Every political movement eventually has to decide whether it actually believes the values it proclaims. For parts of the progressive movement, that moment is here.
Absolutely correct. And glad that Ro Khanna stood up talk against the bigotry and hatred at the heart of Jeremy Cahill's criticism. Khanna was doing more to support the Palestinian cause in that interview than Achilles ever would. And doing so without throwing Israelis and Jews under the Bus.
It was a performative political stunt he put together in advance with his PR team ready to roll before the news was even reported. Surely there are issues more important to his constituents in America requiring his attentions. But I'd say on one goal he was successful - taking attention off his unwavering support for a mysogynist with a Nazi tattoo - Platner.
A performative political stunt? Did he make those settlers attack him? Did he make those Israeli soldiers side with the settlers? He was visiting Palestinians including Palestinian Americans. Nowhere he went was a closed military zone.Just like Americans visit Israel every year. The Settlers decided to performative, not Khanna.
And the idea that only Platner fans would care if Palestinians are being abused by Israel shows how out of touch you are. There were Israeli Jews who were with him to when he was attacked. And they protest every day against the Settlers. They don't even know who Platner is.
What an odd response to something I never wrote. I didn’t say only Platner supporters care about Palestinian abuses, blame Israeli protesters, or claim Khanna “made” settlers confront him.
I said he exploited the incident as a prepackaged political spectacle - and the subsequent videos reinforce that assessment - they show a road being blocked and a heated confrontation, not Khanna being physically “attacked” or “detained” in the ordinary meaning of either word.
He was never arrested, taken into custody, or prevented from leaving; Israeli authorities cleared the road.
Settler lawlessness deserves condemnation. So does a politician inflating “our vehicle was temporarily blocked” into “I was attacked and detained,” then launching the footage through a PR operation conveniently timed to divert attention from his unwavering defense of Graham Platner.
And the Israeli Jews accompanying him are irrelevant to that point - unless you believe their presence somehow makes political theater impossible?! Sounds like you're using them as tokens.
How did he exploit it as a prepackaged political spectacle? For it to be prepackaged means that it was planned? Who did he plan a confrontation with Settlers to be with? Stop implying he did something he clearly didn't do unless you have proof. Him having people to record his conversations with Palestinians is not proof.
Israeli authorities in only cleared the road after the US Embassy intervened! He shouldn't have been stopped at all!!!!
And it's clear you've convinced yourself that only people who talk or care about Palestinians in American politics publicly are people who are Nazi curious or who support them. It's important to point out that's not the case, and Israelis living in Israel is the best proof against that disgusting insinuation.
Goodness...You keep rebutting claims I never made. What's THAT about??
“Prepackaged” refers to the political rollout, NOT to Khanna secretly scheduling a confrontation with settlers. The FACTS: he traveled with staff recording content, then released a highly dramatized “I was attacked and detained” narrative through a coordinated media campaign -conveniently as his defense of Platner became politically toxic.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the subsequently released footage shows a blocked road and an argument, not an attack, arrest, or detention.
The road shouldn't have been blocked, and extremist settlers need to be held accountable.
That doesn't require accepting every embellishment Khanna attached to the incident.
And I never said that caring about Palestinians makes someone “Nazi-curious," did I? There you go again, just making sh*t up.
What I DID say was that Khanna’s sudden media spectacle diverted attention from his support for one particular man with a Nazi tattoo and serious misogyny allegations.
Your repeated invention of uglier arguments for me isn't a rebuttal - it’s an inability to address what I actually wrote using lame attempts to divert instead. Not a good look.
He was there to have conversations with Palestinians. That why the camera crews were there. And he related why he waited to present his "dramatic" experience. You keep implyintg that their is something wrong, nefarious or untoward about Khanna relating something that happened to him that should have NEVER HAPPENED! Nothing about what he said was an unnecessary embellishment.
I'm not the biggest Khanna fan, but this constant push to play down the things that are happening on the West Bank, especially when people who have influence start talking about it is wrong! And you should stop doing that.
Yeah, I posted something about my relatives perishing in the holocaust and got a response that I was a “fucking lampshade.”I can take this in stride but the real question is if we can all get along to defeat Trump.
I don't think I'll ever be able to read most of the comments on social media (including some of what gets posted here). I also like to hope that some of the worst stuff is simply Russian bots looking to sow division because I have trouble believing actual human beings would write these things!
I very much agree, Jeremy, particularly with these two statements:
Excerpt 1:
"If we cannot condemn Hamas’ deliberate slaughter of civilians with the same moral clarity that we condemn Israel’s devastation of Gaza, then we are no longer defending universal human rights.
To anyone who claims to speak in the name of justice or human rights, I have two simple questions.
Was October 7 an act of terrorism that was morally indefensible?
Is the devastation of Gaza and the perpetuation of occupation morally indefensible?
If they answer either question with anything less than an unequivocal yes, then – in my eyes – they have abandoned the universal values they claim to defend."
Excerpt 2:
"Leaders who can say, without hesitation, that October 7 was a moral abomination – and that so too are the destruction of Gaza and the perpetuation of occupation.
That isn’t moral ambiguity. It is moral consistency.
Our principles mean nothing if they do not apply equally to everyone."
.
While I think there may still be a little more room for nuance than you suggest on the issue of targeting Israeli soldiers since the Occupation is chiefly a military affair and therefore resistance to it by targeting military occupiers or their proxies is also a legitimate form of resistance, I totally agree with you that targeting civilians regardless of their political disposition is a war crime and a moral abomination. Another nuanced exception is when civilians act like military proxies such as when terrorist settlers aer actively engaged in combat operations upon Palestinian civilians, then violent resistance aimed at those specific settler-civilians only at that specific time and place is also an appropriate form of legitimate resistance.
No, it was primarily a legal act of resistance under international law, like the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. Anyone who was involved in that act of resistance who killed civilians should be brought to a Court of Law for prosecution.
* that was morally indefensible?
Oct 7 is absolutely morally defensible - every person has the right to resist subjugation according to international law. The holding of millions of civilians under occupation for decades is morally indefensible and is NOT supported under international law.
*Is the devastation of Gaza morally defensible?
Absolutely not.
* Is the perpetuation of occupation morally indefensible?
The subjugation of millions of people is never morally defensible.
Well said. The author of the article forgets that Israeli snipers murdered dozens of Palestinians when they tried to protest before 7 Oct. He is altogether too fond of the trigger word, terrorism.
