, but denying Arabs who live there citizenship, Israel has created a two tier society that is not Democratic by any definition.
If Israel wants to be a Liberal Democracy, either the West Bank and Gaza are their own separate Country or the non Jews living their become citizens, they cannot be both.
Have you ever read Jonathan Kuttab's book: "Beyond the Two State Solution". He is a Palestinian Christian that thinks that the situation in Israel is not based on the equality of the various religions and peoples as you seem to believe. Multi-racial, multi ethnic multi religious doesnt mean simply the presence of several peoples or faiths, but rather state defense of and support for the equality of all these peoples' rights to their homeland. Why for example do religious high schools receive $12000 per student and arab high schools receive $8400. Why did a Christian cleric in the Galilee have to go to the Israeli supreme court to get a permit to build a high school for Chrisitians and Muslims? Why do Armenian Chrisitians in Jerusalem report that their children are leaving the country because they can't find work because of ethnic selection?
Yet only a very tiny minority identify as trans. And while I hear your passion for this issue on an era where we have ICE agents deporting immigrants and killing citizens and an illegal war and tariffs and grift that hasn’t been seen since the 1800s why this is your number one priority.
And no offense to your certainty I know men who have become women and vice versa. Thru hormones and surgery they feel their bodies now match their inner experience. 🤷♀️🙏
No man has ever become a woman. Taking hormones or having surgery may affect outward appearance, but it doesn't change one cell of a person's body. A male is male from the first moment of his life to his last breath.
Scientists can tell if a person is male even if he's been dead for thousands of years.
It doesn't matter if a man "identifies" as trans or not.
Allowing *any man* into women's sports, women's changing rooms, women's restrooms or women's prisons creates dangerous situations for women and girls.
Have you heard of s@xual dimorphism? It means that the males of the species are bigger and stronger than the females of the species. All of the great apes display sexual dimorphism, even humans.
"Women and girls" are not impacted by transgender women in any way. They ARE impacted by the anti-woman policies such as cuts to SNAP, education, and health care access, blocking family planning and reproductive care, and even suggesting they be denied the right to vote. Turning a blind eye to sexual abuse — long a sad standard in the U.S. — harms thousands of times more "women and girls" than the number of trans women that even exist in the U.S. No one pushing trans hate gives a hoot about "women and girls."
Wow. Go girl!!! I wasn't going to wade into this one too deep, but you proved it can be done and done effectively. Jewish tradition and mysticism calls for us to see the light of God in all our brothers and sisters. You have shown that it can be done. Go girl!
It does indeed call for us to see the light in all (Despite my name, I am Jewish on my mother's side; my dad was Greek.) And with yesterday being Mother's Day I was thinking of the REAL threats to "women and girls." Thinking about the mother in Gaza who saw all her kids killed when their apartment was bombed. The mother in Israel worried that her kids will be cannon fodder in Lebanon. The mother in the West Bank whose home has been bulldozed and she and her kids are now homeless. The mother in Tel Aviv huddled in a bomb shelter with her scared kids due to a war she didn't start and didn't want. The mothers of the girls killed in the school in Iran. THOSE girls. The threat to "women and girls" wasn't a transgender person. It was a so-called "world leader" acting on his own lust for power and glory. Call him Trump, call him Netanyahu, call him Putin. Call the threat by name,
How do you feel about the two women prisoners who were impregnated by a "transwomen" incarcerated in a New Jersey prison?
Were they impacted by trans ideology?
p.s. His name is Demi Minor and when the New Jersey Department of Corrections finally decided that s@x is real, they transferred him to a men's facility.
Over 900 sports prizes intended for women have been awarded to men. Lia Thomas is one such man.
Two female prisoners became pregnant when a man who "thought" he was a woman was assigned to a women's prison. The authorities finally realized that s@x is real and had him transferred to a men's facility. [Demi Minor case NJ]
In 2021, a 15-year-old student who identified as "gender-fluid" was found guilty of sexually assaulting a female student in a girl’s bathroom. This individual was later transferred to another school where he assaulted a second female student.
