the lottery conflict essay

The Lottery Conflict Essay

Since The Lottery was published in 1948, it has been a source of much controversy and conflict. The story’s dark themes and graphic violence have made it a lightning rod for criticism, with some accusing Shirley Jackson of promoting murder. The story has also been denounced as sexist and racist, with some claiming that it promotes the subjugation of women and minorities.

Despite the backlash, The Lottery remains one of Jackson’s most famous and well-known works. It continues to be studied and analyzed by literary scholars all over the world. In the end, The Lottery is a complex and provocative work that raises many interesting questions about human nature and society. Whether you love it or hate it, The Lottery is sure to leave a lasting impression.

Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery” is widely recognized owing to the community’s custom. Tradition is a significant element emphasized on people throughout their lives. The name “The Lottery” suggests that something wonderful will be given away. That isn’t the case in the tale, as you know after reading it. The village’s tradition has generated a lot of debate. Many people take the lottery in different ways because it remains unexplored. In particular, the contrast between Old Man Warner and Tessie Hutchinson reflects the story’s conflict.

The villagers gather together in the town square, where they have a drawing to see who will be sacrificed. The lottery is a barbaric tradition that shocks and appalls most readers. The story centers on the Hutchinson family, particularly Tessie Hutchinson. As the time for the lottery approaches, Mrs. Hutchinson becomes increasingly anxious. The other villagers are quick to criticize her for being nervous. Mrs. Hutchinson has good reason to be worried, however, as she is the last person to draw a black dot in the previous year’s lottery.

This means that she is next up for sacrifice. Her husband, Bill, tries to reassure her, but she is not comforted. The tension mounts as the villagers gather in the town square for the lottery. When the black dot is drawn for Mrs. Hutchinson, she protests that it isn’t fair. The other villagers are quick to condemn her for not accepting her fate. The story ends with Mrs. Hutchinson being stoned to death as her children look on. The lottery is a shocking story because it shows the dark side of human nature.

The villagers are willing to sacrifice someone in order to uphold their tradition. The story is a warning against blindly following tradition. It is important to question why things are done, and not just go along with what everyone else is doing. The story also highlights the importance of family. Mrs. Hutchinson is willing to die for her family. Even though the lottery is a barbaric tradition, she doesn’t want her children to grow up without a mother. The story is a reminder that the family is one of the most important institutions in society.

The lottery is a shocking story, but it is also an important one. It teaches us to question tradition and to cherish our families. Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” is a short story about a village that holds an annual lottery in which one villager is randomly chosen to be sacrificed.

The story has generated a lot of controversy over the years because of its dark themes and depiction of human nature. Some readers see the story as a warning against blindly following tradition, while others see it as an indictment of human cruelty. The story is still controversial today, and it is often taught in schools as a lesson in critical thinking.

According to Erin McCarthy, the tale sparked an immediate firestorm. The Lottery was published three weeks after Jackson’s agent submitted it, and there was outrage: Hundreds of readers canceled their memberships and penned angry letters expressing their bewilderment at the plot.

The story was even banned from some schools. Why was The Lottery so controversial? The answer has to do with the shocking ending of the story, in which the townspeople lottery jackpot winner is stoned to death. The story’s twist ending challenges our notions of fairness and justice, and many readers found it deeply disturbing.

Interestingly, Jackson herself didn’t expect The Lottery to be such a controversial story. In fact, she was surprised by the reaction that it received. In a letter to her publisher, she wrote: “I’m sorry — but don’t you think it’s rather over the hill? I do.”

Even today, The Lottery remains a controversial tale, with readers still arguing about its meaning and implications. Is The Lottery a story about the dangers of blindly following tradition? Or is it a commentary on the human penchant for violence? The answer to that question remains open to interpretation.

There’s a disagreement between Bill and Tessie about him not being able to pick a random piece of paper at his own speed. There’s also conflict when Tessie argues with everyone near the end of the narrative about “The Lottery” being unjust in its cruelty.

The story is full of suspense that keeps the reader engaged. The lottery is a tradition in this small town, but it’s not clear why it’s such an important tradition. The story does not provide a clear explanation, which leaves room for interpretation. The characters all seem to accept the lottery without questioning it, which could be interpreted as compliance or fear of the consequences of speaking out against the lottery.

The end of the story is unexpected and shocking, which makes it memorable. Shirley Jackson is able to evoke a strong emotional response from her readers by creating a mysterious and suspenseful story. The Lottery is considered to be one of her most famous short stories.

The lottery is held on June 27, which is known as “Duck Day.” On this date, in the midst of the plaza, everyone participates in the lottery drawing. This activity is comparable to any other occurring in town, such as a dance, club, or even a holiday program. Mr. Summers, the head of the lottery, must gather all of the household’s information ahead of time so he can make a list for the following day.

The Lottery is a tradition that has been going on for as long as anyone can remember in this small town. The lottery is a way to choose who will be sacrificed to the gods. The townspeople have no idea what would happen if they stopped having the lottery.

The story is about a small town who still participates in the barbaric tradition of The Lottery. Every year on the day of June 27, the townspeople gather in the square for the drawing of the lottery. The winner of The Lottery is then chosen to be sacrificed to the gods. The story follows one family’s journey as they prepare for and eventually take part in The Lottery.

More Essays

• The Lottery Alternate Ending
• Irony in The Lottery
• The Lottery Essay
• Setting Of The Lottery
• The Lottery Paper
• Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” and Flannery O’Connnors “A Good Man Is Hard To Find”
• Dramatic Irony In The Lottery
• The Lottery and The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
• Essay about Shirley Jackson The Lottery Reflection
• How Does Conflict Cause Conflict Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Literature › Analysis of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery

Analysis of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on May 28, 2021

As were many of Shirley Jackson’s stories, “The Lottery” was first published in the New Yorker  and, subsequently, as the title story of The Lottery: or, The Adventures of James Harris in 1949. It may well be the world’s most frequently anthologized short story. A modern horror story, it derives its effect from a reversal of the readers’ expectations, already established by the ordinary setting of a warm June day in a rural community. Readers, lulled into this false summer complacency, begin to feel horror, their moods changing with the narrator’s careful use of evidence and suspense, until the full realization of the appalling ritual murder bursts almost unbearably on them.

The story opens innocently enough, as the townspeople gather for an unidentified annual event connected to the harvest. The use of names initially seems to bolster the friendliness of the gathering; we feel we know these people as, one by one, their names are called in alphabetical order. In retrospect, however, the names of the male lottery organizers—Summer and Graves—provide us with clues to the transition from life to death. Tessie, the soon-to-be-victim housewife, may allude to another bucolic Tess (in Thomas Hardy’s novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles ), whose promising beginnings transformed into gore and death at the hands of men.

