I oscillate between two explanations, which are both drawn from my inconsequential life experience of course, so, grain of salt bla bla:
1. Fandom. Israelis aren't real people, Palestinians certainly aren't. Fandom culture has taken on an increasingly morally charged tone over time, as far as I can tell, as people can be called Nazis for liking Harry Potter given the author's politics, but also as people can be called Nazis for being fans of the wrong character. This mostly takes place online, thank god, but all the same - real people get harassed over their fictional tastes. And so, Israel/Palestine is just another fandom. I think this could account for the Free-Palestines' palpable disappointment when it turns out that fewer Palestinians have died than previously believed. Likewise, their displeasure with the ceasefire deal - it's not very pleasing, you know, narratively. So even though they got what they wanted, it feels shoe-horned and poorly written and imposed from above, which, you know, it was. Not a very satisfying character arc or resolution or anything.
2. They're terrified. Not of Israel and not of Jews. They're terrified of Jihadi terrorists, and they're deep in doublethink. They are helpless to actually fight it, so out of wishful thinking, they cast Israel as the villain, hoping that they wouldn't have to fight anything because they cast themselves as the saviors and not as potential victims. They also know, but can't afford to know, that at the bottom of it all lies Jihadi ideology that will come for them just as fast. If they pointed it out, it would only draw the Jihadis' ire. So they do everything within their power to not know anything.
Yes, it was notable how, when the ceasefire came into effect, certain people seemed to be unhappy about it, even though they had chanted or tweeted “ceasefire now”! Almost like that’s not what they wanted.
Excellent essay Yassine. It is the best explanation I have seen recently on how so many people can be so confused for so long. I hope some day soon you can start writing about other topics.
Great essay. What always strikes me is how the so-called progressive left has been making exactly the same arguments about Zionism as an imperialist project for well over 50 years. And to what practical end?
Read Seymour Martin Lipset's article from the NYT in 1971, and his subsequent tart exchange with a radical student in the letters column. Has anything changed?
The only thing that has changed is that there are no longer any serious liberal or leftist voices objecting to the concept that you might go to someone's synagogue and shoot them or rough them up a bit for having politics they disagree with.
And on Gaza, neither side has covered themselves in glory unfortunately. Hamas' actions have been obviously horrifying and Israel's response is unsurprising and the Palestinians (or at least the organizations getting any air time) have supported Hamas in their activities. And Israel in turn has caused immense amounts of destruction without (as far as I can tell...) actually eliminating Hamas as a going concern! What's to stop Hamas from re-establishing itself when Israel finally lets off?
The weak are judged by their obedience, the strong by their effectiveness. In this case, both have failed.
Big fan of most of the essay, but I found the part about people not wanting to debate live a bit odd. Far from being a more clear and rigorous format, I think debate is something of a novelty medium; there's a reason the majority of scientific discourse takes place on the medium which lets you carefully consider your words and claims, and not the medium where live gaffs are likely to make up a significant portion of the discourse.
Another point:
I think you're basically correct on the political power of guilt. Famously the unification church in Japan uses similar strategies based around WW2 guilt to drive donations for their cult, and I've seen at least one online social justice group fall prey to similar strategies from high profile scammer members.
Ok now I'm sure of it, I don't like your writing as much as before
Your vocabulary and syntax are just as impressive, but some sentences almost feel like AI slop
Also, about the subjects you cover, I think you're spending too much time worrying about the opinions of crazy morons, like "look what those guys are saying"
I'm not always against this style of writing, after all it's pretty much Blocked and Reported's whole shtick and they (mostly) make it work, but you really have to focus on what is interesting or surprising about the social dynamics at play, and I just don't feel like that's the case here, like I didn't learn much reading this
There's also the risk of the cowpox of doubt, as Scott put it. I think of you as someone who can tackle subtle subjects with nuance and honesty, but lately you mostly seem to revel in pointing out some people's lack of nuance and honesty
So yeah I guess I do think you write too much about antisemitism and the excesses of Palestinian activism, because even though it's probably a consequential and representative problem I just don't think it's that rich or interesting
I'll amend my statement by saying that I didn't feel this way about the last post on Freddie deBoer, I don't know much about the guy but it seems like he's dishonest in a relatively idiosyncratic way
Well the natural follow up that relates to this essay is how do you think open borders would go for Israel?
