I used to be a pretty big fan of BJG (called in a few times), I still listen to her podcast too… but honestly don’t waste your money on her show. It’s become absolutely deranged over the last few years.
So two bad faith actors on Gaza have a good faith debate on the bad faith of others. That about sums up how tone deaf both pundents are on this topic. I'm willing to bet the bad faith of BGJ accusing Israeli women of making up rape to steal Palestinian land or her calling Konstantine Kissen racist because she didn't like how he moderated the debate she had with Eli Lake will not come up. I'm also willing to be the fact Glenn chose Tucker Carlson, the definition of bad faith pundentry to air his grievances will not come up either. What a clown show.
Michael, I usually agree a lot with you. But between this post and the Carlson post, you seem like being anti-Israel for a Jewish person is akin to being a “race-traitor” or “Uncle Tom” for a black person. I think (hope) you’d agree calling a black person those names because they don’t agree with you on race would be bad. Why is it okay to do it about being Jewish? Or more aptly supporting Israel? Because in my mind those are two very separate things.
Honestly, this whole conversation makes me wonder if being Jewish does mean a connection with Israel is stronger than a connection with the US. Is that perhaps the big divide? Is it religion that trumps all? Or we set aside religion and be something like “values first”?
Amy, I'm sorry, I don't completely follow your question. I'll address what I think I understand. First, neither Glenn nor BGJ are Jewish - so I don't understand what relation their being anti Israel would have to bring a Race Trator or an Uncle Tom.
Regarding Jews who are anti Israel: I think if a Jew wants to not care about Israel that is one thing. I think it is another - and disingenuous thing - when they invoke "their Judaism" as cover or justification for advocating for the destruction of the only Jewish country in the world. As Eli Lake calls them, the "as a Jew," Jews. When a person disregards (and often denigrates) their religion for years but only finds it worthwhile to identify with it for the cause of destroying (and giving cover for it) the only Jewish country in the world I view that as despicable and disingenuous.
Yes, I agree regarding how Race-trator and Uncle Tom are commonly used today, I would not agree with how they are used. However, a black person advocating for the idea every country is entitled to sovereignty but the black one; or one who is indifferent to black suffering or worse, specifically advocats for it would be a person who despised his race. Do you disagree?
I myself am not a Zionist, but I'm not anti Israel. I think the land is the Holy Land, and I love the Jewish people but I don't agree with the ideology of secular or religious Zionism. However, I obviously still care for the Jews in Israel and want that is best for them. My point is, yes, being Jewish and supporting Israel are two different things. However, not supporting it (Israel) and advocating for its destruction are also two separate things.
Regarding your last point it comes across to me as a forced choice. Love Israel or love America. Why not both, especially since both countries are allies and share Western values. I think you're forcing a religious conflict where it doesn't exist. Many Christians in America consider Israel the Holy Land, yet are very patriotic and many Jewish supporters of Israel are secular (Jew and non Jew) but ground their support in common Western values.
<< Now, it looks like experts are expecting Israel to drag us into war with Iran and bring on recession and provoking Iran to do something desperate.>>
Iran was planning on genociding Israel, so not sure what would be more desperate than that unless you are ok with Iran nuking Israel.
The experts I follow are stunned how Israel is succeeding and are confident even if if USA helps finishing off the nuclear capabilities of Iran that it will not drag USA into a "forever war." No serious expert I am aware of thinks this is the next Iraq.
<< Sigh. It looks like the Iraq war all over again, but worse. I hope not.>>
In what why is it similar? Who is trying to nation build?
<< My point was not just that many supporters of Israel (I’d like to say Zionists, but at this point that word is so loaded I won’t, because I don’t mean all the extra ugly nonsense people have added to it) don’t just treat Palestinians as a monolith. For one thing, it is clear that a good number of people think each Israeli life just matters more than each Palestinian (and Iranian and Lebanese and Syrian life).>>
In what sense, and what are you basing this accusation on?
<< When you add that to the belief that all Palestinians (et cetera) are the enemy (or aligned with the enemy, complicit with the enemy) you will see self defense, where another would be punishment (in this case collective punishment). You say Israel doesn’t “target” churches and mosques, but they keep getting hit. So we are supposed to believe both that Israel has amazing precision and intelligence (and should therefore be trusted) and at the same time not responsible for who their weapons kill. I don’t see both being possible at the same time.>>
Said locations keep getting targeted because they keep getting used. They target the terrorists in the church/mosque - I don't see why you think there is a disconnect here.
<< You can perhaps argue that Hamas hides in Mosques, I find it a hard sell that an Islamist death cult is sheltering in an orthodox Christian church, let alone doing attacks out of it. >>
I'm sorry, this view of Hamas is extremely naive. They have no qualms for using mosques for shelter, how much more so would they not care about using a structure they think holds no sanctity.
<<As a side note, in the first weekend of bombing Iran Israel hit a hospital in the capital of Iran. It’s hard to just fall back on they weren’t “targeting”>>
Please share your source for this.