Shirley Jackson/Erich Hartmann

The scholar and critic Linda Wagner-Martin observes that only recently have readers noticed the import of the sacrificial victim’s gender: In the traditional patriarchal system that values men and children, mothers are devalued once they have fulfilled their childbearing roles. Tessie, late to the gathering because her arms were plunged to the elbow in dishwater, seems inconsequential, even irritating, at first. Only as everyone in the town turns against her— children, men, other women invested in the system that sustains them—does the reader become aware that this is a ritual stoning of a scapegoat who can depend on no one: not her daughter, not her husband, not even her little boy, Davy, who picks up an extraordinarily large rock to throw at her.

No reader can finish this story without contemplating the violence and inhumanity that Jackson intended it to portray. In the irony of its depiction lies the horror of this classic tale and, one hopes, a careful reevaluation of social codes and meaningless rituals.

Analysis of Shirley Jackson’s Stories

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-authors-voice/a-m-homes-reads-shirley-jackson-the-lottery

BIBLIOGRAPHY Jackson, Shirley. The Lottery: or, The Adventures of James Harris. New York: Farrar, Straus, 1949. Wagner-Martin, Linda. “The Lottery.” In Reference Guide to Short Fiction, edited by Noelle Watson, 783–784. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994.

Share this:

Categories: Literature , Short Story

Tags: American Literature , Analysis of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , appreciation of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , Criticism of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , essays of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , guide of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , Literary Criticism , Notes of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , plot of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , Shirley Jackson , Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery appreciation , Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery guide , Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery notes , Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery plot , Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery summary , Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery themes , structure of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , Summary of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery , Themes of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery

Related Articles

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Jackson’s ‘The Lottery’: Key Themes Explained

By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)

‘The Lottery’ by the American writer Shirley Jackson (1916-65) was first published on 26 June 1948 in the New Yorker magazine. The story was initially met with anger and even a fair amount of hate mail from readers, with many cancelling their subscriptions to the magazine. What was it within this dark and terrifying story which not only unnerved so many readers, but actively seemed to repulse them?

The story tells of a village in which the three hundred inhabitants gather once every year on 27 June to undertake the ritual of the lottery. The lottery involves each household drawing a slip of paper from a black box, and one household being identified as the ‘winner’ (as it were). Then one member of that household is selected to be the village’s sacrifice for that year, with the unlucky person being stoned to death by their fellow villagers in the hope that this act will bring good crops to the village.

This is a story which invites us to confront some very difficult themes. But what are the most prominent themes of Shirley Jackson’s story? Here’s a brief introduction to some of the key aspects of this famous text.

History is full of people and whole cultures performing seemingly irrational rituals simply because ‘they’ve always done so’ for as long as they can remember. Old Man Warner embodies this blind adherence to tradition in Jackson’s story. People persist in the lottery in the name of ‘tradition’ and in the superstitious belief that the annual sacrifice has a beneficial effect on crops.

However, Shirley Jackson introduces a complication into the story in this regard. Towards the end of the narrative, as the villagers are picking up stones ready to carry out the stoning of Tessie Hutchinson, the narrator reveals that they ‘had forgotten the ritual’. They don’t know what they have to do other than kill the chosen person who has drawn the slip with the black mark on it.

This suggests that they are not even being driven by a desire to observe tradition and ritual per se . Instead, they are driven by a mindless groupthink which has become divorced from any magical or religious ritual (or even the mere show of one), as they unquestioningly partake in the killing of another human being.

Magical Thinking.

Related to this theme of tradition in the story is the similar faith in something called magical thinking , whereby people believe they can exert an almost miraculous control over the world around them if they only perform the right rituals.

To give up the lottery would, in the words of Old Man Warner, be the behaviour of ‘crazy fools’, because he is convinced that the lottery is not only beneficial but essential to the success of the village’s crops. People will die if the lottery is not drawn, because the crops will fail and people will starve as a result. It’s much better to people like Old Man Warner that one person be chosen at random (so the process is ‘fair’) and sacrificed for the collective health of the community.

‘The Lottery’ raises some difficult moral problems. If we finish reading Jackson’s story and conclude that the stoning of one villager is mere superstitious tradition and has no bearing on the outcome of that year’s crops, it is easy to dismiss the practice as pointless as well as barbaric.

But what if the villagers are right and the stoning does have some kind of positive effect on the corn? What if some god, whether the Christian God or some other, is listening and does observe, and accept, their offering of a human sacrifice?

Then we have a moral choice. Is it ever acceptable to be directly responsible for one person’s death if it saves the lives of three hundred? If the crops failed, it would mean a difficult winter for the village, and potentially many of them would die.

In this respect, we might compare Jackson’s ‘The Lottery’ with the later thought experiment known as the trolley problem . In most versions of this moral problem, a train is on course to kill five people, but the bystander has the power to switch the train onto a different line where it will kill just one person.

Would you pull the switch? After all, in doing so, you would have directly saved five people from certain death. But you would also have directly killed someone.

The Nature of ‘Evil’.

This moral question leads us to another difficult question. Are the villagers evil for doing what they do to Tessie Hutchinson? Or are they good people who do something unspeakable but are convinced they are doing the right thing? And which is worse? Steven Weinberg famously observed that without religion the world would be full of good people doing things and evil people doing evil things, but for good people to do evil things, ‘that takes religion’.

We don’t need to accept this quotation wholesale to see its applicability to Jackson’s story. (Indeed, we cannot even be sure that the villagers are acting out of a ‘religious’ belief per se : the actual ritual, aside from the stoning, has long been forgotten, and the tradition appears to have been emptied of any deeper meaning it ever had.) But the core message is the same: the villagers are ordinary working people who have simply been convinced that the lottery is normal because it’s always been part of village life.

It is only when Tessie is staring death in the face that she speaks out against it. Whether she speaks out now because she only now realises how unfair the lottery is, or whether she has long had doubts about it but has been too afraid to speak out, is another interesting question. Speaking out against the mob can lead to ostracism or worse. Perhaps she has always been sceptical but has kept her doubts to herself, for a quiet life. Blind groupthink is hard to oppose, and it can also make ‘good’ people do horrific things, while continuing to think themselves good people.

Conformity.

Early on in ‘The Lottery’, Jackson tells us that the children of the village have recently finished their schooling for the summer, and that ‘the feeling of liberty sat uneasily on most of them’. They are still in the habit of listening to their teacher and doing as they are told.

This is a curious detail for Jackson to include, but it subtly introduces a society in which conformity and groupthink are privileged over individual freedom of thought. Old Man Warner is very sceptical of the younger members of society who would seek to question the validity of the lottery, and is quick to counter any suggestions that the lottery might be an outdated tradition. The fact that young children are encouraged – indeed, told – to take part in the ritual sacrifice of one of their neighbours is one of the most troubling aspects of Jackson’s tale.

Discover more from Interesting Literature

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Conformity and Rebellion in “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson Essay

Conformity and rebellion are the controversial social issues that make people think about their roles and possibilities in regards to the circumstances they have to live under. It is not an easy task to create a good story about conformity and rebellion as the reader expects a lot from such work: positive social foundation, a direct message, several realistic characters for comparison, and the emotions that can prove that the chosen story is worthwhile.