In 2017, a transgender "woman" was convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl in a bathroom at a private residence.
A transgender student was charged with assaulting female classmates in a school bathroom during an altercation in late 2023.
In October 2024, the UN Rapporteur Reem Alsalem presented a landmark report to the UN General Assembly (A/79/325) specifically focused on violence against women and girls in sports. The report identifies violence in sports as a "serious, systemic and systematic" human rights issue.
The question is, why should any male be considered a "legal" female? It erases the female category, when it is a biological fact that people come in two sexes and have done so since the beginning of time.
I'm really confused. Why does this issue on gender have to interfere with all your other thoughts and opinions? it has nothing to do with a two-state solution or anything about Israel. Please me know what I'm misunderstanding about your statement. If you want to create a substack and bring your subject up, I'd like to hear more about your opinion.
If a politician doesn't understand the reality of something as basic as s@x, what other basic facts are they going to ignore?
The s@x binary is the basis of life for most of life on earth. S@x is how most living creatures (including humans) arrive on the planet. If a person doesn't understand something as basic as that, how are they going to confront and solve complicated problems?
Never mind. I just read the rest of your replies. It doesn't feel to me that you're willing to listen to others. Please be honest and ask yourself, am I on this forum to thrust my opinion on others, or truly listen? I try to do the same for myself. Some of the benefits of this approach is that I really learn a lot, and surprised that I can shift my position.
Thank you, Jeremy. As always, your statement and position is clear, precise and makes perfect sense. Keep staying on tack. It's bound to persuade all people of good conscience. The challenge is the condition of the body politic, ensconced in a limited perception of the world, or rather, transfixed to a material world.
This column makes important points, essential to success in the fall against the MAGA forces and for advancing peace with justice in the Middle East. I think that one additional point needs to be made. Yes, we disagree with the absolutists in the Pro-Israel camp and their support from AIPAC, and with absolutists in the Pro-Palestine camp and their boycotts of and discrediting of Israel as a state.
We criticize the lack from either tendency of any clear proposal of a path forward. But I think it is important to push back against over-the-top criticism of AIPAC often coming from "progressive" forces, such as recent criticism I seen of incumbents for accepting "blood money" from donors and demonization of candidates for accepting AIPAC money.
The way this is done is often distasteful and borderline antisemitic, and I do not consider it progressive at all. We should condemn it because it is just wrong and it is not how to influence incumbents or win over their supporters who cling to absolutist pro-Israel positions.
The fact is that AIPAC has been around a lot longer and is better funded and operates in areas where J Street and other PIN groups do not. And not all its rank-and-file local supporters support its most aggregious national stances. We have to win people over not box them in, and J Street understands that.
bullseye
There is only one viable path forward: a political resolution that recognizes the humanity, rights, and national aspirations of both peoples.
1000 % on this post. I might also add that both peoples have traumatized and been traumatized by each other at different times for over 150 years and both need and deserve a better future.
Another brilliant article, Jeremy, with an eye on a sound political strategy. Love it!!!
Here is something I wrote recently which is similar to what you said yet also different since I tend to sometimes employ more incendiary, emotionally-charged language.
My comment below was a response to people using the term "Zionism" in a uniformly disparaging manner.
I do not agree with the broad-brushed approach of sweeping generalizations describing Zionists as if they were all the same type of evil. I think Liberal Zionists are actually good, fellow travelers for peace (like J Street) and I think some aspects of early, democratic, egalitarian aspects of Zionism were quite noble even if the Nakba itself was evil, but, in my view, it was a necessary evil given the lack of good options at the time. So I think it was the least evil of only evil options at the time, the best of bad options, immediately after the Holocaust. And yes, I know the idea of Zionism as an idea long predated the Holocaust. But I think those secularists who created the notion and idea of Zionism did so because they understood how deep and prevalent and vicious European anti-Semitism was at the time and they were trying to craft an answer to that unbridled hatred in a way that would save the Jewish people from the Holocaust they anticipated years before their time.
