Because Donald Trump (ghost)wrote “Art of the Deal,” he’s fond of saying “(so and so) should just make a deal!” as though everything was negotiable and everything could be haggled over. But in the case of Israel after the horrifying massacre of October 7th by the group that’s been running Gaza since during the younger George Bush Administration, that’s just what Israel needs to do. Israel doesn’t necessarily need to bargain with Hamas itself, the group that’s currently running Gaza, but they need to come up with a bargain that will satisfy the Palestinian people.
Palestinians occupy Gaza, the West Bank, areas of Jerusalem and a diaspora in neighboring countries. Many of them live as refugees as they still desire to return to the lands that are now occupied by Israelis. Problem with a demand of Palestinians, that they be granted the “Right of Return,” is that their population has greatly expanded since the “Nakba,” the “catastrophe” that caused them to lose their land in the first place. If they were to return and re-occupy lands that used to be theirs, Israelis would be, more or less, “pushed into the sea.”
Is there a “One-State Solution?” a single, democratic state where everyone could cooperate and live in peace? Hmm, maybe. If Arab states were generally democracies, that would be a more compelling promise. A “Two-State Solution?” That’s more compelling and the Biden Administration has been pressing for that. In the first years of Israel’s existence, at least until the war of 1967, Israelis feared that a Palestinian state would be the launching point for an Arab country to invade and “push them into the sea.” There’s less threat of that today, though, as Israel has proven itself militarily and has nuclear weapons. I do agree that Israel needs a defensible border, so I think it would be good for Palestinians to occupy a single chunk of Israel like, say, the whole Northern section, as opposed to the weirdly-shaped West Bank. It would have to be negotiated though, so as to prevent Israel from just claiming all of the good parts for itself and laving Palestinians with the dregs.
Commentary:
Okay, the first thing to notice is that the tone is objective. We don’t get emotional or blame anyone.
Second, I start off with a particular individual and again, I take a neutral, factual tone towards him. It’s good to start with an individual because that gives readers a solid handle. It doesn’t do to get abstract right away. This view of Trump is that he’s a businessman and businessmen make deals. Once he’s served the purpose of introducing the piece, we're finished with him and do not return to him.
Even though liberals (including me) frequently gripe that a story is a “BothSides” story, this really IS just such a story. Both Israelis and Palestinians bear some share of the blame for the situation they’re both in. Notice that when I attribute any decision to either side, I can go back to my sources and show the reader that my assertion is justified. That’s what links are for. If you feel you’ve made an assertion that might be controversial, you can link back to a source that shows readers you know what you’re talking about.
The overall objective in any piece is to lead the reader to be able to see WHY an event is occurring. As much as possible, you want to lead them to the conclusion through the objective presentation of facts. You want those facts to be solidly grounded, that is, you want there to be good evidence for them. Sometimes, you really can’t draw conclusions. You want to make it clear to readers that the facts don’t allow you to make serious conclusions.