I think you are conflating two separate issues. You are basically saying that because of what happened before October 7, that October 7 is justified. But I vehemently disagree. The decades leading up to October 7 of Palestinians being murdered by Israeli forces is certainly worth mentioning because it provides context and reminds us that October 7 did not occur in a vacuum; however, to grant the event of October 7 moral justification is another matter altogether. We must remember that two wrongs do not make a right.
The wanton murder of civilians is never morally defensible. It is morally wrong when members of the Israeli / Apartheid oppressor State conduct "mow the grass" operations upon the Palestinian civilians or put them "on a diet" by starving them in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza. It is also wrong when members of Hamas target Israeli civilians in retribution and retaliation. Now, when they target the Israeli military personel anytime under the Occupation (or their proxies like the settlers only at the same time and place as the acts of harassment and settler oppression) that is legitimate resistance. If Jewish Israeli soldiers or settlers die in that context, I would argue their deaths are morally justified since they were targets of legitimate resistance. But targeting any civilians at any time due to the actions of their military and State is never justified.
The same is true about September 11 in the United States. The decades leading up to September 11, between military invasions and sanctions policy, murdered half-a-million babies under the age of 5 in Iraq and many other older civilians too. Other Middle Eastern countries' populations suffered too. So we can say that the United States on September 11 got in return what it dished out to others, that is, we had it coming. We deserved a good punch back in the nose and we got one too. We had it coming. But with that said, the wanton murder of innocent civilians by members of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on that awful day was not morally justified. It was a war crime. If we then apply the same standard to October 7, we also find another morally unjustified war crime as it pertains to Israeli citizens.
One standard for all applied equally. Understand? There are very important distinctions between legitimate forms of resistance and the wanton murder of civilians. The wanton murder of civilians is never morally justified, period.
You often invoke the Warsaw Ghetto, but I don’t think that analogy carries the legal weight you’re asking it to. International law recognizes that peoples under occupation may resist. It does not recognize a right to deliberately murder civilians, take civilian hostages, or commit acts of sexual violence. Those prohibitions apply regardless of the justice of the cause.
The Warsaw Ghetto fighters are remembered for resisting Nazi military power in the face of extermination. Had they deliberately massacred civilians in their homes, attacked a music festival, taken hundreds of civilian hostages, or committed acts of sexual violence against civilians, those acts would not have become lawful simply because their cause was just.
So my question is a narrow one: can you cite any provision of international law—or any decision of the ICJ, ICC, or ICRC—that says the intentional killing of civilians, the taking of civilian hostages, or sexual violence against civilians are lawful acts of resistance? If not, then your conclusion isn’t an application of international law; it’s a moral judgment that goes beyond what international law actually permits.
How something is "remembered" is legally unimportant.
You "remember" Oct 7 as the senseless slaughter of "civilians", while you "remember" the Warsaw uprising as "resisting NAZI military power".
That's a very convenient set of "remembrances" for you.
As I said in my post, and as Jeremy Scahill said in the interview, the first things that Hamas attacked on Oct 7 were the surrounding military posts, and the kibbutzes where those military forces were barracked. That is PERFECTLY LEGAL. You might not like it, but, like your rememberances, that is legally irrelevant.
And as I said in my post, any attack on a civilian is a crime, and should be punished under the rule of law, just NOT used as a justification for a genocide.
"can you cite any provision of international law—or any decision of the ICJ, ICC, or ICRC—that says the intentional killing of civilians, the taking of civilian hostages, or sexual violence against civilians are lawful acts of resistance?"
Absolutely not. I have never claimed that they were. The difference between us is that I fight against these exact things when "our most sacred ally" does them - but you do not. You excuse the MASS killing of Palestinian civilians, the MASS taking of Palestinian civilians hostages, the MASS use of sexual violence against Palestinian civilians under some imagined Israeli right "to exist / defend itself".
By these metrics you condemn Israel FARRRRRR more than you condemn Hamas. Or Hezbollah. Or Iran. Or any other country in the region or in the western world.
I think you are conflating two separate issues. You are basically saying that because of what happened before October 7, that October 7 is justified. But I vehemently disagree. The decades leading up to October 7 of Palestinians being murdered by Israeli forces is certainly worth mentioning because it provides context and reminds us that October 7 did not occur in a vacuum; however, to grant the event of October 7 moral justification is another matter altogether. We must remember that two wrongs do not make a right.
The wanton murder of civilians is never morally defensible. It is morally wrong when members of the Israeli / Apartheid oppressor State conduct "mow the grass" operations upon the Palestinian civilians or put them "on a diet" by starving them in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza. It is also wrong when members of Hamas target Israeli civilians in retribution and retaliation. Now, when they target the Israeli military personel anytime under the Occupation (or their proxies like the settlers only at the same time and place as the acts of harassment and settler oppression) that is legitimate resistance. If Jewish Israeli soldiers or settlers die in that context, I would argue their deaths are morally justified since they were targets of legitimate resistance. But targeting any civilians at any time due to the actions of their military and State is never justified.
The same is true about September 11 in the United States. The decades leading up to September 11, between military invasions and sanctions policy, murdered half-a-million babies under the age of 5 in Iraq and many other older civilians too. Other Middle Eastern countries' populations suffered too. So we can say that the United States on September 11 got in return what it dished out to others, that is, we had it coming. We deserved a good punch back in the nose and we got one too. We had it coming. But with that said, the wanton murder of innocent civilians by members of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on that awful day was not morally justified. It was a war crime. If we then apply the same standard to October 7, we also find another morally unjustified war crime as it pertains to Israeli citizens.
One standard for all applied equally. Understand? There are very important distinctions between legitimate forms of resistance and the wanton murder of civilians. The wanton murder of civilians is never morally justified, period.
"You are basically saying that because of what happened before October 7, that October 7 is justified."
That's precisely what I am saying. Your phrase "what happened before October 7" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it?
"But I vehemently disagree."
Cool.
"The decades leading up to October 7 of Palestinians being murdered by Israeli forces is certainly worth mentioning because it provides context and reminds us that October 7 did not occur in a vacuum; however ..."
There is no "however". There is no "but". October 7 did NOT occur in a vacuum. Period.
"to grant the event of October 7 moral justification is another matter altogether. We must remember that two wrongs do not make a right."
But I don't claim that. I claim October 7 WAS both morally and legally justifiable. Armed resistance to occupation is LEGAL. You might not like that fact, but it is a fact none-the-less.
"The wanton murder of civilians is never morally defensible."