While it could be argued that Zionism is also an imperialist project to project Western power into the Middle East, that does not mean that was the only factor or sole motivation. So I would reject the argument that it is the sole reason. But I would not reject that claim outright as balderdash either. I think it wiser and more realistic to accept that possibility as one factor amongst a multiplicity of varying factors that brought Zionism to fruition when Israel was established. So I would not argue that it was the chief reason but rather perhaps more of a minor influential factor. There exists a myriad of motives and impulses for establishing the State of Israel, chief among them being the survival of the Jewish people which came into sharp relief during and immediately after the Holocaust. The tragedy of the Holocaust and the fact that it left nowhere (or very few places) for Jews to hide or run since most nations refused entry to millions of Jews trying to emigrate out of Europe (including the United States) meant that the only true safeguard for the Jewish people was to create a state of their own where they would be well protected. For a variety of reasons, it made sense to do this in the same geographic area their ancestors of two millenia ago when they were expelled by another European Imperial conquest---the Roman sacking of Jerusalem at the time of the fall of the Second Temple.
So in a way, in an inhumane and brutal way, the Nakba was a return back to the ancestral home of the Jewish people before being forcefully expelled by the Roman Imperialists at that time. Granted, it was an injustice to the Palestinians, who also have every right to their own State but it was still the lesser of all evil choices at the time. What else could Jews do? Just stay in Europe and get over it? Maybe keep getting murdered? Please. Be serious. It was better to displace 750K people than to acquiesce to being murdered. Lesser of only evil choices, that is Israel's founding in a nutshell. It was ugly, it was evil but it was a necessary evil and the least evil of only evil choices at the time. So that is the ugly, uncomfortable, cold reality.
With that said, however, what Israel has become today is a little more than a highly militarized, perpetual-war waging, aggressive, neo-fascist state captured almost completely by the Kahanist hard-right, namely, the settler class. This kind of government coupled with its expansionist policy in the context of maintaining an apartheid cannot be allowed to continue. It is pretty darn evil. So you should speak up and protest against any US tax dollars or weapons being sent to Israel until this policy changes. Ignore the inevitable accusations of antisemitism for the pure comedy that they are in this context and keep waging peace and justice. Do not relent. But think in more nuanced terms too. Do not fall prey to the absolutists of either extreme.
The world is not black-and-white; it is grey and complicated and nebulous and difficult to discern and understand. That fact is key to questioning everything you read, hear and see. All information should be subject to critical analysis, fact-and-evidence-based examination and genuine analytical rigor before deciding on your own what to believe with one key consideration in mind: that you may never fully understand it all but that you will also not let this lack of full comprehension paralyze you from action---to speak out, to write and to try to help inform others, and to compel them to such action too.
Wage peace and persevere!!!
Your essay is very interesting and thought provoking. Many good thoughts and some good information. But, if you don't mind my indulging in some constructive criticism. You present a strong argument criticizing anti-Zionists and being ineffective when they go overboard with disparaging remarks. True. But then you do exactly what you criticize them for when you, as you admit, become emotionally charged, and call Zionism evil. To be more accurate and effective, I'd think and broaden your understanding of 'Zionism' and Zionists so you don't fall into the same trap you accuse the haters of doing.
Here is an example, and you actually allude to it yourself: Many of the early Zionists, I'd say, in the first two decades of the 20th Century, believed that there would be a way to live together with Palestinians. My understanding is, and I admit I need to study this period much more, was that there were many chalutzim during the early Jewish settlement (i.e. kibbutzim and moshavim) who made a point of getting along with their neighbors. The problem, at least for this aspiration, was that once others not so peaceful, both Arab and Jewish settlers, got violent, the violence grew out of control and became hardened. I know this is quite simplistic, but my point is that not all Zionists are cast from the same mold.