<< for that matter targeting 10 scientists (not military) because they were working on nuclear stuff is pretty chilling. >>
Not true. Working on a nuclear bomb is military .
<<I mean, the men who worked on the Manhattan Project are considered national treasures/heroes, if they had been assassinated by say, Japan, the country would have been incensed!>>
If Japan knew we were going to develop and drop a necular bomb on them and they had the capabilities that Israel has had an eliminating nuclear scientists do you think they would not have done the same?
Yes, we would have been incensed - because we would have been attacked. Like Japan, Iran was an aggressor. I'm sorry, but this was a poor choice to illustrate your point..
<< I don’t know if you know anyone from Iran, but the Persian people are *proud*. This is not going to end well. I hope I clarified my point.>>
I do know people from Iran. They support Israel. This may not end well, but however bad it ends (and as you probably know, I think your concerns are grossly exaggerated), I doubt it would be any worse than Israel being annihilated from existence by nuclear weapons. That is, unless you are ok with that.
Also, as for American vs religion being a forced choice, I don’t think that’s true. Most people who are mad at Israel in America aren’t mad that there is an Israel, it’s that what they are doing with our aid, support and weapons puts a target on us. Or that they would rather not feel complicit in what is going on. You can say that women and children aren’t being targeted, but when you kill terrorists at home with their families… well, to some that is a distinction without a difference. It also calls into question the IDF claim that one civilian for one combatant is being killed, when an entire household or even apartment building is taken down.
In good times, what your priorities are doesn’t matter, maybe. But in times of conflict you do have to decide your priorities. Listening to Bari Weiss (no idea how representative her thinking is) Israel needs to be protected so that she, as a Jew, always has a safe place. That strikes me as weird. I don’t have a safe place, I have America and my job as a citizen is do what I can to keep it safe — for myself and others. Having one foot here and another foot somewhere else seems like an inherent conflict. Am I wrong?
Thank you for answering my question so directly and respectfully.
I don’t think the issue is *that* there is a Jewish state but whether any state has the moral right to do whatever it wants and further if as Americans we want to fund it. I quite agree with Beinart, who is quite religious, that the issue is about the credibility of Israel going forward. I, by the way, am not of any religious persuasion. But from a humanist perspective, one group treating another group poorly should be subject to criticism, right?
As far as I understand it, Christians who are Zionists mostly do that because they think it’ll bring about the end times. I’ve never quite understood how any Jew would want that support, but I’m pretty naive, I guess.
Okay, so I understand the whole “as a Jew” Jew label and hostility for someone who doesn’t practice the faith, but for say Beinart, who is very devout and has just changed his perspective, how does he not deserve to be listened to? And at least considered, instead being met with rage?
Thank you for your good faith questions. I also wanted to thank you for your respectful pushback and acknowledgement of my good faith efforts. I'm putting your questions in brackets below ....
<<I don’t think the issue is *that* there is a Jewish state but whether any state has the moral right to do whatever it wants and further if as Americans we want to fund it. >>
I disagree. There are many critics of Israel who think that every country is entitled to it's own sovereignty but the Jewish one. Beinart is of the aforementioned persuasion. I certainly agree that Americans who don't want to fund foreign wars are not automatically in opposition to the countries where the foreign aid is being used. On the other hand, when I see people ignoring America acting in similar ways with other countries but focus only on Israel - that is indicative of something. I also think if a person is constantly crowing about American interests but is completely silent regarding American hostages being held overseas that is also indicative of something other than someone concerned purely about American interests.
<< I quite agree with Beinart, who is quite religious, that the issue is about the credibility of Israel going forward. I, by the way, am not of any religious persuasion. But from a humanist perspective, one group treating another group poorly should be subject to criticism, right? >>
I disagree with you here on a multitude of levels. First, by what standard is Beinart "quite religious?" As an Orthodox Jew, I know plenty of atheist Jews who attend Orthodox synagogues, culturally keep kosher, and even send their kids to Jewish day school. In his interview with Glenn he made the Jews out to be the villains of the Purim story and He doesn't consider synagogue desecration anti-Semitism because he maintains his synagogues or institutions of Zionism.
I agree people treating another group poorly deserve criticism. In the same vein, there is a war going on started by Hamas, whom were elected by the Palestinians, who are still keeping Israelis captive in Gaza - so - I think the IDF is open to criticism but I also think ingoring the context that a war is going on with in many cases with no good options available is also susceptible to being critiqued. Do you disagree?
<< As far as I understand it, Christians who are Zionists mostly do that because they think it’ll bring about the end times. I’ve never quite understood how any Jew would want that support, but I’m pretty naive, I guess. >>
Sorry, but this mischaracterization of Christian support for Israel is not only largely inaccurate, it is also shallow and insulting. Are there some Christians who are shallow in their belief and place disproportionate emphasis on the end times in relation to their support of Israel? Sure. However, by and large Christians appreciate Israel because it is rooted in the Bible in which they believe, and they are supportive of the Jewish people as they believe in the biblical description of G-d's love for His chosen Nation. If one considers that most of the world hate or are indifferent to the Jewish people we should appreciate any support we receive. This is true if it (love of the Jewish people) is not always for its own sake (I am definitely not saying this is normally the case).