That is correct. I am not justifying the wanton murder of "civilians", but there were three classes of people on October 7th who were killed: actual civilians, military personnel and "illegal combatants". A number of the people who you call "civilians" were actually "illegal combatants", Israelis who had intentionally moved themselves and their families to the Gaza border as a "first line of defense" in case those Palestinians ever had the gall to break out of the concentration camp.
Further, because there has been no state inquiry, only Israeli Hasbara, we do NOT know precisely how many actual civilians were killed, but I am willing to grant that all children under the age of 18 were civilians.
"It is morally wrong when members of the Israeli / Apartheid oppressor State conduct "mow the grass" operations upon the Palestinian civilians or put them "on a diet" by starving them in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza."
"It is also wrong when members of Hamas target Israeli civilians in retribution and retaliation."
As I said in my original post, anyone who kills a civilian should be arrested and brought up on charges, no matter what their motivation.
"Now, when they target the Israeli military personel anytime under the Occupation (or their proxies like the settlers only at the same time and place as the acts of harassment and settler oppression) that is legitimate resistance."
That's not what the law says. You do not need to be experiencing harassment of "settler" oppression at the time you resist occupation.
"If Jewish Israeli soldiers or settlers die in that context, I would argue their deaths are morally justified since they were targets of legitimate resistance."
This is correct - but being Jewish or not is irrelevant.
"But targeting any civilians at any time due to the actions of their military and State is never justified."
I have never said otherwise.
"But with that said, the wanton murder of innocent civilians by members of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on that awful day was not morally justified. It was a war crime. If we then apply the same standard to October 7, we also find another morally unjustified war crime as it pertains to Israeli citizens."
What happened on Oct 7 and Sept 11 are VERY different. On Sept 11 we were attacked by a quasi-government terrorist group. While Osama bin Laden may have felt insulted American troops were on what he considers holy land, those American troops were not holding Saudi Arabians under occuptation.
Israel WAS, and still IS, holding Palestinians under occupation. That is a very significant difference in the law.
"One standard for all applied equally."
I only WISH that were true, but it is not.
"Understand? There are very important distinctions between legitimate forms of resistance and the wanton murder of civilians. The wanton murder of civilians is never morally justified, period."
I have never claimed otherwise. But acts of armed resistance against occupation ARE both morally and legally justified. Don't hide behind dead civilians in 2023 to post-hoc justify the last 80+ years.
Some minds, especially those on the extreme fringes cannot be changed——they are quite “certain” shall we say, but I am pleased that at least I stepped forward to try to help you change your mind by seeing that the world is not black-and-white binary but rather more nuanced and more complicated. So believe what you wish to believe but I have said my peace and that is all I can do.
This is the clearest statement of the progressive perspective on human rights in the current period of Israeli history. It should be required reading for every member of Congress and this misguided U.S. administration.
I am not a fan of Hamas and do not condone their aggression against innocent, peaceful Jews. It disturbs me that the left is not weighing all sides and is dogmatically pro-Palestinian. Conveniently overlooked are the peace forces in Israel, many of them allying themselves with Arabs and Palestinians. We need a two-state solution where Jews, Arabs and Palestinians can coexist and conduct diplomacy and commerce peacefully. All parties of this conflict have the right to exist. I would propose a three-state solution: one for Israel, one for Palestine and one for Bibi.
"I am not a fan of Hamas and do not condone their aggression against innocent, peaceful Jews."
What about Israelis? They are hardly innocent or peaceful, are they? The WHOLE POINT of "Sabra Israelis" is to overtly reject the idea of being "innocent peaceful Jews".
"Conveniently overlooked are the peace forces in Israel..."
What "peace forces" in Israel? A dozen Israelis, most of whom I can personally name? That's not a "force", that is a token, a token that Liberal Zionists hide behind to justify their support for Zionism.
"All parties of this conflict have the right to exist"
But they don't. If they DID, the international community would be coming to the rescue of Palestinians, pushing Israelis out of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, like they once pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. What Israel has done to its neighbors and it's minority population is far, FAR worse than anything Saddam Hussein did, and it isn't close.
Definitely agree with at least parts of this oped, Jeremy. Thanks. (I might differ a little on some other points - and of course some other issues). But the key point is taking a stand of extremism on the Left. Especially when its people left criticizing those extremists. It would be great if more would do so
I watched Scahill's interview with Ro Khanna, and he kept on challenging Khanna didn't Hamas have the right to attack Israeli military people, without ever admitting that 2/3 of those killed on October 7th were Israeli civilians. A total blindness about the reality. Also, he never admitted that the Hammas deadly attack was clearly going to evoke an Israeli military response. I had never heard of Scahill before, and am surprised that he seems to have such a following in progressive circles. But then when I think of progressive journalists, I think first and foremost of I.F. Stone, who would never have behaved the way he did in the discussion. I doubt that even Scahill's mentor, Amy Goodman at "Democracy Now", would be so one-sided.
Jeremy, well written! I'm not sure I'd call people like Jeremy Scahill progressives. People like him and Mehdi Hasan don't actually consider themselves Democrats. Their policy positions place themselves as far left-wing socialists, more aligned with the Green Party.
You make the claim that Hamas didn't have the right to kill Israeli combatants on Oct 7th because those killings were undertaken with the aim of later killing civilians. I think that is reasonable, but I worry that your point is made in order to sidestep the thrust of Scahill's challenge.
Let me suggest three questions that hopefully sharpen the Scahill challenge:
(1) If Hamas had *only* attacked Israeli military combatants on Oct 7th, would Hamas have been acting within its rights to armed resistance against occupation?
(2) If the Israeli military had *only* killed Hamas combatants in response to (the actual) Oct 7th, would you have criticized the IDF for doing so?
(3) Would you accept that at least part of the reason Israel killed some of the Hamas combatants was to make it easier to undertake their campaign of genocidal collective punishment (without incurring losses on the Israeli side), and if so, do you regard some of the killings of Hamas combatants as wrong?
@Jeremy Ben-Ami If I may, two more questions in light of the recent violence in Tell. If, as appears to be the case, the settler was killed because he was attacking the village, was the killing justified self-defense? Would it be wrong for a Palestinian militia to conduct a raid on the settlement to look for accomplices of the settler terrorist they killed, and put suspected accomplices on trial? Treating Palestinians and Israelis as moral equals doesn’t just mean expressing sorrow when they die, it also requires granting them equal rights to protect themselves from, and prosecute, those who aggress against them.