Also, you infer that the only reason for Zionism was a response to global anti-semitism, and, of course, the Holocaust was the ultimate statement for the need for a Jewish State. But again, in the aspirational sense, Judaism and Jews haven't survived for millenium for no insignificant reason. Faith and Torah are powerful forces and guidelines for a good life, and I'm not just talking about orthodoxy, although I am about traditions. Zionism proposed a plan for the People of the Book, the "Chosen People", to create a nation of Jews coming from a heritage that instilled practicing important values. Being chosen by God meant they would lead lives and build a nation that would be a light for others.
At this point, Netanyahu and his right-wing extremists appear to have taken the rest of us out of the ballgame, bringing on the wrath of the world against Israel and Jews, with no good option, at least for a long time, other than aspirational ones.
Hi David,
Thank you for your reply, thank you for taking the time and effort to express important ideas and share a brief conversation with me. I appreciate your thoughtful insight and cordiality in this conversation. I wish more people would openly express themselves and engage in conversation so thank you for engaging with me. In response, let me say that I mostly agree with what you wrote above. But allow me to dissect a few points in the interest of our mutual dialogue and examination:
Above, you wrote this: "You present a strong argument criticizing anti-Zionists and being ineffective when they go overboard with disparaging remarks. True. But then you do exactly what you criticize them for when you, as you admit, become emotionally charged, and call Zionism evil."
First, let me say thank you for recognizing the strength of my argument. Yes, some do go overboard with their disparaging remarks. But allow me to clarify my viewpoint here. I do not think all Zionism is evil and if you read the first paragraphs of my comment above, I state that explicitly when I wrote: "I think Liberal Zionists are actually good, fellow travelers for peace (like J Street) and I think some aspects of early, democratic, egalitarian aspects of Zionism were quite noble." I recognize the same point that you recognize above when you wrote: "chalutzim during the early Jewish settlement (i.e. kibbutzim and moshavim)." Yes, that is indeed true and I think that also emerges from the socialist origins and preferences of many Ashkenazi Jews of the day who were emigrating from war-ravaged Europe.
So allow me to clear by saying explicitly that I do not think that all Zionism is evil and I go out of my way to make that point clear. However, what I do think was evil was the Nakba (the catastrophe as described by Palestinians) that forcibly displaced 750k of them, murdered some others, erased many villages and began a policy of oppression that continues even today. So, yes, I think the Nakba was evil but I would also argue that it is a necessary evil due to the horrible circumstances of that era. It was the best of bad options. Plus, given all of the back-and-forth terrorism in the decades leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel and when I say terrorism, I mean from both sides----both the Palestinian factions and, conversely, the Jewish terrorist groups like the Irgun, for example, it became clear that creating a single state where Jews were not the majority was not going to work. It was going to be ceaselessly violent. That endless internal violence would have doomed the Zionist project, especially with the massive inflow of refugees fleeing Europe. But a state with a Jewish majority would achieve that kind of survivability that early Zionists sought to create for the Jewish people. So to restate my position once again, I do not think that all of Zionism is evil, no, I think some forms of Zionism are good and I have all the respect in the world for current Liberal Zionists, like J Street, who I see as fellow travelers for waging peace and justice together in a broader tent.
But with that said, and in light of the current genocidal policies by the Netanyahu-Settler-neo-fascist settler dominated government of Israel, it is obvious that the Palestinian people also deserve a State of their own, a state of Palestine, for many of the same reasons Jews deserve one----for survivability first and as you stated, to create a light unto nations secondarily. Also, I am glad that you recognize that "being chosen" is not a form of ethnic superiority as some ignorant absolutists claim but rather is a weighty responsibilty bestowed by God upon the Jewish people to lead by example based on humanistic principles that may serve to become a light unto nations. It is an important point that illustrates the genuine meaning of "chosen" that couches it as a responsibility to humankind not a term of superiority.