<<Okay, so I understand the whole “as a Jew” Jew label and hostility for someone who doesn’t practice the faith, but for say Beinart, who is very devout and has just changed his perspective, how does he not deserve to be listened to? And at least considered, instead being met with rage?>>
I agree his points should be listened to and condented with. The rage I have for him in particular is he is disingenuous and manipulative. If he is misquoting Jewish sources for nefarious purposes (he is) and is indifferent to how his "salvation plan" will effect Israelis (he is) that, to me at least, calls his devotion into question. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the logic of his arguments in general in the Loury interview and particularly unimpressed with his Jewish knowledge. In his interview with Noam Dorman, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Palestinian activist who opposes Hamas and acknowledges that Israel is here to stay whatever one's opinion of it might be, mentioned Beinart treats him like an enemy because of his opposition to the shallow, odious, and dangerous form of activism that Beinart supports. People are judged (or should be) by the company they keep, and if they make cause, as Dave Smith does with Jew haters like Shields, Owens, and Fuentes because of their common anti Israel causes that should be shunned for it. The same goes for the camp Beinart has put himself in which is not as anti semitic as the aforementioned chevra, but the sanitizing of the demonization of Israel he (and his fellow travelers: Glenn Greenwald, BGJ, Norman Finkelstein, Ta Nahasi Coats, and now Glenn Loury) is responsible for is repulsive to me - hence the rage. I'm sorry, but the common failure to make a distinction between criticizing a country in legitimate terms and demonizing them is something I continue to be astounded by. If you care about someone (or a group) legitimate criticism is something used to make them better and support them; what you have been seeing from the aforementioned people is not criticism to improve Israel (though Glen Loury disingenuously suggest that it is) but an argument to destroy it. Just imagine that relationship with a spouse: constructive criticism is something you do to help the person because you care about them, destructive criticism is a toxic relationship where you don't care about the person anymore.
<<Also, as for American vs religion being a forced choice, I don’t think that’s true. Most people who are mad at Israel in America aren’t mad that there is an Israel, it’s that what they are doing with our aid, support and weapons puts a target on us.>>
I disagree. People don't single out Israel from all the other countries that America has a relationship with because the American-Israeli relationship would put a target on America. The only targets that we have on us are from people who want to destroy the West, and I think we should wear the target with a badge of honor. When Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China chant death to America or target America it is not do to our support for Israel, instead it is our support for Western Civilization.
<< You can say that women and children aren’t being targeted, but when you kill terrorists at home with their families… well, to some that is a distinction without a difference. It also calls into question the IDF claim that one civilian for one combatant is being killed, when an entire household or even apartment building is taken down. >>
Urban war experts John Spencer of West Point and Andrew Fox of the Henry Jackson Society have in my opinion given convincing arguments that the IDF is fighting as ethical of a war as it can considering the circumstances.
<<In good times, what your priorities are doesn’t matter, maybe. But in times of conflict you do have to decide your priorities. Listening to Bari Weiss (no idea how representative her thinking is) Israel needs to be protected so that she, as a Jew, always has a safe place. That strikes me as weird. I don’t have a safe place, I have America and my job as a citizen is do what I can to keep it safe — for myself and others. Having one foot here and another foot somewhere else seems like an inherent conflict. Am I wrong?>>
I would have to see the comments that she made to judge for myself if she intended what you are suggesting that she did. I have listened to her enough to know that she is an exceptional American Patriot and that her acknowledging Israel is the only place on earth where Jewish people will always have their backs covered by their countrymen is not a description of having one foot here and when put somewhere else. I will also say that Douglas Murray, who I don't think anyone would claim of him not being an English Patriot recently wrote an entire book on the importance of Western Civilization understanding the importance of Israel. If you have not read it already, I recommend that you do. It is certainly a worthwhile read.
Thank you for explaining that at such depth. I want to say too, that I know this is probably a much more emotional and consequential issue for you than it is for me. Further, you are right, I have no idea about Beinart true faithfulness, so I will stay away from that. I notice the places where it’s hard to actually have a direct conversation (beyond deep emotions) is a battle between facts and experts and perceptions of other people’s opinions. A lot of conversation ends up with discrediting your experts and putting forward alternatives with views I agree with more. That seems to be a path to nowhere except frustration and hard feelings.
I’m resisting going point by point with you, but these comments would ridiculously long and sooner or later our pleasant back and forth would probably stray from that. How many people have been killed? Is the IDF really doing the best they can to avoid civilian deaths? Neither of us really know, time will tell. The history of the region is complicated with many years of grievances on both sides. What do other people think and what are their motives? There are people we can pick to make any point we wish, right? For the record, I have never heard the argument that every country has the right to self defense except Israel. Usually, everyone just is happy for their own country have extra rights to self defense. And as far as I know, all the American hostages have been released.