Oct 7 does not justify the retaliation that has killed multiple tens of thousands of Palestinians and continues every day. It also fails to justify the continued forced displacement of Palestinian citizens. These are the actions of a corrupt, depraved government that has either forgotten or chooses to forget the history of its own people.
The Netanyahu government has done terrible damage to Israel, and to the Palestinians, but only one side truly engaged in "genocide," and that was Hamas. They killed Jews simply because they were Jews. Israel -- which may well have engaged in what would be considered war crimes -- was targeting the Hamas terrorists and, at least at first, warning civilians.
That’s like saying the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto uprising only killed Germans for being German, or that Nate Turner only killed white people for being white.
But Zionists DID kill and displace Palestinians from their homes simply because they were Palestinian. Israelis DID enforce apartheid against Palestinians for decades simply for being Palestinian.
What YOU claim is hateful nonsense. The Hamas butchers committed the worst attack on Jews AS Jews since the holocaust. Your claim about "Zionists" speaks volumes about YOUR agenda. I don't defend the rightwing Netanyahu regime, but there was no genocide, no apartheid. He is a war criminal and obstacle to peace, but you clearly have a problem with Jews, period. Don't bother to deny it. We can all see it.
Well, if unlawful territorial expansion into and elimination of Palestinians from their own communities is normal Israeli policy I do have a problem with your answer. And by the way, I am a Jew.
"Human history is largely the story of peoples convinced their suffering entitled them to inflict suffering on others. After the catastrophes of the twentieth century, the international community attempted to build something different: an international order grounded in law, diplomacy and human rights."
This is absolutely, categorically false and completely disingenuous. Human history is largely about the struggle of the human spirit and the roots of human motivation. From those struggles and motivations have often come war and atrocities, that is true. But very rarely does an entire group of people make the decision to inflict suffering on others *because of* suffering that they themselves experienced. I'm sure as a son of survivors, Jeremy, you recognize that your ancestors never felt compelled to commit mass atrocities on the Germans (or perhaps you're referring to your father's conduct towards the colonial British in his time in the Irgun?).
Let me also point out that we are Americans, and despite our differences as a nation and all of the reasons we have to doubt our country's stability, we are by all measures living in by far the safest and most prosperous era of human history. That wealth and prosperity is largely the reason why a multi-millionaire like Ro Khanna feels the need to exaggerate his experience of perceived danger on the West Bank to the point of lying, and endangering American Jews as a result.
Jill’s obsession with finding fault with you and J Street is something to behold. I’m not sure about Ro Khanna’s version of events, even the best of our politicians are capable of spin. Otherwise, your post was on point and timely. It really is a tough job to be both forceful and balanced, but I think you succeeded.
Is this the article where you justify endorsing the J Street U conference where Hasan Piker is the invited keynote speaker? I just read about it. Good luck with that one.
The Warsaw ghetto uprising is the strongest possible argument for my position, not yours. The fighters of the ŻOB turned their weapons on the SS units liquidating the ghetto — armed combatants engaged in their annihilation. They did not cross into German towns to burn families alive, rape women, and drag children into captivity. That distinction is the entire point, and the fighters themselves understood it. Invoking their memory to launder the massacre of civilians at a music festival dishonors them.
On the law: no, international law does not recognize resistance “by whatever means possible.” That phrase appears nowhere in it. The right to resist occupation — including armed resistance — exists, and I affirmed it explicitly in my comment above. But the laws of armed conflict bind every party, in every cause, however just. Deliberately targeting civilians is prohibited absolutely — for states, for occupiers, and for the occupied. That’s not a technicality; it’s the foundation. A right that dissolved the moment your cause felt urgent enough wouldn’t be law. It would be permission.
And your question — where was I on October 6th — was answered before you asked it. The comment you’re replying to condemns the occupation in plain language, as does the essay above it. Condemning the occupation and condemning the massacre are not in tension. They are the same principle applied twice. The position that can only manage one of them is yours.
Jeremy — I’ve come to this subject seriously only since October 7, and you’ve been doing this work for decades, so take what follows as a reader thinking out loud rather than a critique. This is the clearest statement of the position I’ve read anywhere, and your two questions gave me language for something I’d been struggling to articulate.
Two things I’m still turning over, and I’d genuinely value your view on both.
First: would the argument be strengthened by saying plainly that international law recognizes a Palestinian right to resist occupation — armed resistance included, directed at military targets, within the laws of war? My instinct is that granting the right makes the condemnation stronger, not weaker: October 7 fails that standard not because Palestinians lack rights, but because Hamas built its operation around murdering, raping, and kidnapping civilians at Nova, in Be’eri, in Kfar Aza. It would seem to meet Scahill’s question head-on — the asymmetry he alleges dissolves once one standard, civilians are never targets, is applied in both directions, convicting Hamas on October 7 and Smotrich’s vision for the West Bank alike. But you’ve spent decades navigating how these concessions land, and I may be underestimating what it costs to make one.
Second, a question about what comes after consistency: where does it point us now? With the hostages home and the last remains returned in January, the ceasefire has stalled on nearly everything that follows — J Street’s own six-month assessment says as much. Does the test you pose extend to phase two? A governance authority that is neither Hamas nor Israeli military administration, a stabilization arrangement that makes withdrawal more than a leap of faith, an Israeli electorate offered a real alternative in 2026 — I’d read a follow-up essay on that gladly.
Thank you for writing this. Moral consistency is a compass, not a road — but I needed the compass, and this piece is one.
Absolutely correct. And glad that Ro Khanna stood up talk against the bigotry and hatred at the heart of Jeremy Cahill's criticism. Khanna was doing more to support the Palestinian cause in that interview than Achilles ever would. And doing so without throwing Israelis and Jews under the Bus.
It was a performative political stunt he put together in advance with his PR team ready to roll before the news was even reported. Surely there are issues more important to his constituents in America requiring his attentions. But I'd say on one goal he was successful - taking attention off his unwavering support for a mysogynist with a Nazi tattoo - Platner.
A performative political stunt? Did he make those settlers attack him? Did he make those Israeli soldiers side with the settlers? He was visiting Palestinians including Palestinian Americans. Nowhere he went was a closed military zone.Just like Americans visit Israel every year. The Settlers decided to performative, not Khanna.
And the idea that only Platner fans would care if Palestinians are being abused by Israel shows how out of touch you are. There were Israeli Jews who were with him to when he was attacked. And they protest every day against the Settlers. They don't even know who Platner is.
What an odd response to something I never wrote. I didn’t say only Platner supporters care about Palestinian abuses, blame Israeli protesters, or claim Khanna “made” settlers confront him.