Shirley Jackson introduces her own vision of society and the rules, which people prefer to follow. “The Lottery” introduces a small town with its citizens, who have nothing to do but to live according to the norms they have already set, confirm the expectations, and neglect the ideas of rebellion as they just do not have a right on it. In spite of the fact that the main prize of the lottery is death, the citizens continue believing in the power of the order and the necessity to organize the same event annually.

Though Jackson’s work is regarded as a cruel story with unrealistic characters, events, and an unexpected end that changes the understanding of human relations in society, “The Lottery” remains to be a powerful and educative short story and an exemplary literary piece of work about conformity and rebellion as it has a clear message to the reader, causes a number of different emotions, and makes the reader think about human morals, ethics, and duties that have to be fulfilled anyway.

The relationship between an individual and society is hard to establish properly as certain sacrifices and some explanations may be needed, and many actions cannot be avoided, and Jackson creates a good message for the reader on how to develop this kind of relations.

Jackson’s “Lottery” has a clear message – society may be created in accordance with people’s demands, still, people should be ready to neglect some aspects of their lives to achieve the necessary results. Though some readers are not able to understand this particular message in the story due to its abrupt and rather cruel end, still, it is wrong to deny the fact that the author leaves a message and pays a certain attention to it.

Another aspect of a powerful literary work is the ability to cause readers’ emotions, and “The Lottery” is one of the short stories that may cause a number of various emotions at the same time. People have to follow their traditions, respect the cultural norms they choose and treat each event as something inevitable and indestructible.

The story tells that all citizens show the same attitude to the lottery as “children assembled first… stuffed… pockets full of stones… the men began to gather, surveying their own children… the women… greeted one another and exchanged bits of gossip” (Jackson 1). It seems to be the usual description of ordinary life. However, in the end, when the reader gets to know that the main prize of the event is to be stoned to death, the emotions appear immediately.

On the one hand, it is impossible to believe that the interests of society are above the interests or even the life of one individual. On the other hand, such an explanation of the lottery is powerful evidence of a good story about conformity as people do not have a chance to choose but step in the already prescribed future.

Finally, Jackson’s story makes the reader think about the necessity to be a considerable part of society and accept all the challenges required.

Though it is not easy, and sometimes unacceptable, to believe that parents are ready to stone their children just to meet the demands of the village, the story proves its goals and makes the reader evaluate, compare, and analyze different situations thrown about the story like when Mr. Summers told about the necessity of “making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box” (Jackson 1) or when a saying “lottery in June, corn be heavy soon” (Jackson 4) was mentioned.

However, people’s attitudes to the event, inabilities to rebel the already set traditions, and unwillingness to fight for their own lives weaken the story. As a rule, literary works should teach the reader to be better, stronger, and ready for any kind of challenge, spread positive messages, and explain that good thoughts and actions must prevail over the bad ones.

It is hard to believe that death may be the only possible solution. Still, the presence of the above-mentioned factors and a general impact of the story show that Jackson succeeds in her intentions to describe the idea of conformity and rebellion neglect using unexpected still very powerful ideas and examples.

In general, “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson is a good literary example of how people set rules and follow them neglecting personal demands and ideas. It does not actually matter what readers may think about the story, its plot, the reality of its characters, or the quality of the messages. They still think, use their emotions, and learn the author’s message. And this is what makes good literature that excites, teaches, and inspires people from different parts of the world anytime.

Jackson, S. The Lottery . 2015. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, April 10). Conformity and Rebellion in “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson. https://ivypanda.com/essays/conformity-and-rebellion-in-the-lottery-by-shirley-jackson/

"Conformity and Rebellion in “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson." IvyPanda , 10 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/conformity-and-rebellion-in-the-lottery-by-shirley-jackson/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Conformity and Rebellion in “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson'. 10 April.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Conformity and Rebellion in “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson." April 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/conformity-and-rebellion-in-the-lottery-by-shirley-jackson/.

1. IvyPanda . "Conformity and Rebellion in “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson." April 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/conformity-and-rebellion-in-the-lottery-by-shirley-jackson/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Conformity and Rebellion in “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson." April 10, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/conformity-and-rebellion-in-the-lottery-by-shirley-jackson/.

• Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery": Elements of the Story
• Forget Tradition: “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson
• Suspense Narrative in "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson
• "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson: A Short Masterpiece
• "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson: A Literary Analysis
• Literary Analysis of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery
• Historical Criticism of "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson
• The Depiction of Cultural Conformity and Moral Values in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”
• Characters' Relationship in ”The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson
• Marxist Criticism on The Lottery by Shirley Jackson Essay
• Conformity in “The Lottery” by S. Jackson
• Yusef Komunyakaa's "Facing It" Literature Analysis
• Sea Oak' by George Saunders
• The Story "Sonny's Blues" by James Baldwin Literature Analysis
• Cathedral' by Raymond Carver Literature Analysis

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Lottery

By Shirley Jackson

Audio: Read by A. M. Homes.

The morning of June 27th was clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green. The people of the village began to gather in the square, between the post office and the bank, around ten o’clock; in some towns there were so many people that the lottery took two days and had to be started on June 26th, but in this village, where there were only about three hundred people, the whole lottery took only about two hours, so it could begin at ten o’clock in the morning and still be through in time to allow the villagers to get home for noon dinner.

The children assembled first, of course. School was recently over for the summer, and the feeling of liberty sat uneasily on most of them; they tended to gather together quietly for a while before they broke into boisterous play, and their talk was still of the classroom and the teacher, of books and reprimands. Bobby Martin had already stuffed his pockets full of stones, and the other boys soon followed his example, selecting the smoothest and roundest stones; Bobby and Harry Jones and Dickie Delacroix—the villagers pronounced this name “Dellacroy”—eventually made a great pile of stones in one corner of the square and guarded it against the raids of the other boys. The girls stood aside, talking among themselves, looking over their shoulders at the boys, and the very small children rolled in the dust or clung to the hands of their older brothers or sisters.

Soon the men began to gather, surveying their own children, speaking of planting and rain, tractors and taxes. They stood together, away from the pile of stones in the corner, and their jokes were quiet and they smiled rather than laughed. The women, wearing faded house dresses and sweaters, came shortly after their menfolk. They greeted one another and exchanged bits of gossip as they went to join their husbands. Soon the women, standing by their husbands, began to call to their children, and the children came reluctantly, having to be called four or five times. Bobby Martin ducked under his mother’s grasping hand and ran, laughing, back to the pile of stones. His father spoke up sharply, and Bobby came quickly and took his place between his father and his oldest brother.

