I – like many others – began listening to you regularly in early 2020. Your voice was one of reason, clarity, honesty, and sanity during that troubling time. While the country and the culture spun out of control, and while elite institutions threw themselves at the feet of “empty suits” peddling bankrupt ideas, you, together with Professor McWhorter, were an anchor to reality.
It is against this backdrop that I am disappointed with your rather blinkered, and dare I say superficial, analysis of Israel’s response to the events of October 7. Below, I provide a brief response to the points you have made during The Glenn Show on this subject.
First, in your initial comments after October 7, you suggested that Israel extend a “historic gesture” by dramatically curtailing its military response, or perhaps even foregoing a forceful response altogether. More recently, you seemed to double-down on this position by signing a Brown University demand for ceasefire. Yet, in its traditional sense, “ceasefire” implies and presumes a degree reciprocity – a willingness and commitment by both sides to halt hostilities. Here, in stark contrast, there is not, nor could there be, a true ceasefire with Hamas, because, by its own repeated admission, Hamas exists to violently extirpate Israel and the Jews within it. Indeed, following October 7, Hamas leadership has explicitly and publicly re-confirmed its commitment to perpetrating further atrocities, even if doing so will inevitably lead to more death and suffering in Gaza. And, of course, it was Hamas that violated the short-lived ceasefire a few weeks ago, knowing full well that by reigniting hostilities, and continuing to hold hostages, it will only deepen the plight of Palestinians. Hamas is not, nor will it ever be, a partner in peace.
Thus, in substance, what you have called for is not a “ceasefire” but rather Israel’s unilateral abandonment of legitimate war aims following an unprovoked attack against civilians, during which thousands of Hamas fighters infiltrated Israeli territory to indiscriminately rape and murder. What you suggest would, indeed, be “historic”, in that it would signal an unprecedented abdication of Israel’s political and moral mandate to protect its citizens. It may be true that in its current form, Hamas does not literally threaten Israel’s existence. But, it is equally clear that, by failing to eliminate Hamas in response to October 7, Israel would inflict on itself an existential wound. An Israeli state that cannot credibly ensure the safety of its civilian population against large-scale rape and murder has no raison d’etre; it has no legitimacy; it is a failed project that cannot, and ultimately will not, continue to exist.
Second, in your most recent Q&A session, you declared that likening Hamas to Nazi Germany is “divorced from reality,” insofar as Israel enjoys overwhelming military superiority over Hamas, as well as diplomatic and military support from the U.S. But, this too betrays a crabbed view of the situation.
Indeed:
Hamas reportedly has 30,000 fighters, and, despite the Israeli and Egyptian blockade on military imports, it has managed to amass an arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, due primarily to its client relationship with Iran. For its part, Iran has more than 600,000 active-duty military personnel, a nuclear weapons program, and sophisticated ballistic missile and drone technology, as well as advanced cyberwarfare capabilities. As a proxy of Iran, Hamas is not simply a low-tech force of ragtag fighters hiding in tunnels, but rather the tip of the spear for an Islamic extremist state hostile to Israel’s existence.
In addition to Hamas, Israel also is threatened by tens of thousands of Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters on the Lebanon border with perhaps more than 100,000 rockets at their disposal; Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who now regularly launch ballistic missile and drone attacks and are seeking to impose a shipping blockade against Israel; and Iran and Russian-backed Syrian forces with access to, among other things, chemical weapons.
Whereas Israel’s Jewish population is approximately 7 million, the populations of Iran, Yemen and Syria alone exceed 100 million. The collective populations of the word’s 40+ Muslim majority countries – which are largely sympathetic to the Palestinians, and yes, even to Hamas post-October 7 – exceed 1 billion.
While critical and real, U.S. support for Israel is also remote and conditional. It is remote in that Israelis are, and always will be, on the front line. The U.S. provides munitions, but Israelis are on the ground positioning and firing them. The U.S. provides Iron Dome, but Israelis must run to bomb shelters hoping a rocket doesn’t sneak through. The U.S. attempts to deter Iran’s nuclear program, but Tel Aviv – not New York or Los Angeles – is the target if deterrence fails. Moreover, U.S. support is not constant. It will ebb and flow based on U.S. domestic dynamics. It depends on American politics, demographics, economic power, and countless other variables that change with time. Israel’s support in Europe is even less secure, given, among other things, the impact of mass immigration to the continent from the Middle East and North Africa.