My second response----you wrote: "Also, you infer that the only reason for Zionism was a response to global anti-semitism, and, of course, the Holocaust was the ultimate statement for the need for a Jewish State." I do not agree that I inferred that was the "only" reason for Zionism, that is as a global response to anti-Semitism. In fact, I noted above when I wrote that "There exists a myriad of motives and impulses for establishing the State of Israel, chief among them being the survival of the Jewish people which came into sharp relief during and immediately after the Holocaust." I also wrote above that "While it could be argued that Zionism is also an imperialist project to project Western power into the Middle East," alluding to the fact that there is more than one reason, in fact there is a myriad of reasons for establishing the State of Israel and achieving the objective of Zionism. So I think I have clear about that too.
But to your comment that the Jewish people have survived for several millenia, well yes as an ethnic people that is true, but as individual Jews it is not true at all. Many individual Jews experienced expulsions like in Spain centuries ago, many pogroms, many murders, much discrimination, many blood-libels and other injustices and culminating in a vast genocide of exponential proportions in the Holocaust, where 2/3 of all European Jewry were murdered at the hands of hateful bigoted fanatics. So with that in mind, the question then becomes: Has Israel saved millions of Jews and saved the Jewish people from extermination since 1945? We shall never fully know the answer to that question but what we do know is that it has served as a safe home for millions of Jews since then and it is a place of refuge, physically and psychologically for millions of other Jews.
So does that mean that I approve of the Nakba? No, it does not. Does that mean I approve of everything Israel does today? Absolutely not. But it does mean that I think of all the available choices at the time following the Holocaust, that it became clear as day that establishing Israel as a state with a Jewish majority became an utter imperative given the mass slaughter of unimaginable proportions that had just swept across Europe during the Holocaust. I do not think the Holocaust is the only reason for establishing the State of Israel but I think it is the chief reason, and I think Theodore Herzl presciently recognized, years before it happened, that a Holocaust against Jews could happen in Europe sometime in the future. I think he understood this. There are a myriad of reasons why Israel was established as a nation but no other reason is as urgent, as evident, as utterly necessary and as emotionally vexing as the Holocaust as the chief reason why the survival of the people could best be achieved by establishing a State of their own, Israel, in a land that they once inhabited before being themselves expelled by another European Empire two thousand years ago.
Once it was claimed that establishing Israel was impossible. Until others said, "It is possible if you will it to be." Nowadays, some say it is impossible to create two-states living side-by-side. But I say, echoing the rhetoric of history by other brave other fellows, "It is possible if you will it to be." Yes, two states for two peoples is possible if only we together will it to be and so I ask you to join me and others like J Street so we can enhance our numbers and broaden our coalition so that together we can create the kind of sustained political pressure to "will it to be" into fruition. Two states for two peoples is possible if we work together, unite in a broad movement and continue to pressure the powers-that-be. We can do it if we "will it to be." Yes, we can.
Wage Peace and Perservere!!!
Thank you for this explanation. It is clear you are informed on this subject more than most. Your comments clear up much, and produce additional common ground. I realize this forum is not perfect for thoughts and points and our positions to become clear. You're right. We need on-going dialogue and respect. So thank you for advancing this goal.
Thanks for this post!
It seems that U.S. policymakers often act in accordance with their own personal religious beliefs, rather than stepping back to objectively look at what is the best policy. For Jews, it is their personal connection to Israel. For many Christians, like current ambassador Mike Huckabee, it is a belief that Jews should govern Israel until the Apocalypse, when Christ will rise again, and everyone will be forced to convert to Christianity.
In order to give Palestinians equal consideration, language used in discussions about the situation must change. Ryan Grimm of Drop Site News has begun an investigation of mainstream media's disparate depictions of Israeli and Palestinian actions. For example, Palestinian attacks on Israelis are characterized as terrorist far more than similar attacks by Israelis on Palestinians. This language disparity also applies to government officials. Ryan Grimm has a point: language used influences policy.
Exactly. Thank you.