The lottery was conducted—as were the square dances, the teen-age club, the Halloween program—by Mr. Summers, who had time and energy to devote to civic activities. He was a round-faced, jovial man and he ran the coal business, and people were sorry for him, because he had no children and his wife was a scold. When he arrived in the square, carrying the black wooden box, there was a murmur of conversation among the villagers, and he waved and called, “Little late today, folks.” The postmaster, Mr. Graves, followed him, carrying a three-legged stool, and the stool was put in the center of the square and Mr. Summers set the black box down on it. The villagers kept their distance, leaving a space between themselves and the stool, and when Mr. Summers said, “Some of you fellows want to give me a hand?,” there was a hesitation before two men, Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter, came forward to hold the box steady on the stool while Mr. Summers stirred up the papers inside it.

The original paraphernalia for the lottery had been lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, was born. Mr. Summers spoke frequently to the villagers about making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box. There was a story that the present box had been made with some pieces of the box that had preceded it, the one that had been constructed when the first people settled down to make a village here. Every year, after the lottery, Mr. Summers began talking again about a new box, but every year the subject was allowed to fade off without anything’s being done. The black box grew shabbier each year; by now it was no longer completely black but splintered badly along one side to show the original wood color, and in some places faded or stained.

Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter, held the black box securely on the stool until Mr. Summers had stirred the papers thoroughly with his hand. Because so much of the ritual had been forgotten or discarded, Mr. Summers had been successful in having slips of paper substituted for the chips of wood that had been used for generations. Chips of wood, Mr. Summers had argued, had been all very well when the village was tiny, but now that the population was more than three hundred and likely to keep on growing, it was necessary to use something that would fit more easily into the black box. The night before the lottery, Mr. Summers and Mr. Graves made up the slips of paper and put them into the box, and it was then taken to the safe of Mr. Summers’ coal company and locked up until Mr. Summers was ready to take it to the square next morning. The rest of the year, the box was put away, sometimes one place, sometimes another; it had spent one year in Mr. Graves’ barn and another year underfoot in the post office, and sometimes it was set on a shelf in the Martin grocery and left there.

There was a great deal of fussing to be done before Mr. Summers declared the lottery open. There were the lists to make up—of heads of families, heads of households in each family, members of each household in each family. There was the proper swearing-in of Mr. Summers by the postmaster, as the official of the lottery; at one time, some people remembered, there had been a recital of some sort, performed by the official of the lottery, a perfunctory, tuneless chant that had been rattled off duly each year; some people believed that the official of the lottery used to stand just so when he said or sang it, others believed that he was supposed to walk among the people, but years and years ago this part of the ritual had been allowed to lapse. There had been, also, a ritual salute, which the official of the lottery had had to use in addressing each person who came up to draw from the box, but this also had changed with time, until now it was felt necessary only for the official to speak to each person approaching. Mr. Summers was very good at all this; in his clean white shirt and blue jeans, with one hand resting carelessly on the black box, he seemed very proper and important as he talked interminably to Mr. Graves and the Martins.

Just as Mr. Summers finally left off talking and turned to the assembled villagers, Mrs. Hutchinson came hurriedly along the path to the square, her sweater thrown over her shoulders, and slid into place in the back of the crowd. “Clean forgot what day it was,” she said to Mrs. Delacroix, who stood next to her, and they both laughed softly. “Thought my old man was out back stacking wood,” Mrs. Hutchinson went on, “and then I looked out the window and the kids was gone, and then I remembered it was the twenty-seventh and came a-running.” She dried her hands on her apron, and Mrs. Delacroix said, “You’re in time, though. They’re still talking away up there.”

Mrs. Hutchinson craned her neck to see through the crowd and found her husband and children standing near the front. She tapped Mrs. Delacroix on the arm as a farewell and began to make her way through the crowd. The people separated good-humoredly to let her through; two or three people said, in voices just loud enough to be heard across the crowd, “Here comes your Mrs., Hutchinson,” and “Bill, she made it after all.” Mrs. Hutchinson reached her husband, and Mr. Summers, who had been waiting, said cheerfully, “Thought we were going to have to get on without you, Tessie.” Mrs. Hutchinson said, grinning, “Wouldn’t have me leave m’dishes in the sink, now, would you, Joe?,” and soft laughter ran through the crowd as the people stirred back into position after Mrs. Hutchinson’s arrival.

“Well, now,” Mr. Summers said soberly, “guess we better get started, get this over with, so’s we can go back to work. Anybody ain’t here?”

“Dunbar,” several people said. “Dunbar, Dunbar.”

Mr. Summers consulted his list. “Clyde Dunbar,” he said. “That’s right. He’s broke his leg, hasn’t he? Who’s drawing for him?”

“Me, I guess,” a woman said, and Mr. Summers turned to look at her. “Wife draws for her husband,” Mr. Summers said. “Don’t you have a grown boy to do it for you, Janey?” Although Mr. Summers and everyone else in the village knew the answer perfectly well, it was the business of the official of the lottery to ask such questions formally. Mr. Summers waited with an expression of polite interest while Mrs. Dunbar answered.

“Horace’s not but sixteen yet,” Mrs. Dunbar said regretfully. “Guess I gotta fill in for the old man this year.”

“Right,” Mr. Summers said. He made a note on the list he was holding. Then he asked, “Watson boy drawing this year?”

A tall boy in the crowd raised his hand. “Here,” he said. “I’m drawing for m’mother and me.” He blinked his eyes nervously and ducked his head as several voices in the crowd said things like “Good fellow, Jack,” and “Glad to see your mother’s got a man to do it.”

“Well,” Mr. Summers said, “guess that’s everyone. Old Man Warner make it?”

“Here,” a voice said, and Mr. Summers nodded.

A sudden hush fell on the crowd as Mr. Summers cleared his throat and looked at the list. “All ready?” he called. “Now, I’ll read the names—heads of families first—and the men come up and take a paper out of the box. Keep the paper folded in your hand without looking at it until everyone has had a turn. Everything clear?”

The people had done it so many times that they only half listened to the directions; most of them were quiet, wetting their lips, not looking around. Then Mr. Summers raised one hand high and said, “Adams.” A man disengaged himself from the crowd and came forward. “Hi, Steve,” Mr. Summers said, and Mr. Adams said, “Hi, Joe.” They grinned at one another humorlessly and nervously. Then Mr. Adams reached into the black box and took out a folded paper. He held it firmly by one corner as he turned and went hastily back to his place in the crowd, where he stood a little apart from his family, not looking down at his hand.

“Allen,” Mr. Summers said. “Anderson. . . . Bentham.”

“Seems like there’s no time at all between lotteries any more,” Mrs. Delacroix said to Mrs. Graves in the back row. “Seems like we got through with the last one only last week.”

“Time sure goes fast,” Mrs. Graves said.

“Clark. . . . Delacroix.”

“There goes my old man,” Mrs. Delacroix said. She held her breath while her husband went forward.

“Dunbar,” Mr. Summers said, and Mrs. Dunbar went steadily to the box while one of the women said, “Go on, Janey,” and another said, “There she goes.”