In sum, the IDF can certainly outgun Hamas – but, this narrow fact should not obscure the broader realities Israel faces, including that: (i) it is smaller than Massachusetts; (ii) it is surrounded by hostile military forces committed to its destruction; (iii) it is vastly outnumbered in absolute terms; and (iv) if Israel’s enemies collectively and simultaneously attack the country in a coordinated way, as they have multiple times since 1948, it will likely result in the catastrophic loss of Israeli life, and Israel’s existence will depend on America’s appetite for significant military intervention
Moreover, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a country is under a moral obligation to exercise restraint in war in proportion to the military advantage it enjoys over an adversary, it is not obvious that this alleged principle applies to Israel under the circumstances, much less demands that Israel act with “historic” restraint vis-à-vis Hamas. And, while Israel’s military response will continue to bring death and destruction to Gaza, there is, sadly, nothing remarkable about a civilian population bearing the consequences of a war started by its professed leaders. What is remarkable, by contrast, is the degree to which Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties, including at the expense of the IDF’s safety.
Third, and generally speaking, the professed concern for Palestinian life is – to use a
Glenn-ism – a “pose”. There is no shortage of tragedy in the world that makes the body count of the Israeli-Arab conflict look like a rounding error. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim Arabs killed in Syria; Chinese erasure of Uyghur Muslims; mass killings of black Africans in Sudan; etc. These horrors are met with indifference or small-scale handwringing in the West. What’s more, there is no cognizable pressure on Jordan, Egypt, or the fantastically rich oil-rich Arab states, to accept Palestinian refugees. Nor is there any demand that these countries use their collective resources and political/cultural/religious capital to push the Palestinians in a more constructive direction. Israel – and Israel alone – is deemed to have agency.
One can speculate about the forces at play: is it true anti-Semitism; is it American-style wokeism superimposed on a foreign conflict, with Israel representing the bastion of “white European settler colonialism”; is it that the world implicitly expect more from the Jews? Whatever the reasons, they are political and ideological – not humanitarian.
I close by noting a heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your work as a public intellectual, particularly these last few years. I hope this brief message encourages you to reconsider the positions you have taken, or at least to dig deeper and contend with the implications of those positions.
“When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”
Your readers might enjoy this essay I recently penned about my lifelong obsession wtth the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In it I show just why Europe (as a whole) is ultimately responsible for the conflict (in more ways than one!), and what only Europe can do to help bring it to an end. The conclusion seems obvious in hindsight but has seldom if ever been spelled out so clearly. Maybe now is the time? https://shorturl.at/rzKT3
"I, for one, am not ready to sacrifice my humanity on the altar of necessity."
That does not sound like something a professional economist should be saying. He should recognize the alternatives available, and then select the least undesirable one to deal with a problem. Which to me is what Israel has done (in light of the thousands of years of Palestine history).
BTW, the atomic bombs saved perhaps millions of Japanese lives that would have been lost in an allied invasion. The people of Okinawa were encouraged to jump off cliffs, to their deaths, in that invasion. I've never heard any realistic option for the allies in 1945 that would have been less deadly than what actually happened.