I said he exploited the incident as a prepackaged political spectacle - and the subsequent videos reinforce that assessment - they show a road being blocked and a heated confrontation, not Khanna being physically “attacked” or “detained” in the ordinary meaning of either word.
He was never arrested, taken into custody, or prevented from leaving; Israeli authorities cleared the road.
Settler lawlessness deserves condemnation. So does a politician inflating “our vehicle was temporarily blocked” into “I was attacked and detained,” then launching the footage through a PR operation conveniently timed to divert attention from his unwavering defense of Graham Platner.
And the Israeli Jews accompanying him are irrelevant to that point - unless you believe their presence somehow makes political theater impossible?! Sounds like you're using them as tokens.
How did he exploit it as a prepackaged political spectacle? For it to be prepackaged means that it was planned? Who did he plan a confrontation with Settlers to be with? Stop implying he did something he clearly didn't do unless you have proof. Him having people to record his conversations with Palestinians is not proof.
Israeli authorities in only cleared the road after the US Embassy intervened! He shouldn't have been stopped at all!!!!
And it's clear you've convinced yourself that only people who talk or care about Palestinians in American politics publicly are people who are Nazi curious or who support them. It's important to point out that's not the case, and Israelis living in Israel is the best proof against that disgusting insinuation.
Goodness...You keep rebutting claims I never made. What's THAT about??
“Prepackaged” refers to the political rollout, NOT to Khanna secretly scheduling a confrontation with settlers. The FACTS: he traveled with staff recording content, then released a highly dramatized “I was attacked and detained” narrative through a coordinated media campaign -conveniently as his defense of Platner became politically toxic.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the subsequently released footage shows a blocked road and an argument, not an attack, arrest, or detention.
The road shouldn't have been blocked, and extremist settlers need to be held accountable.
That doesn't require accepting every embellishment Khanna attached to the incident.
And I never said that caring about Palestinians makes someone “Nazi-curious," did I? There you go again, just making sh*t up.
What I DID say was that Khanna’s sudden media spectacle diverted attention from his support for one particular man with a Nazi tattoo and serious misogyny allegations.
Your repeated invention of uglier arguments for me isn't a rebuttal - it’s an inability to address what I actually wrote using lame attempts to divert instead. Not a good look.
He was there to have conversations with Palestinians. That why the camera crews were there. And he related why he waited to present his "dramatic" experience. You keep implyintg that their is something wrong, nefarious or untoward about Khanna relating something that happened to him that should have NEVER HAPPENED! Nothing about what he said was an unnecessary embellishment.
I'm not the biggest Khanna fan, but this constant push to play down the things that are happening on the West Bank, especially when people who have influence start talking about it is wrong! And you should stop doing that.
Yeah, I posted something about my relatives perishing in the holocaust and got a response that I was a “fucking lampshade.”I can take this in stride but the real question is if we can all get along to defeat Trump.
I don't think I'll ever be able to read most of the comments on social media (including some of what gets posted here). I also like to hope that some of the worst stuff is simply Russian bots looking to sow division because I have trouble believing actual human beings would write these things!
Jeremy. Never give up. The impact of the words you put out into the world is invisible until the change can be seen in people's actions.
I hope so!
How charming! Calling you a "lampshade" is very clearly a legit criticism of the current Israeli government and not antisemitic at all.
Did I get that right? No shade. =P
I very much agree, Jeremy, particularly with these two statements:
Excerpt 1:
"If we cannot condemn Hamas’ deliberate slaughter of civilians with the same moral clarity that we condemn Israel’s devastation of Gaza, then we are no longer defending universal human rights.
To anyone who claims to speak in the name of justice or human rights, I have two simple questions.
Was October 7 an act of terrorism that was morally indefensible?
Is the devastation of Gaza and the perpetuation of occupation morally indefensible?
If they answer either question with anything less than an unequivocal yes, then – in my eyes – they have abandoned the universal values they claim to defend."
Excerpt 2:
"Leaders who can say, without hesitation, that October 7 was a moral abomination – and that so too are the destruction of Gaza and the perpetuation of occupation.
That isn’t moral ambiguity. It is moral consistency.
Our principles mean nothing if they do not apply equally to everyone."
.
While I think there may still be a little more room for nuance than you suggest on the issue of targeting Israeli soldiers since the Occupation is chiefly a military affair and therefore resistance to it by targeting military occupiers or their proxies is also a legitimate form of resistance, I totally agree with you that targeting civilians regardless of their political disposition is a war crime and a moral abomination. Another nuanced exception is when civilians act like military proxies such as when terrorist settlers aer actively engaged in combat operations upon Palestinian civilians, then violent resistance aimed at those specific settler-civilians only at that specific time and place is also an appropriate form of legitimate resistance.
Let me break your questions into four parts:
* Was October 7 an act of terrorism?
No, it was primarily a legal act of resistance under international law, like the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. Anyone who was involved in that act of resistance who killed civilians should be brought to a Court of Law for prosecution.
* that was morally indefensible?
Oct 7 is absolutely morally defensible - every person has the right to resist subjugation according to international law. The holding of millions of civilians under occupation for decades is morally indefensible and is NOT supported under international law.
*Is the devastation of Gaza morally defensible?
Absolutely not.
* Is the perpetuation of occupation morally indefensible?
The subjugation of millions of people is never morally defensible.
Well said. The author of the article forgets that Israeli snipers murdered dozens of Palestinians when they tried to protest before 7 Oct. He is altogether too fond of the trigger word, terrorism.
I think you are conflating two separate issues. You are basically saying that because of what happened before October 7, that October 7 is justified. But I vehemently disagree. The decades leading up to October 7 of Palestinians being murdered by Israeli forces is certainly worth mentioning because it provides context and reminds us that October 7 did not occur in a vacuum; however, to grant the event of October 7 moral justification is another matter altogether. We must remember that two wrongs do not make a right.
The wanton murder of civilians is never morally defensible. It is morally wrong when members of the Israeli / Apartheid oppressor State conduct "mow the grass" operations upon the Palestinian civilians or put them "on a diet" by starving them in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza. It is also wrong when members of Hamas target Israeli civilians in retribution and retaliation. Now, when they target the Israeli military personel anytime under the Occupation (or their proxies like the settlers only at the same time and place as the acts of harassment and settler oppression) that is legitimate resistance. If Jewish Israeli soldiers or settlers die in that context, I would argue their deaths are morally justified since they were targets of legitimate resistance. But targeting any civilians at any time due to the actions of their military and State is never justified.