I will say from my perspective it is hard to see “war” in what is going on in Gaza, because it is so one sided. I noticed that people younger than me (I’m 48) tend to support the Palestinians more and people that are older tend to support Israel. From my own life I think there are two reasons, 1) more people were like me growing up personally knowing more Arabs/Muslims than religious Jews and 2) that the violence (specifically death tolls) are increasingly lopsided. You mentioned demonizing language (against Jewish people) but maybe don’t notice how much supporters of Israel use that kind of language about Palestinians. As inflamed as you are from your perspective I know there is a mirror image of that in Americans who feel kindred with those dying in Gaza.
Thank you again for your good faith push back. Again, my response to your comments is below the bracketed response ...
<<I notice the places where it’s hard to actually have a direct conversation (beyond deep emotions) is a battle between facts and experts and perceptions of other people’s opinions. A lot of conversation ends up with discrediting your experts and putting forward alternatives with views I agree with more. That seems to be a path to nowhere except frustration and hard feelings.>>
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think if the debate is between two good faith actors - even if it doesn't go anywhere and ends up in frustration I don't think it will end up in hard feelings. I will also point out if people want to try to better understand their perspective of what's going on I don't know of a better way than challenging themselves engaging with people who have different opinions and slight different experts and evidence. I don't think there is a better way getting to the truth of the matter than what I described with also a good amount of research, do you?
<<How many people have been killed? Is the IDF really doing the best they can to avoid civilian deaths? Neither of us really know, time will tell. The history of the region is complicated with many years of grievances on both sides. What do other people think and what are their motives? There are people we can pick to make any point we wish, right?>>
It is true that people can pick out whoever they want to make their points, but I think good faith actors who are interested in getting to the truth try to be responsible in how they pursue that goal.
<< For the record, I have never heard the argument that every country has the right to self defense except Israel. Usually, everyone just is happy for their own country have extra rights to self defense. >>
As someone who's very involved and has done a lot of research I can tell you it's extremely prevalent that people who oppose Israel not only think Israel doesn't have a right to self-defense, they don't even think Israel has a right to exist. The people who have this opinion are not hiding the ball on this.
<<And as far as I know, all the American hostages have been released. I will say from my perspective it is hard to see “war” in what is going on in Gaza, because it is so one sided. I noticed that people younger than me (I’m 48) tend to support the Palestinians more and people that are older tend to support Israel. From my own life I think there are two reasons, 1) more people were like me growing up personally knowing more Arabs/Muslims than religious Jews and 2) that the violence (specifically death tolls) are increasingly lopsided.>>
I agree with you on point number 2. However, I think other factors are a college system in America and abroad that has put the demonization of Israel into their curriculum as well as the fact that Israel does a poor job at PR.
Regarding lopsided death tolls - I'm not aware of a serious argument that lopsided death tolls determine the legitimately of warfare. When people ignore the context that higher death tolls are PART OF THE STRATEGY OF HAMAS and blame Israel instead of Hamas they are not only showing poor understanding of what is happening in Gaza but also empowering Hamas.
<< You mentioned demonizing language (against Jewish people) but maybe don’t notice how much supporters of Israel use that kind of language about Palestinians. As inflamed as you are from your perspective I know there is a mirror image of that in Americans who feel kindred with those dying in Gaza. Thank you again for your time and civility.>>
The language I was specifically referencing was lying about Israel claiming that it is Israeli war policy to try and kill innocent women and children. If someone applied it to Hamas - a terrorist group - who target innocent civilians as a matter of strategy. No one denies that they do this, not even them. So it is descriptive language when applied to Hamas, not demonizing language.
Hey Glenn i want you in my choir - based on the physical-emotional-intellectual-verbal sonoral (yes i know that's not a word) integrity of your voice at what was counted as 16'-17' on my screen, and your vocal sound around 25:25' between "is that racial" and ... "you know ..are we gonna have to get into an exegesis about...". Such a treat for a sound-movement person such as myself in this time of deafening unembodied verbal ***. AND .... oy ... how to say ..... the brilliant navigation-manipulation of the English language (a language i can barely stomach and actually often hurts my body!! : )) thruout this convo -- i am so refreshed hearing some (imho) actual meaningful CONTENT in verbal exchanges so often purporting-to-be-but-not convo's/conversations that have words in them such as racial, racist... Today fog so thick in this normally sunny mountain forest i can't see anything outside the haus.....this convo rings like a clarion bell here on Memorial Day USA. And will endure. merci bien chi miigwech to you both.
Great conversation. I'm reminded that Clint Smith (How the Word is Passed) wrote a piece about how Germany remembers the Holocaust (compared to how the US remembers slavery). I'm imagining a panel discussion with Clint Smith, Glenn Loury and TNC on remembering slavery and how it should affect our foreign policy.
I used to be a pretty big fan of BJG (called in a few times), I still listen to her podcast too… but honestly don’t waste your money on her show. It’s become absolutely deranged over the last few years.