What I can't get beyond myself is just how baked anti-Semitism is in Islamic culture. No matter where you go, there it is. I have had a few Islamic friends since I move to Canada, and sooner or later, no matter how progressive, they say something blindingly stupid about Jews. Like "How come no Jews died on 9/11?" and casual comments about running the world. Hating Jews is part of the Islamic religion, if you've ever read the Koran (I have one). I'm not sure Palestinians can ever move to a point where they can be like the Japanese or the Vietnamese, because those others are two very different cultures based on very different religions. There's plenty good I could say about Islam, but its greatest fault is its built-in requirement to hate Jews. They can't even question it today the way more progressive religionists question some of the inhumane crap in the Bible (the Old Testament of which testifies to just what ratbastards the Israelites were back in their day). We don't support slavery, or stoning women anymore, or murdering kids for making fun of a bald man, and God himself doesn't seem to have the yen for child sacrifice he had back in the Ancient of Days. So why can't Muslims move past their love affair with terrorism and anti-Semitism? I know there are some genuinely progressive Muslims in the world - those are the people who become my friends - but I avoid talking about Jews with them because I know, given the opportunity, that anti-Semitism will emerge sooner or later. It won't be "REally, we need to kill them all," it'll just be some stupid conspiracy horse shit or casual anti-Semitism that doesn't lead to Charlottesville, but it does perpetuate global hatred of Jews.
Israel is paying the price for far right extremism and its failure to sufficiently protect its people near the
Gaza border. Netanyahu needs to go. South African Apartheid leader Botha ratcheted up violence against a so-called terrorist group called the ANC and against black civilians. Apartheid South Africa also had nuclear weapons and a strong military.
Botha was eventually replaced by de Clerk who started a process of including blacks in its democracy. After 30 years of imprisonment, ANC leader Nelson Mandela was released and elected president by majority black vote. Mandela didn't advocate revenge against their former white oppressors, the ruthless Afrikaners.
Furthermore, Israel is on record of providing Apartheid South Africa arms and and training, intended to maintain apartheid in South Africa. Refer to, "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa" by Sasha Polakow-Suransky. A major Jewish arms dealer involved, has also made money in Hollywood.
I can imagine several reasons that the japanese may have been able to recover from WWII without resentment towards the U.S. for bombing hiroshima & nagasaki and the subsequent military occupation
a) economic self-determination -- the 'shocking' to the west recovery of the japanese economy from the 40s to the 80s
b) persuasiveness of american soft power -- the most obvious manifestation of this to me now is japanese love of american work wear,
c) the japanese war ethos of individual sacrifice for the collective & loyalty & deocorum onto death (which is death culty, but nonetheless seems to me to preserve agency)
There may be other factors but I would assume these are the least that would have to be provided so that palestinians do not hate israel in the near or semi-distant future. From talking to various more informed people at various dinners, it seems that a) is particularly hard to provide bc of the geography of gaza & the west bank. Japan is the size of the eastern seaboard, and had a decimated but complete economy. Even for a country the size of Israel (80x the size of Gaza), most, if not all of their food is imported. Most likely, the economic recovery of Gaza would involve a large portion of the population becoming a high tech or education based work force . That doesn't seem impossible as many countries in the developed world seem to be totally dependent on global supply chains to feed their people. It does seem MUCH harder than post-war Japan though in that there doesn't seem to be a government to speak of, which might take on the task of economic development.
The comparison of Hamas with the actions of Japan in World War II is an excellent example of the difference between what solved the problem for the Allies then, but is not working for the Israel now.
The war-cult of Japan was built around the persona of the Japanese Emperor. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated, the Emperor protected what was left of his country by surrendering. The Emperor's acknowledgment of the wrong path taken released the people of the Japanese nation to become a sane, peaceful, and prosperous society. The emperor was human, and humans can admit mistakes.
In the 1930's, the Nazis toyed with starting a new religion, but shied away from it, apparently thinking it would be a step too far. Their regime ended with the death of Hitler. However, as we have seen, there is still plenty of resentment against the Jews all over Europe and in the US.
All religions teach that eternal, all powerful and all knowing God doesn't make mistakes. That is why Hamas and the religion of Islam which teaches submission to the will of Allah is not going to reform any time soon, unless Allah has a change of mind or heart. Only the most brutal and determined action by Israel could possibly convince the Palestinian people to abandon their support of Hamas. The Palestinians have been victimized by their leaders since Muslim totalitarian extremism appeared on the scene with the fall of the shah.