The same is true about September 11 in the United States. The decades leading up to September 11, between military invasions and sanctions policy, murdered half-a-million babies under the age of 5 in Iraq and many other older civilians too. Other Middle Eastern countries' populations suffered too. So we can say that the United States on September 11 got in return what it dished out to others, that is, we had it coming. We deserved a good punch back in the nose and we got one too. We had it coming. But with that said, the wanton murder of innocent civilians by members of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on that awful day was not morally justified. It was a war crime. If we then apply the same standard to October 7, we also find another morally unjustified war crime as it pertains to Israeli citizens.
One standard for all applied equally. Understand? There are very important distinctions between legitimate forms of resistance and the wanton murder of civilians. The wanton murder of civilians is never morally justified, period.
You often invoke the Warsaw Ghetto, but I don’t think that analogy carries the legal weight you’re asking it to. International law recognizes that peoples under occupation may resist. It does not recognize a right to deliberately murder civilians, take civilian hostages, or commit acts of sexual violence. Those prohibitions apply regardless of the justice of the cause.
The Warsaw Ghetto fighters are remembered for resisting Nazi military power in the face of extermination. Had they deliberately massacred civilians in their homes, attacked a music festival, taken hundreds of civilian hostages, or committed acts of sexual violence against civilians, those acts would not have become lawful simply because their cause was just.
So my question is a narrow one: can you cite any provision of international law—or any decision of the ICJ, ICC, or ICRC—that says the intentional killing of civilians, the taking of civilian hostages, or sexual violence against civilians are lawful acts of resistance? If not, then your conclusion isn’t an application of international law; it’s a moral judgment that goes beyond what international law actually permits.
How something is "remembered" is legally unimportant.
You "remember" Oct 7 as the senseless slaughter of "civilians", while you "remember" the Warsaw uprising as "resisting NAZI military power".
That's a very convenient set of "remembrances" for you.
As I said in my post, and as Jeremy Scahill said in the interview, the first things that Hamas attacked on Oct 7 were the surrounding military posts, and the kibbutzes where those military forces were barracked. That is PERFECTLY LEGAL. You might not like it, but, like your rememberances, that is legally irrelevant.
And as I said in my post, any attack on a civilian is a crime, and should be punished under the rule of law, just NOT used as a justification for a genocide.
"can you cite any provision of international law—or any decision of the ICJ, ICC, or ICRC—that says the intentional killing of civilians, the taking of civilian hostages, or sexual violence against civilians are lawful acts of resistance?"
Absolutely not. I have never claimed that they were. The difference between us is that I fight against these exact things when "our most sacred ally" does them - but you do not. You excuse the MASS killing of Palestinian civilians, the MASS taking of Palestinian civilians hostages, the MASS use of sexual violence against Palestinian civilians under some imagined Israeli right "to exist / defend itself".
By these metrics you condemn Israel FARRRRRR more than you condemn Hamas. Or Hezbollah. Or Iran. Or any other country in the region or in the western world.
I think you are conflating two separate issues. You are basically saying that because of what happened before October 7, that October 7 is justified. But I vehemently disagree. The decades leading up to October 7 of Palestinians being murdered by Israeli forces is certainly worth mentioning because it provides context and reminds us that October 7 did not occur in a vacuum; however, to grant the event of October 7 moral justification is another matter altogether. We must remember that two wrongs do not make a right.
The wanton murder of civilians is never morally defensible. It is morally wrong when members of the Israeli / Apartheid oppressor State conduct "mow the grass" operations upon the Palestinian civilians or put them "on a diet" by starving them in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza. It is also wrong when members of Hamas target Israeli civilians in retribution and retaliation. Now, when they target the Israeli military personel anytime under the Occupation (or their proxies like the settlers only at the same time and place as the acts of harassment and settler oppression) that is legitimate resistance. If Jewish Israeli soldiers or settlers die in that context, I would argue their deaths are morally justified since they were targets of legitimate resistance. But targeting any civilians at any time due to the actions of their military and State is never justified.
The same is true about September 11 in the United States. The decades leading up to September 11, between military invasions and sanctions policy, murdered half-a-million babies under the age of 5 in Iraq and many other older civilians too. Other Middle Eastern countries' populations suffered too. So we can say that the United States on September 11 got in return what it dished out to others, that is, we had it coming. We deserved a good punch back in the nose and we got one too. We had it coming. But with that said, the wanton murder of innocent civilians by members of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on that awful day was not morally justified. It was a war crime. If we then apply the same standard to October 7, we also find another morally unjustified war crime as it pertains to Israeli citizens.
One standard for all applied equally. Understand? There are very important distinctions between legitimate forms of resistance and the wanton murder of civilians. The wanton murder of civilians is never morally justified, period.
"I think you are conflating two separate issues."
No, I’m not.
"You are basically saying that because of what happened before October 7, that October 7 is justified."
That's precisely what I am saying. Your phrase "what happened before October 7" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it?
"But I vehemently disagree."
Cool.
"The decades leading up to October 7 of Palestinians being murdered by Israeli forces is certainly worth mentioning because it provides context and reminds us that October 7 did not occur in a vacuum; however ..."
There is no "however". There is no "but". October 7 did NOT occur in a vacuum. Period.
"to grant the event of October 7 moral justification is another matter altogether. We must remember that two wrongs do not make a right."
But I don't claim that. I claim October 7 WAS both morally and legally justifiable. Armed resistance to occupation is LEGAL. You might not like that fact, but it is a fact none-the-less.
"The wanton murder of civilians is never morally defensible."
That is correct. I am not justifying the wanton murder of "civilians", but there were three classes of people on October 7th who were killed: actual civilians, military personnel and "illegal combatants". A number of the people who you call "civilians" were actually "illegal combatants", Israelis who had intentionally moved themselves and their families to the Gaza border as a "first line of defense" in case those Palestinians ever had the gall to break out of the concentration camp.
Further, because there has been no state inquiry, only Israeli Hasbara, we do NOT know precisely how many actual civilians were killed, but I am willing to grant that all children under the age of 18 were civilians.
"It is morally wrong when members of the Israeli / Apartheid oppressor State conduct "mow the grass" operations upon the Palestinian civilians or put them "on a diet" by starving them in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza."
Yes - and that has been going on since 1948.
https://archive.is/M12kJ
"It is also wrong when members of Hamas target Israeli civilians in retribution and retaliation."