Or say Ukraine?
Invader or immigrant?
(I imagine I’m not the first person to pose the question, but I’ve read a fair amount of your writing, and I don’t recall seeing you address such scenarios.)
I find open borders about as insane as pacifism or communism, so I’m always perplexed when someone very sharp like you is a proponent. (Bryan Caplan does 2/3…) Especially when one can be very pro-immigration but also support some kind of limit to avoid certain scenarios.
Even a fairly open border like the Canada/US border has some kind of security checkpoint where they take your passport, ask you where you're going, etc before letting you through. It's entirely feasible to say that Yassine wants a legal right to a freedom of movement while still allowing for states to concern themselves with security against paramilitary action or arms smuggling at the borders.
Canada and the US have a long history of friendly relations. Both have pretty solid economies and broadly similar societies.
So by bringing up a case of near perfect circumstances, you're kinda proving my point that one must solve a bunch of other problems before proposing open borders.
>(I imagine I’m not the first person to pose the question, but I’ve read a fair amount of your writing, and I don’t recall seeing you address such scenarios.)
"Security Dilemma: I am a proponent of 100% open borders (for both trade & people) but concede it’s not a tenable position during ongoing hostilities. It’s true, both Gaza and the West Bank are surrounded by formidable security barriers that require Palestinians to be subjected to intrusive, arbitrary, and often humiliating security screening, but it was largely built in response to a wave of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada. I would love to see a free flow of goods and people but any security relaxation whatsoever is immediately exploited, with children as young as 14 regularly employed into martyrdom. I have no idea what the alternative solution is supposed to be here."
What exactly do you find untenable? There's obviously a spectrum of "person crossing a border" ranging from a tourist that just wants to spend money versus an invader that wants to kill people. The part that matters in either situation is not the crossing but rather the ensuing behavior.
"The part that matters in either situation is not the crossing but rather the ensuing behavior."
Yep. And malicious actors can easily take advantage of this.
Are you familiar with Putin's "little green men"?
Imagine they could just stroll across the border until they reached a critical mass. Why have paratroopers try to seize an airfield when you could just have them immigrate? Peacefully, at first, of course.
Or take Taiwan, the mainland could simply swamp the island "peacefully."
"The Mongols weren't invaders, simply immigrants taking advantage of open borders."
In societies like America, where birth conveys citizenship, there's a whole 'nother set of problems over time. See also: welfare state.
Open borders tends to simply destroy the concept of the state. Same as pacifism. The issues Israel faces force you to admit that open borders can't work during "ongoing hostilities," but what you fail to realize is that open borders almost can never work due to possible hostilities, and/or political issues, and/or economics. Just look at Europe taking in massive numbers of refugees, as opposed to allowing freedom of movement within the EU.
Caplan has a piece or two extolling the virtues of certain Gulf States allowing high levels of immigrant workers, but, of course, that's immensely different than "open borders."
If we lived in a world where rational law-abiding utility-seeking agents could ignore national borders, then great. But we do not live in such a world. Someone like Caplan can skewer communism as utopian dreaming based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature but can't quite see he's making a similar mistake wrt open borders. There are many critical issues to resolve before open borders becomes a remotely possible policy almost anywhere.
We use cookies to improve your experience, for analytics, and for marketing. You can accept, reject, or manage your preferences. See our privacy policy.