The cult of Hamas is to turn Allah's minions into crazed murderers and starving, helpless hordes of followers. No one stands before the Gazans to tell the Palestinians that Allah doesn't want to turn their children into cannon fodder. No one says that Allah wants the Gazans to rid themselves of the devil who has plagued them and the world disguised as the Angel of Darkness and Death and calls itself Hamas. No one comes to call for peace for the people by destroying the destroyer. No. Most of the clarion cries are fore Israel to "go slow, stand down."
It's unlikely that anyone can kill Allah the way Nietzsche killed the Judeo-Christian god by proclaiming "God is Dead." The Christian god is dedicated to "peace on Earth, good will towards men." In Islam, a similar benevolent mantra might do much to mollify the current perception that the sole purpose of Allah, with Hamas as God's sword, is to go forth and deliver "Death to the Infidel wherever you may find him."
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were montrous deeds. The alternative was having to invade. Given the nature of Japanese solders fighting to the death as the US recaptured islands, an invasion of the home islands would have cost far more lives, probably in the millions. The horror of hundreds of thousands dying in the blink of an eye is less of moral delemma for me than millions dying unnessesarily. Gen. Sherman may has said "War is Hell." Yes it is and sometimes monstrous deeds are needed to escape it.
I have to say I think this is the first time I have strongly disagreed with Glenn's conclusions. it's not due to the polling numbers, inflated now but nothing surprising, but it's due to the fact that on October 7th, relative morality ended.. at least for me.
The comparison to Hiroshima does not work for me---and here is why. October 7th was personal and barbaric whereas Israel's response is calculated and strategic. That matters here.
On. October 7 evil entered Israel, then proceeded to personally and jubiliantly rape, brutalize, and dismember innocent Israelis. Israel's strategic response, after warning Palestinians to flee, was to clear the way so they could get to the tunnels. There's no moral equivalency here.
On one side you say Israel has a right too defend itself but on another you add "up to a point." Further, "the point' gets to be determined by Hamas and their brilliant PR campaign that got even you, Glenn, to point the finger in the wrong dimension.
So your ultimate conclusion is that Israel does not have a right to self defend. Period.
Further, a ceasefire means Israeli defense effectiveness is predicatedad on Hamas" brilliant PR campaign designed to keep the finger pointed at Israel, the oppressor.
John spoke the truth when he said "Hamas can't do that again, under no sense of morality, under no sense of the evolution of the human species."
Yes, the situation in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable. Who is responsible for that? The brutal fact that Gazans have no place to go isn't on Israel. It's own neighbors refuse them entry but somehow Israel is solely responsible for their post October 7 reality? Glenn, man, c'mon!!
Thank you for your honest conversation about such a difficult and horrible situation. Ultimately I do think that we think Israel had to respond (which I do) then I don't we are in any position to set the terms of their response. What I don't understand is why the overwhelming focus of discussion among the politicians and media in influential nations, is on what Israel should/shouldn't do rather than on applying pressure on Hamas to surrender or release all the hostages? If they did, it's hard to see how Israel could not stop the military attacks. Or why, with all the aid they have had, have Hamas built tunnels for themselves but no shelters for the people?
It is interesting how the Israel Palestine conflict is looked at morally as opposed to Russia Ukraine. I’ve heard Russia has many more casualties but no one is criticizing the morality of Ukraine. Why? Because Russia is considered more powerful.
I think Israel existence is more precarious than is acknowledged given a longer time frame being considered. Sure Palestine today cannot impose its will on Israel but what can all the unfriendly neighbors do over time?
This imposition on Israel to only respond in a proportional way means they will never secure peace. At least without the Palestinians forcefully rejecting the ideology behind their hatred of Israel. I get people don’t like Israel putting their boot on Palestinian necks but as long as the Palestinians continue to say that if they are let up they will attack what is to be done?
This really isn’t so much different than completely ignoring George Floyd’s behavior and putting almost all the blame on the police. Even though the video shows they didn’t want to kill him merely restrain him given his non compliance.
Professor Loury,
I – like many others – began listening to you regularly in early 2020. Your voice was one of reason, clarity, honesty, and sanity during that troubling time. While the country and the culture spun out of control, and while elite institutions threw themselves at the feet of “empty suits” peddling bankrupt ideas, you, together with Professor McWhorter, were an anchor to reality.