“We’re next,” Mrs. Graves said. She watched while Mr. Graves came around from the side of the box, greeted Mr. Summers gravely, and selected a slip of paper from the box. By now, all through the crowd there were men holding the small folded papers in their large hands, turning them over and over nervously. Mrs. Dunbar and her two sons stood together, Mrs. Dunbar holding the slip of paper.

“Harburt. . . . Hutchinson.”

“Get up there, Bill,” Mrs. Hutchinson said, and the people near her laughed.

“They do say,” Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, “that over in the north village they’re talking of giving up the lottery.”

Old Man Warner snorted. “Pack of crazy fools,” he said. “Listening to the young folks, nothing’s good enough for them . Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live that way for a while. Used to be a saying about ‘Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.’ First thing you know, we’d all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. There’s always been a lottery,” he added petulantly. “Bad enough to see young Joe Summers up there joking with everybody.”

“Some places have already quit lotteries,” Mrs. Adams said.

“Nothing but trouble in that ,” Old Man Warner said stoutly. “Pack of young fools.”

“Martin.” And Bobby Martin watched his father go forward. “Overdyke. . . . Percy.”

“I wish they’d hurry,” Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son. “I wish they’d hurry.”

“They’re almost through,” her son said.

“You get ready to run tell Dad,” Mrs. Dunbar said.

Mr. Summers called his own name and then stepped forward precisely and selected a slip from the box. Then he called, “Warner.”

“Seventy-seventh year I been in the lottery,” Old Man Warner said as he went through the crowd. “Seventy-seventh time.”

“Watson.” The tall boy came awkwardly through the crowd. Someone said, “Don’t be nervous, Jack,” and Mr. Summers said, “Take your time, son.”

After that, there was a long pause, a breathless pause, until Mr. Summers, holding his slip of paper in the air, said, “All right, fellows.” For a minute, no one moved, and then all the slips of paper were opened. Suddenly, all the women began to speak at once, saying, “Who is it?,” “Who’s got it?,” “Is it the Dunbars?,” “Is it the Watsons?” Then the voices began to say, “It’s Hutchinson. It’s Bill,” “Bill Hutchinson’s got it.”

“Go tell your father,” Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son.

People began to look around to see the Hutchinsons. Bill Hutchinson was standing quiet, staring down at the paper in his hand. Suddenly, Tessie Hutchinson shouted to Mr. Summers, “You didn’t give him time enough to take any paper he wanted. I saw you. It wasn’t fair!”

“Be a good sport, Tessie,” Mrs. Delacroix called, and Mrs. Graves said, “All of us took the same chance.”

“Shut up, Tessie,” Bill Hutchinson said.

“Well, everyone,” Mr. Summers said, “that was done pretty fast, and now we’ve got to be hurrying a little more to get done in time.” He consulted his next list. “Bill,” he said, “you draw for the Hutchinson family. You got any other households in the Hutchinsons?”

“There’s Don and Eva,” Mrs. Hutchinson yelled. “Make them take their chance!”

“Daughters draw with their husbands’ families, Tessie,” Mr. Summers said gently. “You know that as well as anyone else.”

“It wasn’t fair ,” Tessie said.

“I guess not, Joe,” Bill Hutchinson said regretfully. “My daughter draws with her husband’s family, that’s only fair. And I’ve got no other family except the kids.”

“Then, as far as drawing for families is concerned, it’s you,” Mr. Summers said in explanation, “and as far as drawing for households is concerned, that’s you, too. Right?”

“Right,” Bill Hutchinson said.

“How many kids, Bill?” Mr. Summers asked formally.

“Three,” Bill Hutchinson said. “There’s Bill, Jr., and Nancy, and little Dave. And Tessie and me.”

“All right, then,” Mr. Summers said. “Harry, you got their tickets back?”

Mr. Graves nodded and held up the slips of paper. “Put them in the box, then,” Mr. Summers directed. “Take Bill’s and put it in.”

“I think we ought to start over,” Mrs. Hutchinson said, as quietly as she could. “I tell you it wasn’t fair . You didn’t give him time enough to choose. Every body saw that.”

Mr. Graves had selected the five slips and put them in the box, and he dropped all the papers but those onto the ground, where the breeze caught them and lifted them off.

“Listen, everybody,” Mrs. Hutchinson was saying to the people around her.

“Ready, Bill?” Mr. Summers asked, and Bill Hutchinson, with one quick glance around at his wife and children, nodded.

“Remember,” Mr. Summers said, “take the slips and keep them folded until each person has taken one. Harry, you help little Dave.” Mr. Graves took the hand of the little boy, who came willingly with him up to the box. “Take a paper out of the box, Davy,” Mr. Summers said. Davy put his hand into the box and laughed. “Take just one paper,” Mr. Summers said. “Harry, you hold it for him.” Mr. Graves took the child’s hand and removed the folded paper from the tight fist and held it while little Dave stood next to him and looked up at him wonderingly.

“Nancy next,” Mr. Summers said. Nancy was twelve, and her school friends breathed heavily as she went forward, switching her skirt, and took a slip daintily from the box. “Bill, Jr.,” Mr. Summers said, and Billy, his face red and his feet overlarge, nearly knocked the box over as he got a paper out. “Tessie,” Mr. Summers said. She hesitated for a minute, looking around defiantly, and then set her lips and went up to the box. She snatched a paper out and held it behind her.

“Bill,” Mr. Summers said, and Bill Hutchinson reached into the box and felt around, bringing his hand out at last with the slip of paper in it.

The crowd was quiet. A girl whispered, “I hope it’s not Nancy,” and the sound of the whisper reached the edges of the crowd.

“It’s not the way it used to be,” Old Man Warner said clearly. “People ain’t the way they used to be.”

“All right,” Mr. Summers said. “Open the papers. Harry, you open little Dave’s.”

Mr. Graves opened the slip of paper and there was a general sigh through the crowd as he held it up and everyone could see that it was blank. Nancy and Bill, Jr., opened theirs at the same time, and both beamed and laughed, turning around to the crowd and holding their slips of paper above their heads.

“Tessie,” Mr. Summers said. There was a pause, and then Mr. Summers looked at Bill Hutchinson, and Bill unfolded his paper and showed it. It was blank.

“It’s Tessie,” Mr. Summers said, and his voice was hushed. “Show us her paper, Bill.”

Bill Hutchinson went over to his wife and forced the slip of paper out of her hand. It had a black spot on it, the black spot Mr. Summers had made the night before with the heavy pencil in the coal-company office. Bill Hutchinson held it up, and there was a stir in the crowd.

“All right, folks,” Mr. Summers said. “Let’s finish quickly.”

Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones. The pile of stones the boys had made earlier was ready; there were stones on the ground with the blowing scraps of paper that had come out of the box. Mrs. Delacroix selected a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands and turned to Mrs. Dunbar. “Come on,” she said. “Hurry up.”

