With respect to your perspective & experiences—I have never been to Israel—I think you make some strong points. However, I would not argue the issue of settler-colonialism because this is precisely what Jabotinsky prescribed. I think his view was a minority one until the end of WWII, & seeing the Allies do nothing for survivors of the Holocaust, it became far more widespread.

Many of the same people who decry settler-colonialism refuse to condemn the slaughter of civilians, of women & children that liberation movements such as the Haitian Revolution, Nat Turner's Rebellion, the Sepoy Mutiny, etc, entailed.

Sometimes necessity forces our hand. Post-war Britain, after all, prescribed a unitary state in Palestine in which Jews would be allowed to "participate". Not acceptable.

Wrt Oct 7, more & more commentators are accepting it as a "military operation" or legitimate act of resistance. Hamas has cynically put the Palestinian people on the firing line in order to court world opinion.

And it's working.

As an outsider, still I would have preferred Israel proceed with the Saudi accords & establish a program to assassinate Hamas leadership similar to the one after Munich. But Bibi et al were caught pants down & they were enraged. Never the best circumstance on which to form meaningful policy.

A two-state solution?

Yes.

But, how? With so much of the West Bank settled, & by religious radicals who speak ominously of another "Haunkkah" if anyone tries to uproot them. They're essentially hostages to continuing a dire status quo.

Great article. Thanks,