It is against this backdrop that I am disappointed with your rather blinkered, and dare I say superficial, analysis of Israel’s response to the events of October 7. Below, I provide a brief response to the points you have made during The Glenn Show on this subject.
First, in your initial comments after October 7, you suggested that Israel extend a “historic gesture” by dramatically curtailing its military response, or perhaps even foregoing a forceful response altogether. More recently, you seemed to double-down on this position by signing a Brown University demand for ceasefire. Yet, in its traditional sense, “ceasefire” implies and presumes a degree reciprocity – a willingness and commitment by both sides to halt hostilities. Here, in stark contrast, there is not, nor could there be, a true ceasefire with Hamas, because, by its own repeated admission, Hamas exists to violently extirpate Israel and the Jews within it. Indeed, following October 7, Hamas leadership has explicitly and publicly re-confirmed its commitment to perpetrating further atrocities, even if doing so will inevitably lead to more death and suffering in Gaza. And, of course, it was Hamas that violated the short-lived ceasefire a few weeks ago, knowing full well that by reigniting hostilities, and continuing to hold hostages, it will only deepen the plight of Palestinians. Hamas is not, nor will it ever be, a partner in peace.
Thus, in substance, what you have called for is not a “ceasefire” but rather Israel’s unilateral abandonment of legitimate war aims following an unprovoked attack against civilians, during which thousands of Hamas fighters infiltrated Israeli territory to indiscriminately rape and murder. What you suggest would, indeed, be “historic”, in that it would signal an unprecedented abdication of Israel’s political and moral mandate to protect its citizens. It may be true that in its current form, Hamas does not literally threaten Israel’s existence. But, it is equally clear that, by failing to eliminate Hamas in response to October 7, Israel would inflict on itself an existential wound. An Israeli state that cannot credibly ensure the safety of its civilian population against large-scale rape and murder has no raison d’etre; it has no legitimacy; it is a failed project that cannot, and ultimately will not, continue to exist.
Second, in your most recent Q&A session, you declared that likening Hamas to Nazi Germany is “divorced from reality,” insofar as Israel enjoys overwhelming military superiority over Hamas, as well as diplomatic and military support from the U.S. But, this too betrays a crabbed view of the situation.
Indeed:
Hamas reportedly has 30,000 fighters, and, despite the Israeli and Egyptian blockade on military imports, it has managed to amass an arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, due primarily to its client relationship with Iran. For its part, Iran has more than 600,000 active-duty military personnel, a nuclear weapons program, and sophisticated ballistic missile and drone technology, as well as advanced cyberwarfare capabilities. As a proxy of Iran, Hamas is not simply a low-tech force of ragtag fighters hiding in tunnels, but rather the tip of the spear for an Islamic extremist state hostile to Israel’s existence.
In addition to Hamas, Israel also is threatened by tens of thousands of Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters on the Lebanon border with perhaps more than 100,000 rockets at their disposal; Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who now regularly launch ballistic missile and drone attacks and are seeking to impose a shipping blockade against Israel; and Iran and Russian-backed Syrian forces with access to, among other things, chemical weapons.
Whereas Israel’s Jewish population is approximately 7 million, the populations of Iran, Yemen and Syria alone exceed 100 million. The collective populations of the word’s 40+ Muslim majority countries – which are largely sympathetic to the Palestinians, and yes, even to Hamas post-October 7 – exceed 1 billion.
While critical and real, U.S. support for Israel is also remote and conditional. It is remote in that Israelis are, and always will be, on the front line. The U.S. provides munitions, but Israelis are on the ground positioning and firing them. The U.S. provides Iron Dome, but Israelis must run to bomb shelters hoping a rocket doesn’t sneak through. The U.S. attempts to deter Iran’s nuclear program, but Tel Aviv – not New York or Los Angeles – is the target if deterrence fails. Moreover, U.S. support is not constant. It will ebb and flow based on U.S. domestic dynamics. It depends on American politics, demographics, economic power, and countless other variables that change with time. Israel’s support in Europe is even less secure, given, among other things, the impact of mass immigration to the continent from the Middle East and North Africa.