So two bad faith actors on Gaza have a good faith debate on the bad faith of others. That about sums up how tone deaf both pundents are on this topic. I'm willing to bet the bad faith of BGJ accusing Israeli women of making up rape to steal Palestinian land or her calling Konstantine Kissen racist because she didn't like how he moderated the debate she had with Eli Lake will not come up. I'm also willing to be the fact Glenn chose Tucker Carlson, the definition of bad faith pundentry to air his grievances will not come up either. What a clown show.
Michael, I usually agree a lot with you. But between this post and the Carlson post, you seem like being anti-Israel for a Jewish person is akin to being a “race-traitor” or “Uncle Tom” for a black person. I think (hope) you’d agree calling a black person those names because they don’t agree with you on race would be bad. Why is it okay to do it about being Jewish? Or more aptly supporting Israel? Because in my mind those are two very separate things.
Honestly, this whole conversation makes me wonder if being Jewish does mean a connection with Israel is stronger than a connection with the US. Is that perhaps the big divide? Is it religion that trumps all? Or we set aside religion and be something like “values first”?
Amy, I'm sorry, I don't completely follow your question. I'll address what I think I understand. First, neither Glenn nor BGJ are Jewish - so I don't understand what relation their being anti Israel would have to bring a Race Trator or an Uncle Tom.
Regarding Jews who are anti Israel: I think if a Jew wants to not care about Israel that is one thing. I think it is another - and disingenuous thing - when they invoke "their Judaism" as cover or justification for advocating for the destruction of the only Jewish country in the world. As Eli Lake calls them, the "as a Jew," Jews. When a person disregards (and often denigrates) their religion for years but only finds it worthwhile to identify with it for the cause of destroying (and giving cover for it) the only Jewish country in the world I view that as despicable and disingenuous.
Yes, I agree regarding how Race-trator and Uncle Tom are commonly used today, I would not agree with how they are used. However, a black person advocating for the idea every country is entitled to sovereignty but the black one; or one who is indifferent to black suffering or worse, specifically advocats for it would be a person who despised his race. Do you disagree?
I myself am not a Zionist, but I'm not anti Israel. I think the land is the Holy Land, and I love the Jewish people but I don't agree with the ideology of secular or religious Zionism. However, I obviously still care for the Jews in Israel and want that is best for them. My point is, yes, being Jewish and supporting Israel are two different things. However, not supporting it (Israel) and advocating for its destruction are also two separate things.
Regarding your last point it comes across to me as a forced choice. Love Israel or love America. Why not both, especially since both countries are allies and share Western values. I think you're forcing a religious conflict where it doesn't exist. Many Christians in America consider Israel the Holy Land, yet are very patriotic and many Jewish supporters of Israel are secular (Jew and non Jew) but ground their support in common Western values.
Amy,
Please see my comments below ...
<< Now, it looks like experts are expecting Israel to drag us into war with Iran and bring on recession and provoking Iran to do something desperate.>>
Iran was planning on genociding Israel, so not sure what would be more desperate than that unless you are ok with Iran nuking Israel.
The experts I follow are stunned how Israel is succeeding and are confident even if if USA helps finishing off the nuclear capabilities of Iran that it will not drag USA into a "forever war." No serious expert I am aware of thinks this is the next Iraq.
<< Sigh. It looks like the Iraq war all over again, but worse. I hope not.>>
In what why is it similar? Who is trying to nation build?
<< My point was not just that many supporters of Israel (I’d like to say Zionists, but at this point that word is so loaded I won’t, because I don’t mean all the extra ugly nonsense people have added to it) don’t just treat Palestinians as a monolith. For one thing, it is clear that a good number of people think each Israeli life just matters more than each Palestinian (and Iranian and Lebanese and Syrian life).>>
In what sense, and what are you basing this accusation on?
<< When you add that to the belief that all Palestinians (et cetera) are the enemy (or aligned with the enemy, complicit with the enemy) you will see self defense, where another would be punishment (in this case collective punishment). You say Israel doesn’t “target” churches and mosques, but they keep getting hit. So we are supposed to believe both that Israel has amazing precision and intelligence (and should therefore be trusted) and at the same time not responsible for who their weapons kill. I don’t see both being possible at the same time.>>
Said locations keep getting targeted because they keep getting used. They target the terrorists in the church/mosque - I don't see why you think there is a disconnect here.
<< You can perhaps argue that Hamas hides in Mosques, I find it a hard sell that an Islamist death cult is sheltering in an orthodox Christian church, let alone doing attacks out of it. >>
I'm sorry, this view of Hamas is extremely naive. They have no qualms for using mosques for shelter, how much more so would they not care about using a structure they think holds no sanctity.
<<As a side note, in the first weekend of bombing Iran Israel hit a hospital in the capital of Iran. It’s hard to just fall back on they weren’t “targeting”>>
Please share your source for this.