Mrs. Dunbar had small stones in both hands, and she said, gasping for breath. “I can’t run at all. You’ll have to go ahead and I’ll catch up with you.”

The children had stones already, and someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles.

Tessie Hutchinson was in the center of a cleared space by now, and she held her hands out desperately as the villagers moved in on her. “It isn’t fair,” she said. A stone hit her on the side of the head.

Old Man Warner was saying, “Come on, come on, everyone.” Steve Adams was in the front of the crowd of villagers, with Mrs. Graves beside him.

“It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,” Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

Why facts don’t change our minds .

The tricks rich people use to avoid taxes .

The man who spent forty-two years at the Beverly Hills Hotel pool .

How did polyamory get so popular ?

The ghostwriter who regrets working for Donald Trump .

Snoozers are, in fact, losers .

Fiction by Jamaica Kincaid: “Girl”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

Books & Fiction

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Kyle Chayka

The Lottery

Shirley jackson, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions, tessie hutchinson, davy hutchinson, mr. joe summers, old man warner, mrs. janey dunbar.

Jack Watson

The Vietnam War Draft: a Tumultuous Chapter in American History

This essay about the Vietnam War draft examines its significant role and controversial impact on American society during the tumultuous period of the Vietnam War. It outlines how the draft system, designed to enlist individuals into the military, sparked widespread protests and highlighted deep societal divisions, particularly concerning social inequality. The essay discusses the draft’s lottery system, which disproportionately affected lower-income and minority groups, fueling dissent and leading to a broad youth movement against the war and conscription practices. Furthermore, it explores the draft’s lasting effects, including the shift to an all-volunteer force and a more questioning attitude towards government policies and military involvement. By analyzing the draft’s influence on both the home front and policy reform, the essay underscores the profound changes it brought to American political and social landscapes, emphasizing its role in shaping a critical and questioning approach to governance and military service in the United States.

How it works

The Vietnam Conflict, an epochal yet contentious epoch in American chronicles, is underscored by myriad intricate quandaries, amidst which the conscription system emerges as a salient facet for its profound ramifications on American society. The draft, formally denominated as Selective Service, served as a conduit for enrolling individuals into the military during the Vietnam Conflict. This mechanism not only bolstered the war endeavor but also ignited one of the most momentous domestic controversies of the twentieth century, precipitating widespread dissent, profound societal schisms, and a reevaluation of military commitment in the United States.

The Vietnam Conflict draft functioned via a lottery apparatus, wherein the birthdates of young men were randomly drawn to ascertain the sequence of summons to military duty. This modus operandi aimed to engender a more equitable procedure, yet it encountered substantial censure for its implementation and perceived inequities. Many contended that the draft disproportionately impacted socioeconomically disadvantaged and marginalized groups, as those with financial means or collegiate obligations frequently secured exemptions or deferments. This disparity underscored underlying societal disparities, fueling the burgeoning opposition against the war and the conscription system.

The resistance to the Vietnam Conflict draft galvanized a significant youth movement, characterized by mass demonstrations, draft card conflagrations, and conscientious dissent. This mobilization was not solely directed against the draft but also mirrored broader discontent with the war itself and the governmental foreign policy choices. The opposition amalgamated a diverse array of activists, encompassing students, civil rights proponents, and pacifists, who interrogated the morality of the war and the ethics of compulsory military service. Their endeavors, frequently disseminated nationwide, played a pivotal role in reshaping public sentiment and ultimately influencing policy alterations.

One of the enduring legacies of the Vietnam Conflict draft was its impact on the American psyche and policy reform. The draft’s controversies contributed to the cessation of the conscription system in 1973, heralding the advent of an all-volunteer military, which endures to this day. This transition denoted a momentous shift in the United States’ approach to military commitment, accentuating voluntarism over compulsion. Additionally, the draft and the dissent it instigated nurtured a more scrutinizing and inquisitive outlook toward governmental policies and military interventions, a bequest that continues to shape American political and societal cogitation.

In summation, the Vietnam Conflict draft transcended mere military recruitment methodology; it served as a catalyst for profound societal metamorphosis and a focal point of national discourse. The draft’s reverberations extended beyond the battlefields of Vietnam, impacting the lives of myriad individuals domestically and molding the trajectory of American chronicles. It precipitated a reevaluation of principles, policies, and the very fabric of society, imprinting an enduring impression on the collective recollection of the nation. The Vietnam Conflict draft thus endures as a poignant testament to the intricacies of warfare, the potency of public dissent, and the perennial quest for justice and parity in American society.

Cite this page

The Vietnam War Draft: A Tumultuous Chapter in American History. (2024, Apr 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-vietnam-war-draft-a-tumultuous-chapter-in-american-history/

"The Vietnam War Draft: A Tumultuous Chapter in American History." PapersOwl.com , 1 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-vietnam-war-draft-a-tumultuous-chapter-in-american-history/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Vietnam War Draft: A Tumultuous Chapter in American History . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-vietnam-war-draft-a-tumultuous-chapter-in-american-history/ [Accessed: 12 Apr. 2024]

"The Vietnam War Draft: A Tumultuous Chapter in American History." PapersOwl.com, Apr 01, 2024. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-vietnam-war-draft-a-tumultuous-chapter-in-american-history/

"The Vietnam War Draft: A Tumultuous Chapter in American History," PapersOwl.com , 01-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-vietnam-war-draft-a-tumultuous-chapter-in-american-history/. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Vietnam War Draft: A Tumultuous Chapter in American History . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-vietnam-war-draft-a-tumultuous-chapter-in-american-history/ [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Two-State Solution Is an Unjust, Impossible Fantasy

By Tareq Baconi

Mr. Baconi is the author of “Hamas Contained” and the president of the board of al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network.

After 176 days, Israel’s assault on Gaza has not stopped and has expanded into what Human Rights Watch has declared to be a policy of starvation as a weapon of war. More than 32,000 Palestinians have been killed, and the international community has reverted to a deeply familiar call for a two-state solution, under which Palestinians and Israelis can coexist in peace and security. President Biden even declared “the only real solution is a two-state solution” in his State of the Union address last month.

But the call rings hollow. The language that surrounds a two-state solution has lost all meaning. Over the years, I’ve encountered many Western diplomats who privately roll their eyes at the prospect of two states — given Israel’s staunch opposition to it, the lack of interest in the West in exerting enough pressure on Israel to change its behavior and Palestinian political ossification — even as their politicians repeat the phrase ad nauseam. Yet in the shadow of what the International Court of Justice has said could plausibly be genocide, everyone has returned to the chorus line, stressing that the gravity of the situation means that this time will be different.