Thank you Jeremy for using the word "legitimacy" instead of talking about Israel's or Palestine's "right to exist." A country's right to exist is derived from the respected legitimacy of a people's self governance, sovereignty and political statehood in secure territories. Israeli-Arab peace agreements have been grounded in Israel's reality not its legitimacy. But any Israeli-Palestinian resolution will have to address the legitimacy of both Jewish and Palestinian Arab people's sovereignty within agreed borders in what must ultimately be a shared homeland with guaranteed rights for all citizens. This mutual legitimacy is what must be at the center of American policy discussion and leadership.
A better conversation on Israel has to include the antisemitic appeals by the Democrats to their progressive wing. The idea J-Street has that Israel should be denied ballistic missile and rocket interceptors isn’t “Zionist” it’s genocidal antisemitism. We need to leave the Democratic Party because J-Street’s allies turned it into the Antizionist Socialist Party, and Anzis and indistinguishable from Nazis. https://substack.com/@havivgur/note/p-197075361
We democrats are also making a mistake when we ignore the larger regional conflict, especially the role of the Iranian republic. It’s not really an Israeli - Palestinian conflict. The reality not Hezbollah and Hamas’ roles as Iranian proxies cannot be ignored.
Israel (and the Us) is not the only state curtailing the rights and dignity of Palestinians - notice that the Arab states are not calling for equal treatment. They don’t want Israel to treat Palestinians better, their strategy is to force Israel’s most aggressive hands against Palestinians to reinforce the narrative opposing the legitimacy of Israel.
Neither can we ignore the challenge of supporting Israeli, Palestinian, (and Iranian) civilians without out supporting or being complicit in the worst of each of their political and military representatives - which currently have a stronghold on each of their respective countries.
I was wondering if you could at some point in your postings comment on why you disagree with Palestinian Christian Jonathan Kuttab who proposes a multi ethnic multi religious rhythem to Israeli-Palestinian life rather than an Israel that is Jewish and a Palestine that is Palestinian. Can you not imagine a Zionism that sees the goal of Israel not being a homeland for Jews but Israel Palestine a shared homeland for Jews and Palestinians.
I think it's possible for both an Israeli Jewish State and a Palestinian Arab state to be multi-ethnic, multi religious in rhythm. I would argue that such a reality exists within the Green Line, and could be strengthened at the end of this conflict.
But the fact is remains that the Jewish people want a country of their own where they will never have their rights deprived or their culture erided based on the will of a non Jewish majority. That cannot be guaranteed in a country where Jews are a minority. No country in history where Jews have lived has been able to achieve this. Not even the United States which has the best track record so far.
If in the future the 2 states are so comfortable that Israel and Palestine choose to join together, Mazel Tov. But both sides are far from such a world. And we should respect Jewish people's right to self determination.
Are you not aware that Israel already is multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious? Compare and contrast to the 99% Sunni Arab that is Hamastan Gaza or the Judenfrei Palestinian Authorify Area A&B of the West Bank.
Like most progressives, you got reality completely backwards.
This is what Israeli multi ethnic, multi religious pluralism looks like right now. It could use improvement. As for the West Bank and Gaza, again, Israel rules those areas. And neither wants to allow a Palestinian state to emerge or integrate them into Israel. Only permanent disenfranchisement under Israeli rule or some form of ethnic cleansing. That has to change.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-officers-said-to-beat-break-nose-of-arab-prosecutor-over-noise-complaint/
I forgot that violent cops don’t exist in other countries.
That gross incident aside, nothing changes in the fact that Israel has more Muslims than Europe or the Arab World has Jews, and a higher percentage of Muslims than any country in the West - all citizens. Your Palestinian Territories are Judenfrei, not multi-ethnic. What your Pals and Free Palestine cult members want is to ethnically cleanse 7.7 million Israeli Jews from their homeland.
https://substack.com/@thelionesswrites/note/c-257019515
I didn't say Israel was the only place where things aren't going well. But that's very different from saying things are fine. They're not fine and they need to get better. That was just one of hundreds of incidents this year. People who support Israel need to take it more seriously.
