In the same issue of the journal, Yitzhak Benbaji sketches out a few scenarios that could represent the "radically different" circumstances McMahan might have in mind. That said, this interpretation rests on a few assumptions. First, it relies on a "balanced narrative" where both Arabs and Jews are seen as including both minimalists and maximalists. From there, you’d either have to argue that minimalist Zionism is wrongful (which Benbaji disagrees with) or that Zionism is—or has turned into—a largely maximalist movement driven by ulterior motives (which Benbaji seems to agree with). However, I’d argue that a maximalist agenda doesn’t necessarily require motives like messianic expansionism, which somewhat weakens the argument for a potential just cause.
Yes, that is undoubtedly a more carefully crafted proposition, offering many plausible, albeit debatable, arguments and assumptions. However, I find it disingenuous of McMahan to casually invoke potential just causes of war for Palestinians, especially since he specifically addresses the current war in Gaza. Combined with his rather half-baked allusions to 'retrospective dimensions' of necessity and his history of sweeping condemnations of Israel, the overall framing strikes me as profoundly tasteless.
It’s interesting to see Steinhoff opposing McMahan and siding with Israel. I remember his writings from 10 to 20 years ago, probably during Sharon’s time as Prime Minister, which seemed much closer to what McMahan argues now. Back then, Steinhoff claimed Israelis, through their votes, were enabling democratically legitimized killings and terrorism, while Palestinians were acting with their backs against the wall.
Of course, the situation was different then, with Israel still in Gaza. Maybe that’s what McMahan means by “radically different circumstances”—almost like imagining a rewind of 20 years. The alternative he considers, that Hamas might suddenly embrace Gandhian nonviolence, seems more like a thought experiment than a genuine proposal for “radically different circumstances.”
Yes, perhaps. Yet, if one adopts a framing that alludes to 'radically different circumstances,' despite the actual circumstances being fairly clear, I'd argue that greater specificity is essential. Without it, the framing risks leaving an unpleasant aftertaste—and, as it stands, I find it both tasteless and shameful.
It seems that not so much has changed over the past 20 years, aside from new faces and political representatives. The Palestinian vision of statehood remains the same, centered on the right to return and incompatible with the existence of an Israeli state.
As far as I’m concerned, most of these articles and letters can be taken down by pointing to the sharp reply from McMahan’s Oxford colleague, Peter Hacker. He sums it up with: 'The Oxford professors go on to claim that Israel’s actions “are an affront to basic moral dignity.” They should be ashamed of themselves.'
I agree. While Hacker may have gotten a few things wrong, his bitterly sharp and combative letter was undeniably satisfying to read—particularly after sifting through the flood of open letters published in the direct aftermath of October 7th, many of which were anything but fair-minded.
In the same issue of the journal, Yitzhak Benbaji sketches out a few scenarios that could represent the "radically different" circumstances McMahan might have in mind. That said, this interpretation rests on a few assumptions. First, it relies on a "balanced narrative" where both Arabs and Jews are seen as including both minimalists and maximalists. From there, you’d either have to argue that minimalist Zionism is wrongful (which Benbaji disagrees with) or that Zionism is—or has turned into—a largely maximalist movement driven by ulterior motives (which Benbaji seems to agree with). However, I’d argue that a maximalist agenda doesn’t necessarily require motives like messianic expansionism, which somewhat weakens the argument for a potential just cause.
Yes, that is undoubtedly a more carefully crafted proposition, offering many plausible, albeit debatable, arguments and assumptions. However, I find it disingenuous of McMahan to casually invoke potential just causes of war for Palestinians, especially since he specifically addresses the current war in Gaza. Combined with his rather half-baked allusions to 'retrospective dimensions' of necessity and his history of sweeping condemnations of Israel, the overall framing strikes me as profoundly tasteless.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/auk-2024-2015/html
It’s interesting to see Steinhoff opposing McMahan and siding with Israel. I remember his writings from 10 to 20 years ago, probably during Sharon’s time as Prime Minister, which seemed much closer to what McMahan argues now. Back then, Steinhoff claimed Israelis, through their votes, were enabling democratically legitimized killings and terrorism, while Palestinians were acting with their backs against the wall.
Of course, the situation was different then, with Israel still in Gaza. Maybe that’s what McMahan means by “radically different circumstances”—almost like imagining a rewind of 20 years. The alternative he considers, that Hamas might suddenly embrace Gandhian nonviolence, seems more like a thought experiment than a genuine proposal for “radically different circumstances.”
Yes, perhaps. Yet, if one adopts a framing that alludes to 'radically different circumstances,' despite the actual circumstances being fairly clear, I'd argue that greater specificity is essential. Without it, the framing risks leaving an unpleasant aftertaste—and, as it stands, I find it both tasteless and shameful.
It seems that not so much has changed over the past 20 years, aside from new faces and political representatives. The Palestinian vision of statehood remains the same, centered on the right to return and incompatible with the existence of an Israeli state.
As far as I’m concerned, most of these articles and letters can be taken down by pointing to the sharp reply from McMahan’s Oxford colleague, Peter Hacker. He sums it up with: 'The Oxford professors go on to claim that Israel’s actions “are an affront to basic moral dignity.” They should be ashamed of themselves.'
I agree. While Hacker may have gotten a few things wrong, his bitterly sharp and combative letter was undeniably satisfying to read—particularly after sifting through the flood of open letters published in the direct aftermath of October 7th, many of which were anything but fair-minded.