<< for that matter targeting 10 scientists (not military) because they were working on nuclear stuff is pretty chilling. >>
Not true. Working on a nuclear bomb is military .
<<I mean, the men who worked on the Manhattan Project are considered national treasures/heroes, if they had been assassinated by say, Japan, the country would have been incensed!>>
If Japan knew we were going to develop and drop a necular bomb on them and they had the capabilities that Israel has had an eliminating nuclear scientists do you think they would not have done the same?
Yes, we would have been incensed - because we would have been attacked. Like Japan, Iran was an aggressor. I'm sorry, but this was a poor choice to illustrate your point..
<< I don’t know if you know anyone from Iran, but the Persian people are *proud*. This is not going to end well. I hope I clarified my point.>>
I do know people from Iran. They support Israel. This may not end well, but however bad it ends (and as you probably know, I think your concerns are grossly exaggerated), I doubt it would be any worse than Israel being annihilated from existence by nuclear weapons. That is, unless you are ok with that.
Also, as for American vs religion being a forced choice, I don’t think that’s true. Most people who are mad at Israel in America aren’t mad that there is an Israel, it’s that what they are doing with our aid, support and weapons puts a target on us. Or that they would rather not feel complicit in what is going on. You can say that women and children aren’t being targeted, but when you kill terrorists at home with their families… well, to some that is a distinction without a difference. It also calls into question the IDF claim that one civilian for one combatant is being killed, when an entire household or even apartment building is taken down.
In good times, what your priorities are doesn’t matter, maybe. But in times of conflict you do have to decide your priorities. Listening to Bari Weiss (no idea how representative her thinking is) Israel needs to be protected so that she, as a Jew, always has a safe place. That strikes me as weird. I don’t have a safe place, I have America and my job as a citizen is do what I can to keep it safe — for myself and others. Having one foot here and another foot somewhere else seems like an inherent conflict. Am I wrong?
Thank you for answering my question so directly and respectfully.
I don’t think the issue is *that* there is a Jewish state but whether any state has the moral right to do whatever it wants and further if as Americans we want to fund it. I quite agree with Beinart, who is quite religious, that the issue is about the credibility of Israel going forward. I, by the way, am not of any religious persuasion. But from a humanist perspective, one group treating another group poorly should be subject to criticism, right?
As far as I understand it, Christians who are Zionists mostly do that because they think it’ll bring about the end times. I’ve never quite understood how any Jew would want that support, but I’m pretty naive, I guess.
Okay, so I understand the whole “as a Jew” Jew label and hostility for someone who doesn’t practice the faith, but for say Beinart, who is very devout and has just changed his perspective, how does he not deserve to be listened to? And at least considered, instead being met with rage?
Amy,
Thank you for your good faith questions. I also wanted to thank you for your respectful pushback and acknowledgement of my good faith efforts. I'm putting your questions in brackets below ....
<<I don’t think the issue is *that* there is a Jewish state but whether any state has the moral right to do whatever it wants and further if as Americans we want to fund it. >>
I disagree. There are many critics of Israel who think that every country is entitled to it's own sovereignty but the Jewish one. Beinart is of the aforementioned persuasion. I certainly agree that Americans who don't want to fund foreign wars are not automatically in opposition to the countries where the foreign aid is being used. On the other hand, when I see people ignoring America acting in similar ways with other countries but focus only on Israel - that is indicative of something. I also think if a person is constantly crowing about American interests but is completely silent regarding American hostages being held overseas that is also indicative of something other than someone concerned purely about American interests.
<< I quite agree with Beinart, who is quite religious, that the issue is about the credibility of Israel going forward. I, by the way, am not of any religious persuasion. But from a humanist perspective, one group treating another group poorly should be subject to criticism, right? >>
I disagree with you here on a multitude of levels. First, by what standard is Beinart "quite religious?" As an Orthodox Jew, I know plenty of atheist Jews who attend Orthodox synagogues, culturally keep kosher, and even send their kids to Jewish day school. In his interview with Glenn he made the Jews out to be the villains of the Purim story and He doesn't consider synagogue desecration anti-Semitism because he maintains his synagogues or institutions of Zionism.
I agree people treating another group poorly deserve criticism. In the same vein, there is a war going on started by Hamas, whom were elected by the Palestinians, who are still keeping Israelis captive in Gaza - so - I think the IDF is open to criticism but I also think ingoring the context that a war is going on with in many cases with no good options available is also susceptible to being critiqued. Do you disagree?
<< As far as I understand it, Christians who are Zionists mostly do that because they think it’ll bring about the end times. I’ve never quite understood how any Jew would want that support, but I’m pretty naive, I guess. >>
Sorry, but this mischaracterization of Christian support for Israel is not only largely inaccurate, it is also shallow and insulting. Are there some Christians who are shallow in their belief and place disproportionate emphasis on the end times in relation to their support of Israel? Sure. However, by and large Christians appreciate Israel because it is rooted in the Bible in which they believe, and they are supportive of the Jewish people as they believe in the biblical description of G-d's love for His chosen Nation. If one considers that most of the world hate or are indifferent to the Jewish people we should appreciate any support we receive. This is true if it (love of the Jewish people) is not always for its own sake (I am definitely not saying this is normally the case).