In sum, the IDF can certainly outgun Hamas – but, this narrow fact should not obscure the broader realities Israel faces, including that: (i) it is smaller than Massachusetts; (ii) it is surrounded by hostile military forces committed to its destruction; (iii) it is vastly outnumbered in absolute terms; and (iv) if Israel’s enemies collectively and simultaneously attack the country in a coordinated way, as they have multiple times since 1948, it will likely result in the catastrophic loss of Israeli life, and Israel’s existence will depend on America’s appetite for significant military intervention
Moreover, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a country is under a moral obligation to exercise restraint in war in proportion to the military advantage it enjoys over an adversary, it is not obvious that this alleged principle applies to Israel under the circumstances, much less demands that Israel act with “historic” restraint vis-à-vis Hamas. And, while Israel’s military response will continue to bring death and destruction to Gaza, there is, sadly, nothing remarkable about a civilian population bearing the consequences of a war started by its professed leaders. What is remarkable, by contrast, is the degree to which Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties, including at the expense of the IDF’s safety.
Third, and generally speaking, the professed concern for Palestinian life is – to use a
Glenn-ism – a “pose”. There is no shortage of tragedy in the world that makes the body count of the Israeli-Arab conflict look like a rounding error. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim Arabs killed in Syria; Chinese erasure of Uyghur Muslims; mass killings of black Africans in Sudan; etc. These horrors are met with indifference or small-scale handwringing in the West. What’s more, there is no cognizable pressure on Jordan, Egypt, or the fantastically rich oil-rich Arab states, to accept Palestinian refugees. Nor is there any demand that these countries use their collective resources and political/cultural/religious capital to push the Palestinians in a more constructive direction. Israel – and Israel alone – is deemed to have agency.
One can speculate about the forces at play: is it true anti-Semitism; is it American-style wokeism superimposed on a foreign conflict, with Israel representing the bastion of “white European settler colonialism”; is it that the world implicitly expect more from the Jews? Whatever the reasons, they are political and ideological – not humanitarian.
I close by noting a heartfelt thanks and appreciation for your work as a public intellectual, particularly these last few years. I hope this brief message encourages you to reconsider the positions you have taken, or at least to dig deeper and contend with the implications of those positions.
Best,
Matthew L.
“When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”
-Golda Meir
Israel is defending the Palestinian people from the terrorists
Your readers might enjoy this essay I recently penned about my lifelong obsession wtth the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In it I show just why Europe (as a whole) is ultimately responsible for the conflict (in more ways than one!), and what only Europe can do to help bring it to an end. The conclusion seems obvious in hindsight but has seldom if ever been spelled out so clearly. Maybe now is the time? https://shorturl.at/rzKT3
"I, for one, am not ready to sacrifice my humanity on the altar of necessity."
That does not sound like something a professional economist should be saying. He should recognize the alternatives available, and then select the least undesirable one to deal with a problem. Which to me is what Israel has done (in light of the thousands of years of Palestine history).
BTW, the atomic bombs saved perhaps millions of Japanese lives that would have been lost in an allied invasion. The people of Okinawa were encouraged to jump off cliffs, to their deaths, in that invasion. I've never heard any realistic option for the allies in 1945 that would have been less deadly than what actually happened.
You have a point. Some people would rather find the diamond in the cesspool, then throw rocks at the obvious stink.