And I'll point out that is the stated public opinion of a large part of the Israeli coalition to make the West Bank and Gaza Arabfrei. And the rest of the Government and half the opposition to reduce Palestinians to second class citizenship forever under Israeli rule. That's better than the ethnic cleansing Ben Gvir and Smotrich want. But that's not anything close to a liberal multi ethnic, multi religious Democracy. And supporters of Israel have to take that seriously as well and stop saying "But the Arabs" in response.
We're not doing what we're supposed to do. Not according to our values or our own standards. What is going on in Israel the West Bank and Gaza in regards to Palestinians would be unacceptable if Jews were suffering under it in any other country. Regardless of the excuses they had for why. So let's stop making excuses.
Tzeddek. You argue like an excellent attorney with facts and great cogency. Keep it up. I admire. your strength to hang in there with absolutists on the other side. You are helping elucidate the arguments, just as is in our tradition, to argue back and forth for understanding and light to shine for both arguers. Thank you!!
Stay focused, will you? You claimed that Israel isn’t multi-ethnic and that’s factually a lie. Europe and the Arab world are who ethnically cleaned and committed genocide against their Jews. The number of Muslims in Israel increased every year since its inception. The number of people in Palestinian Territories has increased every year, including during your alleged “genocide”. Israel has a higher percent of Muslim citizens than any democratic country, and Israel has been a democracy for 78 years, longer than most EU countries including Spain, Greece and Portugal. Arab Israeli citizens are deeply integrated in the country. Basically progressives like you and Free Palestine cult members lie about everything.
I actually I said that I thought a multi ethnic and multi religious reality existed within the Green line and could be strengthened in the future.
Do you approve of Smotrich and Ben Gvirs calls for ethnic cleansing? Are you against it? Because you haven't addressed them once. You keep talking about Rome and the Czars. I'm talking about the Israeli government in 2026.
And Israel has not been a full Democracy since 1967 precisely because it rules over and administers a land that it simultaneously considers part of Israel but whose people are not. And by building towns and villages in that territory, and settling Jewish citizens in it, but denying Arabs who live there citizenship, Israel has created a two tier society that is not Democratic by any definition.
If Israel wants to be a Liberal Democracy, either the West Bank and Gaza are their own separate Country or the non Jews living their become citizens, they cannot be both.
Have you ever read Jonathan Kuttab's book: "Beyond the Two State Solution". He is a Palestinian Christian that thinks that the situation in Israel is not based on the equality of the various religions and peoples as you seem to believe. Multi-racial, multi ethnic multi religious doesnt mean simply the presence of several peoples or faiths, but rather state defense of and support for the equality of all these peoples' rights to their homeland. Why for example do religious high schools receive $12000 per student and arab high schools receive $8400. Why did a Christian cleric in the Galilee have to go to the Israeli supreme court to get a permit to build a high school for Chrisitians and Muslims? Why do Armenian Chrisitians in Jerusalem report that their children are leaving the country because they can't find work because of ethnic selection?
I will never vote for another Democrat unless they stand up and say in public that men can't become women.
All other policies have become secondary to me. If an entire party can't recognize that s@x is real, something is deeply, deeply wrong with it.
"All other policies have become secondary"? Can you explain why, given that this issue impacts an almost vanishingly small number of people?
Women and girls are 51 per cent of the population. That is not a "vanishingly small" number of people.
Yet only a very tiny minority identify as trans. And while I hear your passion for this issue on an era where we have ICE agents deporting immigrants and killing citizens and an illegal war and tariffs and grift that hasn’t been seen since the 1800s why this is your number one priority.
And no offense to your certainty I know men who have become women and vice versa. Thru hormones and surgery they feel their bodies now match their inner experience. 🤷♀️🙏
No man has ever become a woman. Taking hormones or having surgery may affect outward appearance, but it doesn't change one cell of a person's body. A male is male from the first moment of his life to his last breath.
Scientists can tell if a person is male even if he's been dead for thousands of years.
It doesn't matter if a man "identifies" as trans or not.
Allowing *any man* into women's sports, women's changing rooms, women's restrooms or women's prisons creates dangerous situations for women and girls.