<<Okay, so I understand the whole “as a Jew” Jew label and hostility for someone who doesn’t practice the faith, but for say Beinart, who is very devout and has just changed his perspective, how does he not deserve to be listened to? And at least considered, instead being met with rage?>>
I agree his points should be listened to and condented with. The rage I have for him in particular is he is disingenuous and manipulative. If he is misquoting Jewish sources for nefarious purposes (he is) and is indifferent to how his "salvation plan" will effect Israelis (he is) that, to me at least, calls his devotion into question. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the logic of his arguments in general in the Loury interview and particularly unimpressed with his Jewish knowledge. In his interview with Noam Dorman, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Palestinian activist who opposes Hamas and acknowledges that Israel is here to stay whatever one's opinion of it might be, mentioned Beinart treats him like an enemy because of his opposition to the shallow, odious, and dangerous form of activism that Beinart supports. People are judged (or should be) by the company they keep, and if they make cause, as Dave Smith does with Jew haters like Shields, Owens, and Fuentes because of their common anti Israel causes that should be shunned for it. The same goes for the camp Beinart has put himself in which is not as anti semitic as the aforementioned chevra, but the sanitizing of the demonization of Israel he (and his fellow travelers: Glenn Greenwald, BGJ, Norman Finkelstein, Ta Nahasi Coats, and now Glenn Loury) is responsible for is repulsive to me - hence the rage. I'm sorry, but the common failure to make a distinction between criticizing a country in legitimate terms and demonizing them is something I continue to be astounded by. If you care about someone (or a group) legitimate criticism is something used to make them better and support them; what you have been seeing from the aforementioned people is not criticism to improve Israel (though Glen Loury disingenuously suggest that it is) but an argument to destroy it. Just imagine that relationship with a spouse: constructive criticism is something you do to help the person because you care about them, destructive criticism is a toxic relationship where you don't care about the person anymore.
<<Also, as for American vs religion being a forced choice, I don’t think that’s true. Most people who are mad at Israel in America aren’t mad that there is an Israel, it’s that what they are doing with our aid, support and weapons puts a target on us.>>
I disagree. People don't single out Israel from all the other countries that America has a relationship with because the American-Israeli relationship would put a target on America. The only targets that we have on us are from people who want to destroy the West, and I think we should wear the target with a badge of honor. When Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China chant death to America or target America it is not do to our support for Israel, instead it is our support for Western Civilization.
<< You can say that women and children aren’t being targeted, but when you kill terrorists at home with their families… well, to some that is a distinction without a difference. It also calls into question the IDF claim that one civilian for one combatant is being killed, when an entire household or even apartment building is taken down. >>
Urban war experts John Spencer of West Point and Andrew Fox of the Henry Jackson Society have in my opinion given convincing arguments that the IDF is fighting as ethical of a war as it can considering the circumstances.
<<In good times, what your priorities are doesn’t matter, maybe. But in times of conflict you do have to decide your priorities. Listening to Bari Weiss (no idea how representative her thinking is) Israel needs to be protected so that she, as a Jew, always has a safe place. That strikes me as weird. I don’t have a safe place, I have America and my job as a citizen is do what I can to keep it safe — for myself and others. Having one foot here and another foot somewhere else seems like an inherent conflict. Am I wrong?>>
I would have to see the comments that she made to judge for myself if she intended what you are suggesting that she did. I have listened to her enough to know that she is an exceptional American Patriot and that her acknowledging Israel is the only place on earth where Jewish people will always have their backs covered by their countrymen is not a description of having one foot here and when put somewhere else. I will also say that Douglas Murray, who I don't think anyone would claim of him not being an English Patriot recently wrote an entire book on the importance of Western Civilization understanding the importance of Israel. If you have not read it already, I recommend that you do. It is certainly a worthwhile read.
Thank you for explaining that at such depth. I want to say too, that I know this is probably a much more emotional and consequential issue for you than it is for me. Further, you are right, I have no idea about Beinart true faithfulness, so I will stay away from that. I notice the places where it’s hard to actually have a direct conversation (beyond deep emotions) is a battle between facts and experts and perceptions of other people’s opinions. A lot of conversation ends up with discrediting your experts and putting forward alternatives with views I agree with more. That seems to be a path to nowhere except frustration and hard feelings.
I’m resisting going point by point with you, but these comments would ridiculously long and sooner or later our pleasant back and forth would probably stray from that. How many people have been killed? Is the IDF really doing the best they can to avoid civilian deaths? Neither of us really know, time will tell. The history of the region is complicated with many years of grievances on both sides. What do other people think and what are their motives? There are people we can pick to make any point we wish, right? For the record, I have never heard the argument that every country has the right to self defense except Israel. Usually, everyone just is happy for their own country have extra rights to self defense. And as far as I know, all the American hostages have been released.