What I can't get beyond myself is just how baked anti-Semitism is in Islamic culture. No matter where you go, there it is. I have had a few Islamic friends since I move to Canada, and sooner or later, no matter how progressive, they say something blindingly stupid about Jews. Like "How come no Jews died on 9/11?" and casual comments about running the world. Hating Jews is part of the Islamic religion, if you've ever read the Koran (I have one). I'm not sure Palestinians can ever move to a point where they can be like the Japanese or the Vietnamese, because those others are two very different cultures based on very different religions. There's plenty good I could say about Islam, but its greatest fault is its built-in requirement to hate Jews. They can't even question it today the way more progressive religionists question some of the inhumane crap in the Bible (the Old Testament of which testifies to just what ratbastards the Israelites were back in their day). We don't support slavery, or stoning women anymore, or murdering kids for making fun of a bald man, and God himself doesn't seem to have the yen for child sacrifice he had back in the Ancient of Days. So why can't Muslims move past their love affair with terrorism and anti-Semitism? I know there are some genuinely progressive Muslims in the world - those are the people who become my friends - but I avoid talking about Jews with them because I know, given the opportunity, that anti-Semitism will emerge sooner or later. It won't be "REally, we need to kill them all," it'll just be some stupid conspiracy horse shit or casual anti-Semitism that doesn't lead to Charlottesville, but it does perpetuate global hatred of Jews.
Israel is paying the price for far right extremism and its failure to sufficiently protect its people near the
Gaza border. Netanyahu needs to go. South African Apartheid leader Botha ratcheted up violence against a so-called terrorist group called the ANC and against black civilians. Apartheid South Africa also had nuclear weapons and a strong military.
Botha was eventually replaced by de Clerk who started a process of including blacks in its democracy. After 30 years of imprisonment, ANC leader Nelson Mandela was released and elected president by majority black vote. Mandela didn't advocate revenge against their former white oppressors, the ruthless Afrikaners.
Furthermore, Israel is on record of providing Apartheid South Africa arms and and training, intended to maintain apartheid in South Africa. Refer to, "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa" by Sasha Polakow-Suransky. A major Jewish arms dealer involved, has also made money in Hollywood.
I can imagine several reasons that the japanese may have been able to recover from WWII without resentment towards the U.S. for bombing hiroshima & nagasaki and the subsequent military occupation
a) economic self-determination -- the 'shocking' to the west recovery of the japanese economy from the 40s to the 80s
b) persuasiveness of american soft power -- the most obvious manifestation of this to me now is japanese love of american work wear,
c) the japanese war ethos of individual sacrifice for the collective & loyalty & deocorum onto death (which is death culty, but nonetheless seems to me to preserve agency)
There may be other factors but I would assume these are the least that would have to be provided so that palestinians do not hate israel in the near or semi-distant future. From talking to various more informed people at various dinners, it seems that a) is particularly hard to provide bc of the geography of gaza & the west bank. Japan is the size of the eastern seaboard, and had a decimated but complete economy. Even for a country the size of Israel (80x the size of Gaza), most, if not all of their food is imported. Most likely, the economic recovery of Gaza would involve a large portion of the population becoming a high tech or education based work force . That doesn't seem impossible as many countries in the developed world seem to be totally dependent on global supply chains to feed their people. It does seem MUCH harder than post-war Japan though in that there doesn't seem to be a government to speak of, which might take on the task of economic development.
The comparison of Hamas with the actions of Japan in World War II is an excellent example of the difference between what solved the problem for the Allies then, but is not working for the Israel now.
The war-cult of Japan was built around the persona of the Japanese Emperor. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated, the Emperor protected what was left of his country by surrendering. The Emperor's acknowledgment of the wrong path taken released the people of the Japanese nation to become a sane, peaceful, and prosperous society. The emperor was human, and humans can admit mistakes.
In the 1930's, the Nazis toyed with starting a new religion, but shied away from it, apparently thinking it would be a step too far. Their regime ended with the death of Hitler. However, as we have seen, there is still plenty of resentment against the Jews all over Europe and in the US.
All religions teach that eternal, all powerful and all knowing God doesn't make mistakes. That is why Hamas and the religion of Islam which teaches submission to the will of Allah is not going to reform any time soon, unless Allah has a change of mind or heart. Only the most brutal and determined action by Israel could possibly convince the Palestinian people to abandon their support of Hamas. The Palestinians have been victimized by their leaders since Muslim totalitarian extremism appeared on the scene with the fall of the shah.