As I said in my original post, anyone who kills a civilian should be arrested and brought up on charges, no matter what their motivation.
"Now, when they target the Israeli military personel anytime under the Occupation (or their proxies like the settlers only at the same time and place as the acts of harassment and settler oppression) that is legitimate resistance."
That's not what the law says. You do not need to be experiencing harassment of "settler" oppression at the time you resist occupation.
"If Jewish Israeli soldiers or settlers die in that context, I would argue their deaths are morally justified since they were targets of legitimate resistance."
This is correct - but being Jewish or not is irrelevant.
"But targeting any civilians at any time due to the actions of their military and State is never justified."
I have never said otherwise.
"But with that said, the wanton murder of innocent civilians by members of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on that awful day was not morally justified. It was a war crime. If we then apply the same standard to October 7, we also find another morally unjustified war crime as it pertains to Israeli citizens."
What happened on Oct 7 and Sept 11 are VERY different. On Sept 11 we were attacked by a quasi-government terrorist group. While Osama bin Laden may have felt insulted American troops were on what he considers holy land, those American troops were not holding Saudi Arabians under occuptation.
Israel WAS, and still IS, holding Palestinians under occupation. That is a very significant difference in the law.
"One standard for all applied equally."
I only WISH that were true, but it is not.
"Understand? There are very important distinctions between legitimate forms of resistance and the wanton murder of civilians. The wanton murder of civilians is never morally justified, period."
I have never claimed otherwise. But acts of armed resistance against occupation ARE both morally and legally justified. Don't hide behind dead civilians in 2023 to post-hoc justify the last 80+ years.
Some minds, especially those on the extreme fringes cannot be changed——they are quite “certain” shall we say, but I am pleased that at least I stepped forward to try to help you change your mind by seeing that the world is not black-and-white binary but rather more nuanced and more complicated. So believe what you wish to believe but I have said my peace and that is all I can do.
One of the big lies of Zionism is that it is “complicated and nuanced”.
It’s not. It never has been.
Racism is neither complicated nor nuanced.
Apartheid is neither complicated nor nuanced.
Occupation is neither complicated nor nuanced.
Ethnic cleansing is neither complicated nor nuanced.
When armed men with guns come to your hone, your village, or your farm and say “get the fuck out or die” it is neither complicated nor nuanced.
But it is “extreme”.
I am not “extreme”. I only advocate for the law and what my conscience demands of me.
You advocate for the extremists, those who slaughter civilians for decades without remorse or shame.
Not me.
This is the clearest statement of the progressive perspective on human rights in the current period of Israeli history. It should be required reading for every member of Congress and this misguided U.S. administration.
I am not a fan of Hamas and do not condone their aggression against innocent, peaceful Jews. It disturbs me that the left is not weighing all sides and is dogmatically pro-Palestinian. Conveniently overlooked are the peace forces in Israel, many of them allying themselves with Arabs and Palestinians. We need a two-state solution where Jews, Arabs and Palestinians can coexist and conduct diplomacy and commerce peacefully. All parties of this conflict have the right to exist. I would propose a three-state solution: one for Israel, one for Palestine and one for Bibi.
"I am not a fan of Hamas and do not condone their aggression against innocent, peaceful Jews."
What about Israelis? They are hardly innocent or peaceful, are they? The WHOLE POINT of "Sabra Israelis" is to overtly reject the idea of being "innocent peaceful Jews".
"Conveniently overlooked are the peace forces in Israel..."
What "peace forces" in Israel? A dozen Israelis, most of whom I can personally name? That's not a "force", that is a token, a token that Liberal Zionists hide behind to justify their support for Zionism.
"All parties of this conflict have the right to exist"
But they don't. If they DID, the international community would be coming to the rescue of Palestinians, pushing Israelis out of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, like they once pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. What Israel has done to its neighbors and it's minority population is far, FAR worse than anything Saddam Hussein did, and it isn't close.
Definitely agree with at least parts of this oped, Jeremy. Thanks. (I might differ a little on some other points - and of course some other issues). But the key point is taking a stand of extremism on the Left. Especially when its people left criticizing those extremists. It would be great if more would do so
I watched Scahill's interview with Ro Khanna, and he kept on challenging Khanna didn't Hamas have the right to attack Israeli military people, without ever admitting that 2/3 of those killed on October 7th were Israeli civilians. A total blindness about the reality. Also, he never admitted that the Hammas deadly attack was clearly going to evoke an Israeli military response. I had never heard of Scahill before, and am surprised that he seems to have such a following in progressive circles. But then when I think of progressive journalists, I think first and foremost of I.F. Stone, who would never have behaved the way he did in the discussion. I doubt that even Scahill's mentor, Amy Goodman at "Democracy Now", would be so one-sided.
Another brilliant analysis. Thanks
Jeremy, well written! I'm not sure I'd call people like Jeremy Scahill progressives. People like him and Mehdi Hasan don't actually consider themselves Democrats. Their policy positions place themselves as far left-wing socialists, more aligned with the Green Party.
Crucial points, articulated perfectly
You make the claim that Hamas didn't have the right to kill Israeli combatants on Oct 7th because those killings were undertaken with the aim of later killing civilians. I think that is reasonable, but I worry that your point is made in order to sidestep the thrust of Scahill's challenge.
Let me suggest three questions that hopefully sharpen the Scahill challenge:
(1) If Hamas had *only* attacked Israeli military combatants on Oct 7th, would Hamas have been acting within its rights to armed resistance against occupation?
(2) If the Israeli military had *only* killed Hamas combatants in response to (the actual) Oct 7th, would you have criticized the IDF for doing so?
(3) Would you accept that at least part of the reason Israel killed some of the Hamas combatants was to make it easier to undertake their campaign of genocidal collective punishment (without incurring losses on the Israeli side), and if so, do you regard some of the killings of Hamas combatants as wrong?
@Jeremy Ben-Ami If I may, two more questions in light of the recent violence in Tell. If, as appears to be the case, the settler was killed because he was attacking the village, was the killing justified self-defense? Would it be wrong for a Palestinian militia to conduct a raid on the settlement to look for accomplices of the settler terrorist they killed, and put suspected accomplices on trial? Treating Palestinians and Israelis as moral equals doesn’t just mean expressing sorrow when they die, it also requires granting them equal rights to protect themselves from, and prosecute, those who aggress against them.
Oct 7 does not justify the retaliation that has killed multiple tens of thousands of Palestinians and continues every day. It also fails to justify the continued forced displacement of Palestinian citizens. These are the actions of a corrupt, depraved government that has either forgotten or chooses to forget the history of its own people.
