What David Ignatius saw on the West Bank

And what he didn't understand

David Ignatius, the unofficial spokesman for the deep state, has written a lengthy piece for the Washington Post. In the paper edition, it’s called “This is what I saw on the West Bank. Can the U.S. see it too?”

Ignatius saw lots of Israel soldiers and security measures that make life very difficult for Palestinian residents. And he heard reports of aggressive and sometimes violent behavior by Israeli residents towards Palestinians.

The obvious problem with Ignatius’ piece is that what he saw — and treats as typical — was occurring during a war between Israel and Hamas, a terrorist organization that, according to a poll taken by a Palestinian research group, has even more support on the West Bank than it does in Gaza. In addition, what Ignatius saw occurred after Hamas — so popular on the West Bank — had committed unspeakable acts of barbarism against Jews less vigilant than those who live on the West Bank. And what he saw occurred during a period when a major uprising by Palestinians on the West Bank was (and remains) a distinct possibility.

So, naturally he saw “road closures and checkpoints.” Naturally, there were “backups at [the] checkpoints. . .that were a half-mile long and could require waits of more than two hours.” In light of what happened on October 7 in the South — an area the government thought was impenetrable by terrorists — Israel can’t be too cautious on the West Bank — an area in which Israelis and Palestinians co-habit and that has always been a flashpoint.

Ignatius says that attacks by West Bank Jews on Palestinians have spiked since October 7. It’s regrettable, but no surprise, that some among the most aggressive and militant cohort of Israeli Jews would want to lash out at Palestinians for the butchery that occurred on that date, especially given the prospect (and, indeed, the reality) of violence by West Bank Palestinians against Jew. It would have been nice if Ignatius had acknowledged that reality.

I want to be clear. Even before Oct. 7, Israel imposed restrictions on West Bank Palestinians. As I understand it, the extent of the restrictions varied from area to area. Since Ignatius didn’t visit the West Bank before the war, he has no first-hand knowledge about the impact of those restrictions.

I don’t either. However, as a general matter, it seems eminently reasonable, even before Oct. 7, not to have given free rein on the West Bank to a population that hates Israeli Jews. As noted, Hamas has more support on the West Bank than in Gaza.

It’s clear that Jews in Southern Israel were far too trusting of the Palestinians who worked in their towns and kibbutzim. Some of these workers provided intelligence that enabled the Hamas barbarians to maximize their butchery.

Ignatius wants to portray West Bank Palestinians as peaceable folk. But like his colleagues at the Washington Post, Ignatius is too willing to accept Palestinian assertions and postures unquestioningly.

For example, he says the tone of a Palestinian woman he talked to in Ramallah “isn’t militant rage, but rather a sorrow verging on despair. But maybe she was concealing her violent rage from Ignatius. And what about her sons and daughter, if she has any? Maybe they are full of “militant rage.” Many West Bank Palestinians are.

This leads to the question that’s the subtext of Ignatius’ piece — the question of whether there should be a Jewish presence on the West Bank and, if so, whether that presence should be much more limited than it is.

Reasonable people can disagree about this. Personally, I disfavored an extensive Jewish presence until I concluded that the “two-state” solution — cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy under most U.S. presidents — is a non-starter. Most Palestinians don’t want it, and Israelis shouldn’t want it because such an arrangement would undermine the security of the Jewish state.

Ignatius counters that (1) it’s the large Jewish presence on the West Bank that renders a two-state solution all but impossible and (2) this was the intention of the settler movement. I think there’s truth to the second of these claims. But I question whether a two-state solution would be possible, or desirable, even if the Jewish presence on the West Bank were small and geographically confined.

I’ll leave the discussion of this topic there, but want to make a final point.

We know a family that lives on the West Bank. Last year, the husband, a relatively young man, said that Jews of his age and younger lack the appetite to police the West Bank. If true, the long-term implications of this sentiment were favorable to the Palestinians.

I’m pretty sure, however, that the events of October 7 have restored the appetite to police the West Bank. Of course, providing that service to West Bank Jews must be highly distasteful to many young Israelis. But it’s not nearly as distasteful as the rape, brutalization, murder, and kidnapping of their fellow citizens.

And now, young Israelis know that this is the probable consequence of not protecting Jews on the West Bank.

Thus, what I think Ignatius really saw on the West Bank is a “never again” resolve that stems directly from the events of Oct. 7 — a resolve that likely will (and should) continue for a good long time.