The cult of Hamas is to turn Allah's minions into crazed murderers and starving, helpless hordes of followers. No one stands before the Gazans to tell the Palestinians that Allah doesn't want to turn their children into cannon fodder. No one says that Allah wants the Gazans to rid themselves of the devil who has plagued them and the world disguised as the Angel of Darkness and Death and calls itself Hamas. No one comes to call for peace for the people by destroying the destroyer. No. Most of the clarion cries are fore Israel to "go slow, stand down."
It's unlikely that anyone can kill Allah the way Nietzsche killed the Judeo-Christian god by proclaiming "God is Dead." The Christian god is dedicated to "peace on Earth, good will towards men." In Islam, a similar benevolent mantra might do much to mollify the current perception that the sole purpose of Allah, with Hamas as God's sword, is to go forth and deliver "Death to the Infidel wherever you may find him."
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were montrous deeds. The alternative was having to invade. Given the nature of Japanese solders fighting to the death as the US recaptured islands, an invasion of the home islands would have cost far more lives, probably in the millions. The horror of hundreds of thousands dying in the blink of an eye is less of moral delemma for me than millions dying unnessesarily. Gen. Sherman may has said "War is Hell." Yes it is and sometimes monstrous deeds are needed to escape it.
Rocky3743
Sorry about typos. You may have pointed your finger in the wrong dimension but I meant direction.
I have to say I think this is the first time I have strongly disagreed with Glenn's conclusions. it's not due to the polling numbers, inflated now but nothing surprising, but it's due to the fact that on October 7th, relative morality ended.. at least for me.
The comparison to Hiroshima does not work for me---and here is why. October 7th was personal and barbaric whereas Israel's response is calculated and strategic. That matters here.
On. October 7 evil entered Israel, then proceeded to personally and jubiliantly rape, brutalize, and dismember innocent Israelis. Israel's strategic response, after warning Palestinians to flee, was to clear the way so they could get to the tunnels. There's no moral equivalency here.
On one side you say Israel has a right too defend itself but on another you add "up to a point." Further, "the point' gets to be determined by Hamas and their brilliant PR campaign that got even you, Glenn, to point the finger in the wrong dimension.
So your ultimate conclusion is that Israel does not have a right to self defend. Period.
Further, a ceasefire means Israeli defense effectiveness is predicatedad on Hamas" brilliant PR campaign designed to keep the finger pointed at Israel, the oppressor.
John spoke the truth when he said "Hamas can't do that again, under no sense of morality, under no sense of the evolution of the human species."
Yes, the situation in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable. Who is responsible for that? The brutal fact that Gazans have no place to go isn't on Israel. It's own neighbors refuse them entry but somehow Israel is solely responsible for their post October 7 reality? Glenn, man, c'mon!!
Thank you for your honest conversation about such a difficult and horrible situation. Ultimately I do think that we think Israel had to respond (which I do) then I don't we are in any position to set the terms of their response. What I don't understand is why the overwhelming focus of discussion among the politicians and media in influential nations, is on what Israel should/shouldn't do rather than on applying pressure on Hamas to surrender or release all the hostages? If they did, it's hard to see how Israel could not stop the military attacks. Or why, with all the aid they have had, have Hamas built tunnels for themselves but no shelters for the people?
Gaza’s civilian population has nowhere to go because Egypt has kept a cork in that bottle for geo-political gain.
It's stunning that Egypts role in the plight of Gaza is seldom discussed.
It is interesting how the Israel Palestine conflict is looked at morally as opposed to Russia Ukraine. I’ve heard Russia has many more casualties but no one is criticizing the morality of Ukraine. Why? Because Russia is considered more powerful.
I think Israel existence is more precarious than is acknowledged given a longer time frame being considered. Sure Palestine today cannot impose its will on Israel but what can all the unfriendly neighbors do over time?
This imposition on Israel to only respond in a proportional way means they will never secure peace. At least without the Palestinians forcefully rejecting the ideology behind their hatred of Israel. I get people don’t like Israel putting their boot on Palestinian necks but as long as the Palestinians continue to say that if they are let up they will attack what is to be done?
This really isn’t so much different than completely ignoring George Floyd’s behavior and putting almost all the blame on the police. Even though the video shows they didn’t want to kill him merely restrain him given his non compliance.