I oscillate between two explanations, which are both drawn from my inconsequential life experience of course, so, grain of salt bla bla:
1. Fandom. Israelis aren't real people, Palestinians certainly aren't. Fandom culture has taken on an increasingly morally charged tone over time, as far as I can tell, as people can be called Nazis for liking Harry Potter given the author's politics, but also as people can be called Nazis for being fans of the wrong character. This mostly takes place online, thank god, but all the same - real people get harassed over their fictional tastes. And so, Israel/Palestine is just another fandom. I think this could account for the Free-Palestines' palpable disappointment when it turns out that fewer Palestinians have died than previously believed. Likewise, their displeasure with the ceasefire deal - it's not very pleasing, you know, narratively. So even though they got what they wanted, it feels shoe-horned and poorly written and imposed from above, which, you know, it was. Not a very satisfying character arc or resolution or anything.
2. They're terrified. Not of Israel and not of Jews. They're terrified of Jihadi terrorists, and they're deep in doublethink. They are helpless to actually fight it, so out of wishful thinking, they cast Israel as the villain, hoping that they wouldn't have to fight anything because they cast themselves as the saviors and not as potential victims. They also know, but can't afford to know, that at the bottom of it all lies Jihadi ideology that will come for them just as fast. If they pointed it out, it would only draw the Jihadis' ire. So they do everything within their power to not know anything.
I heartily endorse the first explanation. I find the second one far less convincing but it's certainly interesting and worth mulling over.
The burden of proof is higher, for sure. Thank you for yet another banger.
Yes, it was notable how, when the ceasefire came into effect, certain people seemed to be unhappy about it, even though they had chanted or tweeted “ceasefire now”! Almost like that’s not what they wanted.
I think they just wanted Israel to ceasefire.
Excellent essay Yassine. It is the best explanation I have seen recently on how so many people can be so confused for so long. I hope some day soon you can start writing about other topics.
Also a fan of Gurwinder.
You're quite fascinating.
Great essay. What always strikes me is how the so-called progressive left has been making exactly the same arguments about Zionism as an imperialist project for well over 50 years. And to what practical end?
Read Seymour Martin Lipset's article from the NYT in 1971, and his subsequent tart exchange with a radical student in the letters column. Has anything changed?
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/03/archives/-the-socialism-of-fools-the-new-left-calls-it-antizionism-but-its.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/14/archives/antisemitism-and-antizionism.html
The only thing that has changed is that there are no longer any serious liberal or leftist voices objecting to the concept that you might go to someone's synagogue and shoot them or rough them up a bit for having politics they disagree with.
Greenpeace isn't that peaceful: https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/environmental-justice.
And on Gaza, neither side has covered themselves in glory unfortunately. Hamas' actions have been obviously horrifying and Israel's response is unsurprising and the Palestinians (or at least the organizations getting any air time) have supported Hamas in their activities. And Israel in turn has caused immense amounts of destruction without (as far as I can tell...) actually eliminating Hamas as a going concern! What's to stop Hamas from re-establishing itself when Israel finally lets off?
The weak are judged by their obedience, the strong by their effectiveness. In this case, both have failed.
Big fan of most of the essay, but I found the part about people not wanting to debate live a bit odd. Far from being a more clear and rigorous format, I think debate is something of a novelty medium; there's a reason the majority of scientific discourse takes place on the medium which lets you carefully consider your words and claims, and not the medium where live gaffs are likely to make up a significant portion of the discourse.
Another point:
I think you're basically correct on the political power of guilt. Famously the unification church in Japan uses similar strategies based around WW2 guilt to drive donations for their cult, and I've seen at least one online social justice group fall prey to similar strategies from high profile scammer members.
Ok now I'm sure of it, I don't like your writing as much as before
Your vocabulary and syntax are just as impressive, but some sentences almost feel like AI slop
Also, about the subjects you cover, I think you're spending too much time worrying about the opinions of crazy morons, like "look what those guys are saying"
I'm not always against this style of writing, after all it's pretty much Blocked and Reported's whole shtick and they (mostly) make it work, but you really have to focus on what is interesting or surprising about the social dynamics at play, and I just don't feel like that's the case here, like I didn't learn much reading this
There's also the risk of the cowpox of doubt, as Scott put it. I think of you as someone who can tackle subtle subjects with nuance and honesty, but lately you mostly seem to revel in pointing out some people's lack of nuance and honesty
So yeah I guess I do think you write too much about antisemitism and the excesses of Palestinian activism, because even though it's probably a consequential and representative problem I just don't think it's that rich or interesting
I'll amend my statement by saying that I didn't feel this way about the last post on Freddie deBoer, I don't know much about the guy but it seems like he's dishonest in a relatively idiosyncratic way
Are you in favor of open borders for all countries or just the US or some subset?