It will not be. Repeating the two-state solution mantra has allowed policymakers to avoid confronting the reality that partition is unattainable in the case of Israel and Palestine, and illegitimate as an arrangement originally imposed on Palestinians without their consent in 1947. And fundamentally, the concept of the two-state solution has evolved to become a central pillar of sustaining Palestinian subjugation and Israeli impunity. The idea of two states as a pathway to justice has in and of itself normalized the daily violence meted out against Palestinians by Israel’s regime of apartheid.

The circumstances facing Palestinians before Oct. 7, 2023, exemplified how deadly the status quo had become. In 2022, Israeli violence killed at least 34 Palestinian children in the West Bank, the most in 15 years, and by mid-2023, that rate was on track to exceed those levels. Yet the Biden administration still saw fit to further legitimize Israel, expanding its diplomatic relations in the region and rewarding it with a U.S. visa waiver . Palestine was largely absent from the international agenda until Israeli Jews were killed on Oct. 7. The fact that Israel and its allies were ill prepared for any kind of challenge to Israeli rule underscores just how invisible the Palestinians were and how sustainable their oppression was deemed to be on the global stage.

This moment of historical rupture offers blood-soaked proof that policies to date have failed, yet countries seek to resurrect them all the same. Instead of taking measures showing a genuine commitment to peace — like meaningfully pressuring Israel to end settlement building and lift the blockade on Gaza or discontinuing America’s expansive military support — Washington is doing the opposite. The United States has aggressively wielded its use of its veto at the United Nations Security Council, and even when it abstains, as it did in the recent vote leading to the first resolution for a cease-fire since Oct. 7, it claims such resolutions are nonbinding. The United States is funding Israel’s military while defunding the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, a critical institution for Palestinians, bolstering the deeply unpopular and illegitimate Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians now consider to be a subcontractor to the occupation, and subverting international law by limiting avenues of accountability for Israel. In effect, these actions safeguard Israeli impunity.

The vacuity of the two-state solution mantra is most obvious in how often policymakers speak of recognizing a Palestinian state without discussing an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Quite the contrary: With the United States reportedly exploring initiatives to recognize Palestinian statehood, it is simultaneously defending Israel’s prolonged occupation at the International Court of Justice, arguing that Israel faces “very real security needs” that justify its continued control over Palestinian territories.

What might explain this seeming contradiction?

The concept of partition has long been used as a blunt policy tool by colonial powers to manage the affairs of their colonies, and Palestine was no exception. The Zionist movement emerged within the era of European colonialism and was given its most important imprimatur by the British Empire. The Balfour Declaration, issued by the British in 1917, called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine without adequately accounting for the Palestinians who constituted a vast majority in the region and whom Balfour referred to simply as “non-Jewish communities.” This declaration was then imposed on the Palestinians, who by 1922 had become Britain’s colonized subjects and were not asked to give consent to the partitioning of their homeland. Three decades later, the United Nations institutionalized partition with the passage of the 1947 plan, which called for partitioning Palestine into two independent states, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish.

All of Palestine’s neighboring countries in the Middle East and North Africa that had achieved independence from their colonial rulers and joined the United Nations voted against the 1947 plan. The Palestinians were not formally considered in a vote that many saw as illegitimate; it partitioned their homeland to accommodate Zionist immigration, which they had resisted from the onset. The Palestine Liberation Organization, established more than a decade later, formalized this opposition, insisting that Palestine as defined within the boundaries that existed during the British Mandate was “an indivisible territorial unit”; it forcefully refused two states and by the late 1970s was fighting for a secular, democratic state. By the 1980s, however, the P.L.O. chairman, Yasir Arafat, along with most of the organization’s leadership, had come to accept that partition was the pragmatic choice, and many Palestinians who had by then been ground down by the machinery of the occupation accepted it as a way of achieving separateness from Israeli settlers and the creation of their own state.

It took more than three decades for Palestinians to understand that separateness would never come, that the goal of this policy was to maintain the illusion of partition in some distant future indefinitely. In that twilight zone, Israel’s expansionist violence increased and became more forthright, as Israeli leaders became more brazen in their commitment to full control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Israel also relied on discredited Palestinian leaders to sustain their control — primarily those who lead the Palestinian Authority and who collaborate with Israel’s machinations and make do with nonsovereign, noncontiguous Bantustans that never challenge Israel’s overarching domination. This kind of demographic engineering, which entails geographic isolation of unwanted populations behind walls, is central to apartheid regimes. Repeating the aspiration for two states and arguing that partition remains viable presents Israel as a Jewish and democratic state — separate from its occupation — giving it a veneer of palatability and obfuscating the reality that it rules over more non-Jews than Jews .

Seen in this light, the failed attempts at a two-state solution are not a failure for Israel at all but a resounding success, as they have fortified Israel’s grip over this territory while peace negotiations ebbed and flowed but never concluded. In recent years, international and Israeli human rights organizations have acknowledged what many Palestinians have long argued: that Israel is a perpetrator of apartheid. B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, concluded that Israel is a singular regime of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea.

Now, with international attention once again focused on the region, many Palestinians understand the dangers of discussing partition, even as a pragmatic option. Many refuse to resuscitate this hollowed-out policy-speak. In a message recently published anonymously, a group of Palestinians on the ground and in the diaspora state wrote: “The partition of Palestine is nothing but a legitimation of Zionism, a betrayal of our people and the final completion of the nakba,” or catastrophe, which refers to the expulsion and flight of about 750,000 Palestinians with Israel’s founding. “Our liberation can only be achieved through a unity of struggle, built upon a unity of people and a unity of land.”

For them, the Palestinian state that their inept leaders continue to peddle, even if achievable, would fail to undo the fact that Palestinian refugees are unable to return to their homes, now in Israel, and that Palestinian citizens of Israel would continue to reside as second-class citizens within a so-called Jewish state.

Global powers might choose to ignore this sentiment as unrealistic, if they even take note of it. They might also choose to ignore Israeli rejection of a two-state solution, as Israeli leaders drop any pretenses and explicitly oppose any pathway to Palestinian statehood. As recently as January, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River.” He added, “That collides with the idea of sovereignty. What can we do?”

And yet the two-state solution continues to be at the forefront for policymakers who have returned to contorting the reality of an expansionist regime into a policy prescription they can hold on to. They cycle through provisions that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized, that Israel will maintain security oversight, that not every state in the world has the same level of sovereignty. It is like watching a century of failure, culminating in the train wreck of the peace process, replay itself in the span of the past five months.

This will not be the first time that Palestinian demands are not taken into account as far as their own future is concerned. But all policymakers should heed the lesson of Oct. 7: There will be neither peace nor justice while Palestinians are subjugated behind walls and under Israeli domination.

A single state from the river to the sea might appear unrealistic or fantastical or a recipe for further bloodshed. But it is the only state that exists in the real world — not in the fantasies of policymakers. The question, then, is: How can it be transformed into one that is just?

Source photographs by Jose A. Bernat Bacete, Daily Herald Archive and Lior Mizrahi, via Getty Images.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Ukraine invasion — explained

The roots of Russia's invasion of Ukraine go back decades and run deep. The current conflict is more than one country fighting to take over another; it is — in the words of one U.S. official — a shift in "the world order." Here are some helpful stories to make sense of it all.