I will say from my perspective it is hard to see “war” in what is going on in Gaza, because it is so one sided. I noticed that people younger than me (I’m 48) tend to support the Palestinians more and people that are older tend to support Israel. From my own life I think there are two reasons, 1) more people were like me growing up personally knowing more Arabs/Muslims than religious Jews and 2) that the violence (specifically death tolls) are increasingly lopsided. You mentioned demonizing language (against Jewish people) but maybe don’t notice how much supporters of Israel use that kind of language about Palestinians. As inflamed as you are from your perspective I know there is a mirror image of that in Americans who feel kindred with those dying in Gaza.
Thank you again for your time and civility.
Amy,
Thank you again for your good faith push back. Again, my response to your comments is below the bracketed response ...
<<I notice the places where it’s hard to actually have a direct conversation (beyond deep emotions) is a battle between facts and experts and perceptions of other people’s opinions. A lot of conversation ends up with discrediting your experts and putting forward alternatives with views I agree with more. That seems to be a path to nowhere except frustration and hard feelings.>>
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think if the debate is between two good faith actors - even if it doesn't go anywhere and ends up in frustration I don't think it will end up in hard feelings. I will also point out if people want to try to better understand their perspective of what's going on I don't know of a better way than challenging themselves engaging with people who have different opinions and slight different experts and evidence. I don't think there is a better way getting to the truth of the matter than what I described with also a good amount of research, do you?
<<How many people have been killed? Is the IDF really doing the best they can to avoid civilian deaths? Neither of us really know, time will tell. The history of the region is complicated with many years of grievances on both sides. What do other people think and what are their motives? There are people we can pick to make any point we wish, right?>>
It is true that people can pick out whoever they want to make their points, but I think good faith actors who are interested in getting to the truth try to be responsible in how they pursue that goal.
<< For the record, I have never heard the argument that every country has the right to self defense except Israel. Usually, everyone just is happy for their own country have extra rights to self defense. >>
As someone who's very involved and has done a lot of research I can tell you it's extremely prevalent that people who oppose Israel not only think Israel doesn't have a right to self-defense, they don't even think Israel has a right to exist. The people who have this opinion are not hiding the ball on this.
<<And as far as I know, all the American hostages have been released. I will say from my perspective it is hard to see “war” in what is going on in Gaza, because it is so one sided. I noticed that people younger than me (I’m 48) tend to support the Palestinians more and people that are older tend to support Israel. From my own life I think there are two reasons, 1) more people were like me growing up personally knowing more Arabs/Muslims than religious Jews and 2) that the violence (specifically death tolls) are increasingly lopsided.>>
I agree with you on point number 2. However, I think other factors are a college system in America and abroad that has put the demonization of Israel into their curriculum as well as the fact that Israel does a poor job at PR.
Regarding lopsided death tolls - I'm not aware of a serious argument that lopsided death tolls determine the legitimately of warfare. When people ignore the context that higher death tolls are PART OF THE STRATEGY OF HAMAS and blame Israel instead of Hamas they are not only showing poor understanding of what is happening in Gaza but also empowering Hamas.
<< You mentioned demonizing language (against Jewish people) but maybe don’t notice how much supporters of Israel use that kind of language about Palestinians. As inflamed as you are from your perspective I know there is a mirror image of that in Americans who feel kindred with those dying in Gaza. Thank you again for your time and civility.>>
The language I was specifically referencing was lying about Israel claiming that it is Israeli war policy to try and kill innocent women and children. If someone applied it to Hamas - a terrorist group - who target innocent civilians as a matter of strategy. No one denies that they do this, not even them. So it is descriptive language when applied to Hamas, not demonizing language.
Hey Glenn i want you in my choir - based on the physical-emotional-intellectual-verbal sonoral (yes i know that's not a word) integrity of your voice at what was counted as 16'-17' on my screen, and your vocal sound around 25:25' between "is that racial" and ... "you know ..are we gonna have to get into an exegesis about...". Such a treat for a sound-movement person such as myself in this time of deafening unembodied verbal ***. AND .... oy ... how to say ..... the brilliant navigation-manipulation of the English language (a language i can barely stomach and actually often hurts my body!! : )) thruout this convo -- i am so refreshed hearing some (imho) actual meaningful CONTENT in verbal exchanges so often purporting-to-be-but-not convo's/conversations that have words in them such as racial, racist... Today fog so thick in this normally sunny mountain forest i can't see anything outside the haus.....this convo rings like a clarion bell here on Memorial Day USA. And will endure. merci bien chi miigwech to you both.
Great conversation. I'm reminded that Clint Smith (How the Word is Passed) wrote a piece about how Germany remembers the Holocaust (compared to how the US remembers slavery). I'm imagining a panel discussion with Clint Smith, Glenn Loury and TNC on remembering slavery and how it should affect our foreign policy.
This should be interesting. I remember her getting pretty shrill toward the end of her stint at Rising.