Have you heard of s@xual dimorphism? It means that the males of the species are bigger and stronger than the females of the species. All of the great apes display sexual dimorphism, even humans.
"Women and girls" are not impacted by transgender women in any way. They ARE impacted by the anti-woman policies such as cuts to SNAP, education, and health care access, blocking family planning and reproductive care, and even suggesting they be denied the right to vote. Turning a blind eye to sexual abuse — long a sad standard in the U.S. — harms thousands of times more "women and girls" than the number of trans women that even exist in the U.S. No one pushing trans hate gives a hoot about "women and girls."
Wow. Go girl!!! I wasn't going to wade into this one too deep, but you proved it can be done and done effectively. Jewish tradition and mysticism calls for us to see the light of God in all our brothers and sisters. You have shown that it can be done. Go girl!
It does indeed call for us to see the light in all (Despite my name, I am Jewish on my mother's side; my dad was Greek.) And with yesterday being Mother's Day I was thinking of the REAL threats to "women and girls." Thinking about the mother in Gaza who saw all her kids killed when their apartment was bombed. The mother in Israel worried that her kids will be cannon fodder in Lebanon. The mother in the West Bank whose home has been bulldozed and she and her kids are now homeless. The mother in Tel Aviv huddled in a bomb shelter with her scared kids due to a war she didn't start and didn't want. The mothers of the girls killed in the school in Iran. THOSE girls. The threat to "women and girls" wasn't a transgender person. It was a so-called "world leader" acting on his own lust for power and glory. Call him Trump, call him Netanyahu, call him Putin. Call the threat by name,
We can love everyone even if they come in two categories, male and female.
How do you feel about the two women prisoners who were impregnated by a "transwomen" incarcerated in a New Jersey prison?
Were they impacted by trans ideology?
p.s. His name is Demi Minor and when the New Jersey Department of Corrections finally decided that s@x is real, they transferred him to a men's facility.
Why were women's sports invented, Anastasia?
Why were women's bathrooms invented?
Over 900 sports prizes intended for women have been awarded to men. Lia Thomas is one such man.
Two female prisoners became pregnant when a man who "thought" he was a woman was assigned to a women's prison. The authorities finally realized that s@x is real and had him transferred to a men's facility. [Demi Minor case NJ]
In 2021, a 15-year-old student who identified as "gender-fluid" was found guilty of sexually assaulting a female student in a girl’s bathroom. This individual was later transferred to another school where he assaulted a second female student.
In 2017, a transgender "woman" was convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl in a bathroom at a private residence.
A transgender student was charged with assaulting female classmates in a school bathroom during an altercation in late 2023.
In October 2024, the UN Rapporteur Reem Alsalem presented a landmark report to the UN General Assembly (A/79/325) specifically focused on violence against women and girls in sports. The report identifies violence in sports as a "serious, systemic and systematic" human rights issue.
The question is, why should any male be considered a "legal" female? It erases the female category, when it is a biological fact that people come in two sexes and have done so since the beginning of time.
I'm really confused. Why does this issue on gender have to interfere with all your other thoughts and opinions? it has nothing to do with a two-state solution or anything about Israel. Please me know what I'm misunderstanding about your statement. If you want to create a substack and bring your subject up, I'd like to hear more about your opinion.
If a politician doesn't understand the reality of something as basic as s@x, what other basic facts are they going to ignore?
The s@x binary is the basis of life for most of life on earth. S@x is how most living creatures (including humans) arrive on the planet. If a person doesn't understand something as basic as that, how are they going to confront and solve complicated problems?
Never mind. I just read the rest of your replies. It doesn't feel to me that you're willing to listen to others. Please be honest and ask yourself, am I on this forum to thrust my opinion on others, or truly listen? I try to do the same for myself. Some of the benefits of this approach is that I really learn a lot, and surprised that I can shift my position.
Biological facts aren't "opinions". They're facts.
If people can't face facts and reality, they shouldn't be in public office.