In a 4-hour press conference, a confident Putin vows the Ukraine war will go on

Charles Maynes

Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures during his combined call-in-show and annual press conference, on Dec. 14, in Moscow, Russia. Contributor/Getty Images hide caption

Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures during his combined call-in-show and annual press conference, on Dec. 14, in Moscow, Russia.

MOSCOW — In a year-end, televised event, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed confidence in Russia's ultimate victory over Ukraine – insisting Russia would press on with the war until Kyiv either bowed to Russian demands of neutrality or faced defeat on the battlefield.

"Either we get an agreement" with Kyiv, said Putin, "or we solve this by force."

Ukraine is trying to keep its lights on this winter. Russia aims to turn them off

Putin's comments came amid a marathon four-hour press conference that the Kremlin leader combined with a so-called "direct line" call-in program for Russians.

The event was the first time Putin has fielded extended questions from either journalists or the public since he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Putin also made his first public comments about Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been in Russian custody since March.

The press conference — which included clearly choreographed moments of praise for the Russian leader — also came just days after the Putin announced he would stand for a fifth term in office when Russia holds elections next March.

Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich stands in a glass cage in a courtroom at the Moscow City Court on Thursday. The court upheld an earlier ruling to hold Gershkovich in pre-trial detention until at least Jan. 30, 2024. Dmitry Serebryakov/AP hide caption

Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich stands in a glass cage in a courtroom at the Moscow City Court on Thursday. The court upheld an earlier ruling to hold Gershkovich in pre-trial detention until at least Jan. 30, 2024.

With nearly all participating candidates openly supportive of Putin's wartime policies and would-be critics in exile or jail, Putin is universally expected to remain in power.

The war will go on

Putin's performance seemed timed to reflect Russia's growing confidence about the war effort in Ukraine.

Indeed, the mere fact that Putin was on stage suggested it: the Kremlin repeatedly postponed and eventually canceled last year's event amid repeated setbacks for Russian forces on the battlefield and an unpopular mobilization drive.

Zelenskyy is making a last-ditch push to get more U.S. weapons and aid for Ukraine

This year, in contrast, Putin pointed to Kyiv's recent stalled counteroffensive — and waning U.S. political support — as signs that a Russian victory was all but inevitable.

"Almost along the entire front line, our armed forces, let's put it modestly, are improving their position," said Putin.

Putin claimed that Russia now has more than 600,000 soldiers currently serving in the war zone and assured his public that another wave of mobilization was unnecessary.

Yet when asked about the prospect for peace, Putin vowed it would only come following the full "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine – two stated Kremlin objectives at the outset of the war.

Residents stand near their apartment building, damaged during a Russian missile strike in Ukraine's capital Kyiv. Dozens were injured during the early hours of Dec. 13 after air defense systems intercepted incoming Russian ballistic targets. Oleksii Chumachenko/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images hide caption

Residents stand near their apartment building, damaged during a Russian missile strike in Ukraine's capital Kyiv. Dozens were injured during the early hours of Dec. 13 after air defense systems intercepted incoming Russian ballistic targets.

"There will be peace when we achieve our goals," said the Kremlin leader.

He also basked in recent projections Russia's wartime economy would grow by 3.5%, despite nearly two years of punishing Western sanctions.

The Two-Way

'why do you have this spy hysteria' putin asks at annual news conference.

"Those who thought that everything here would crash have been sorely disappointed," said Putin.

"Difficult" talks with the U.S. continue over American prisoners, Putin said

Putin also commented on the continued detention of Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal's Moscow-based correspondent, who was arrested last March on espionage charges while on a reporting assignment in Russia's Ural mountains.

"You say why not return them to their homeland? Well, why then did they violate laws on Russian territory?" said Putin, when asked a question about freeing both Gershkovich and former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, another American currently in jail on a spying-related charge.

Putin insisted Moscow had "not refused" a deal during recent prisoner swap negotiations that the White House insisted broke down over Russian objections.

Rather, Putin acknowledged "difficult" talks with the U.S. were ongoing, but claimed a deal acceptable to both sides had yet to be reached.

"I hope we find a solution," said Putin. "But, I repeat, the American side must hear us and make an appropriate decision, one that suits the Russian side."

Putin's comments came as a Moscow court upheld an earlier court ruling to hold Gershkovich in pre-trial detention until at least Jan. 30, 2024.

Whelan is currently serving a 16-year sentence in a remote Russian prison colony.

The U.S. maintains both men are "wrongfully detained."

"Although Evan appeared as sharp and focused as ever today in the courtroom, it is unacceptable that Russian authorities have chosen to use him as a political pawn," said U.S. Ambassador to Russia Lynne Tracy in a statement following Thursday's hearing.

"As the holidays approach, our thoughts are with Evan and Paul Whelan, as well as their families, friends, and colleagues," said Tracy. "Both of these men deserve to be at home with their families."

Questions from the public gave Putin a chance to engage in something akin to retail politics

Coming in the wake of Putin's announcement that he will seek reelection in March, the press conference had the air of a campaign event.

Putin stuck to by now familiar themes, such as Russia as a bulwark of conservative traditional values – arguing that Russia, rather than being isolated, was leading a global movement against a decadent, liberal West.

"In many cities of Europe and the U.S., not to mention other parts of the world, a lot of people around the world think we're doing things just right," said Putin.

Questions from the Russian public also offered the Kremlin leader a chance to engage in something akin to retail politics, as Putin seeks to extend his 24-year hold on power.

"What are you reading?" went one question. Putin's answer: the 19th-century Russian poet and novelist Mikhail Lermontov , often referred to as the poet of the Caucasus, after the setting of much of his work.

"What did you want to be, growing up?" was another question.

"An intelligence officer. And I became one," answered Putin, a former KGB officer.

Russians had also submitted videos pleading with Putin to intercede on issues such as a lack of heating, hot water, rotting infrastructure and inflation.

In one video, a pensioner from the southern region of Krasnodar asked Putin — addressing him as "my dear president" — to look into a recent spike in the price of eggs.

Putin acknowledged the government had failed to address the issue properly and vowed to do better. "Putin apologizes for higher egg prices," immediately read the headline on a national newspaper's website.

Meanwhile, less comfortable text messages occasionally flashed on a back wall screen and across social media.

"Tell us, when will our lives get better?" read one.

"Why is your 'reality' different from our lived reality?" asked another.

Putin made no indication he saw them.

"We all support your decision to participate in the elections next year," said Alexander Orlov, a young TV reporter from the Russian Far East as he prefaced a query about government investment in his native, remote Kolyma region.

"Because as long as I can remember," added Orlov with a nervous laugh, "you've been in power."

• year-end press conference
• Russia-Ukraine war
• russian president vladimir putin