The Netanyahu government has done terrible damage to Israel, and to the Palestinians, but only one side truly engaged in "genocide," and that was Hamas. They killed Jews simply because they were Jews. Israel -- which may well have engaged in what would be considered war crimes -- was targeting the Hamas terrorists and, at least at first, warning civilians.
Yes. Warning civilians who had no safe place to go and then killing them anyway.
“they killed Jews simply for being Jews”.
Nonsense.
That’s like saying the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto uprising only killed Germans for being German, or that Nate Turner only killed white people for being white.
But Zionists DID kill and displace Palestinians from their homes simply because they were Palestinian. Israelis DID enforce apartheid against Palestinians for decades simply for being Palestinian.
What YOU claim is hateful nonsense. The Hamas butchers committed the worst attack on Jews AS Jews since the holocaust. Your claim about "Zionists" speaks volumes about YOUR agenda. I don't defend the rightwing Netanyahu regime, but there was no genocide, no apartheid. He is a war criminal and obstacle to peace, but you clearly have a problem with Jews, period. Don't bother to deny it. We can all see it.
Well, if unlawful territorial expansion into and elimination of Palestinians from their own communities is normal Israeli policy I do have a problem with your answer. And by the way, I am a Jew.
"Human history is largely the story of peoples convinced their suffering entitled them to inflict suffering on others. After the catastrophes of the twentieth century, the international community attempted to build something different: an international order grounded in law, diplomacy and human rights."
This is absolutely, categorically false and completely disingenuous. Human history is largely about the struggle of the human spirit and the roots of human motivation. From those struggles and motivations have often come war and atrocities, that is true. But very rarely does an entire group of people make the decision to inflict suffering on others *because of* suffering that they themselves experienced. I'm sure as a son of survivors, Jeremy, you recognize that your ancestors never felt compelled to commit mass atrocities on the Germans (or perhaps you're referring to your father's conduct towards the colonial British in his time in the Irgun?).
Let me also point out that we are Americans, and despite our differences as a nation and all of the reasons we have to doubt our country's stability, we are by all measures living in by far the safest and most prosperous era of human history. That wealth and prosperity is largely the reason why a multi-millionaire like Ro Khanna feels the need to exaggerate his experience of perceived danger on the West Bank to the point of lying, and endangering American Jews as a result.
https://theliberaljew.substack.com/p/we-are-living-in-such-privilege-and
Silly me. I actually thought that this column would be one you wouldn't find something to attack.
Jill’s obsession with finding fault with you and J Street is something to behold. I’m not sure about Ro Khanna’s version of events, even the best of our politicians are capable of spin. Otherwise, your post was on point and timely. It really is a tough job to be both forceful and balanced, but I think you succeeded.
Oh there's more coming, stay tuned.
That’s a given, but staying tuned is optional.
You're one of my most reliable commenters, so I know it's an option you'll take, Keith.
Not so much lately, but I have to say part of me misses our jousts. On the other hand, going back and forth on J Street got tiresome.
You have no answers for her, do you.
Jeremy has publicly offered his explanation. You can accept his explanation or not.
I'm sure you'll do better next time. =P
I am willing to bet you'll like my next one a lot less.
Is this the article where you justify endorsing the J Street U conference where Hasan Piker is the invited keynote speaker? I just read about it. Good luck with that one.
You're probably right. See, we do sometimes agree!
You do not allow a J-Street conference to politely invite Hasan Piker without us seeing your horrible approach to all of this for what it is, Jeremy.
You continue to contribute to harm to both Palestinians and Jews with this. History will not be kind to you.
The Warsaw ghetto uprising is the strongest possible argument for my position, not yours. The fighters of the ŻOB turned their weapons on the SS units liquidating the ghetto — armed combatants engaged in their annihilation. They did not cross into German towns to burn families alive, rape women, and drag children into captivity. That distinction is the entire point, and the fighters themselves understood it. Invoking their memory to launder the massacre of civilians at a music festival dishonors them.
On the law: no, international law does not recognize resistance “by whatever means possible.” That phrase appears nowhere in it. The right to resist occupation — including armed resistance — exists, and I affirmed it explicitly in my comment above. But the laws of armed conflict bind every party, in every cause, however just. Deliberately targeting civilians is prohibited absolutely — for states, for occupiers, and for the occupied. That’s not a technicality; it’s the foundation. A right that dissolved the moment your cause felt urgent enough wouldn’t be law. It would be permission.
And your question — where was I on October 6th — was answered before you asked it. The comment you’re replying to condemns the occupation in plain language, as does the essay above it. Condemning the occupation and condemning the massacre are not in tension. They are the same principle applied twice. The position that can only manage one of them is yours.
I’ve said what I have to say.
Parrhizzia you are always lurking here. Give it a rest. There is no justification for targeting and murdering innocent civilians. Never.
Just stop.
Jeremy — I’ve come to this subject seriously only since October 7, and you’ve been doing this work for decades, so take what follows as a reader thinking out loud rather than a critique. This is the clearest statement of the position I’ve read anywhere, and your two questions gave me language for something I’d been struggling to articulate.
Two things I’m still turning over, and I’d genuinely value your view on both.
First: would the argument be strengthened by saying plainly that international law recognizes a Palestinian right to resist occupation — armed resistance included, directed at military targets, within the laws of war? My instinct is that granting the right makes the condemnation stronger, not weaker: October 7 fails that standard not because Palestinians lack rights, but because Hamas built its operation around murdering, raping, and kidnapping civilians at Nova, in Be’eri, in Kfar Aza. It would seem to meet Scahill’s question head-on — the asymmetry he alleges dissolves once one standard, civilians are never targets, is applied in both directions, convicting Hamas on October 7 and Smotrich’s vision for the West Bank alike. But you’ve spent decades navigating how these concessions land, and I may be underestimating what it costs to make one.
Second, a question about what comes after consistency: where does it point us now? With the hostages home and the last remains returned in January, the ceasefire has stalled on nearly everything that follows — J Street’s own six-month assessment says as much. Does the test you pose extend to phase two? A governance authority that is neither Hamas nor Israeli military administration, a stabilization arrangement that makes withdrawal more than a leap of faith, an Israeli electorate offered a real alternative in 2026 — I’d read a follow-up essay on that gladly.
Thank you for writing this. Moral consistency is a compass, not a road — but I needed the compass, and this piece is one.