All. Puzzling question, did you expect a different answer?
Well the natural follow up that relates to this essay is how do you think open borders would go for Israel?
Or say Ukraine?
Invader or immigrant?
(I imagine I’m not the first person to pose the question, but I’ve read a fair amount of your writing, and I don’t recall seeing you address such scenarios.)
I find open borders about as insane as pacifism or communism, so I’m always perplexed when someone very sharp like you is a proponent. (Bryan Caplan does 2/3…) Especially when one can be very pro-immigration but also support some kind of limit to avoid certain scenarios.
Even a fairly open border like the Canada/US border has some kind of security checkpoint where they take your passport, ask you where you're going, etc before letting you through. It's entirely feasible to say that Yassine wants a legal right to a freedom of movement while still allowing for states to concern themselves with security against paramilitary action or arms smuggling at the borders.
So it's not an open border is what you're saying.
Canada and the US have a long history of friendly relations. Both have pretty solid economies and broadly similar societies.
So by bringing up a case of near perfect circumstances, you're kinda proving my point that one must solve a bunch of other problems before proposing open borders.
>(I imagine I’m not the first person to pose the question, but I’ve read a fair amount of your writing, and I don’t recall seeing you address such scenarios.)
In Yassine's first (?) article about Israel-Palestine (https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/the-jewish-conspiracy-to-change-my):
"Security Dilemma: I am a proponent of 100% open borders (for both trade & people) but concede it’s not a tenable position during ongoing hostilities. It’s true, both Gaza and the West Bank are surrounded by formidable security barriers that require Palestinians to be subjected to intrusive, arbitrary, and often humiliating security screening, but it was largely built in response to a wave of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada. I would love to see a free flow of goods and people but any security relaxation whatsoever is immediately exploited, with children as young as 14 regularly employed into martyrdom. I have no idea what the alternative solution is supposed to be here."
Problem is it’s not a tenable position **before** ongoing hostilities either.
And not just in Israel.
“Oh we aren’t invading just immigrating.”
Solve world peace first would be my advice.
What exactly do you find untenable? There's obviously a spectrum of "person crossing a border" ranging from a tourist that just wants to spend money versus an invader that wants to kill people. The part that matters in either situation is not the crossing but rather the ensuing behavior.
"The part that matters in either situation is not the crossing but rather the ensuing behavior."
Yep. And malicious actors can easily take advantage of this.
Are you familiar with Putin's "little green men"?
Imagine they could just stroll across the border until they reached a critical mass. Why have paratroopers try to seize an airfield when you could just have them immigrate? Peacefully, at first, of course.
Or take Taiwan, the mainland could simply swamp the island "peacefully."
"The Mongols weren't invaders, simply immigrants taking advantage of open borders."
In societies like America, where birth conveys citizenship, there's a whole 'nother set of problems over time. See also: welfare state.
Open borders tends to simply destroy the concept of the state. Same as pacifism. The issues Israel faces force you to admit that open borders can't work during "ongoing hostilities," but what you fail to realize is that open borders almost can never work due to possible hostilities, and/or political issues, and/or economics. Just look at Europe taking in massive numbers of refugees, as opposed to allowing freedom of movement within the EU.
Caplan has a piece or two extolling the virtues of certain Gulf States allowing high levels of immigrant workers, but, of course, that's immensely different than "open borders."
If we lived in a world where rational law-abiding utility-seeking agents could ignore national borders, then great. But we do not live in such a world. Someone like Caplan can skewer communism as utopian dreaming based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature but can't quite see he's making a similar mistake wrt open borders. There are many critical issues to resolve before open borders becomes a remotely possible policy almost anywhere.