This week John and I are joined by Coleman Hughes, podcaster, writer, and now author of the forthcoming book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. Coleman recently gave a TED Talk about the central ideas in his book, but faced pushback from TED employees, who took umbrage at his, to my mind, quite reasonable advocacy for colorblind public policy. The result was a seemingly interminable back-and-forth between Coleman and TED, which had refused to promote the video of his talk. We have him on to discuss the affair.
In the second part of the conversation, we shift our attention to Israel-Gaza. Over a thousand Israelis are dead, thousands more are injured, and many others are presumed to be hostages following Hamas’s monstrous coordinated attacks on October 7. Israeli retaliation has taken the lives of several thousand Gazans, and a humanitarian crisis is looming as Israel has told over a million Gaza residents to evacuate from the north to the south of the territory. We can only guess what the costs of this latest conflict will be—in blood, treasure, and geopolitical disruption. The situation will change from day to day, but the three of us offer our thoughts as they stood one week in.
Sign Up for City Journal’s Newsletter
City Journal provides rigorous analysis that allows you to reach your own conclusions, rather than rehashing ideologically “safe” talking points. Explore it for yourselves and sign up for their free newsletter today.
0:00 The blowback from Coleman’s TED Talk
8:50 Did TED intentionally throttle promotion for Coleman’s talk?
17:08 John’s trouble with TED while promoting Woke Racism
20:21 Coleman’s forthcoming book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America
29:17 Race in public and private life
43:49 Closure on the TED affair
45:14 What are the goals of each side in the Israel-Palestine conflict?
51:58 Will the Israeli military response simply restart the cycle of violence and resentment?
1:02:15 The threat of post-October 7 overreaction
Links and Readings
Coleman’s Substack, Coleman’s Corner
Coleman’s podcast, Conversations with Coleman
Coleman’s forthcoming book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America
Coleman’s conversation with Glenn Greenwald about the TED Talk
Coleman’s TED Talk, “A Case for Color Blindness”
Coleman’s Free Press piece, “Why Is TED Scared of Color Blindness”
Coleman’s conversation with Jamelle Bouie
Geroge Packer’s Atlantic piece, “Israel Must Not React Stupidly”
Only the latest example of a long string of "must see" discussions.
Well, here's a first. I strongly disagree with John on two points.
First (chronologically) that color-blindness isn't the natural human state. While tribalism has been a thing for all of human history and presumably for as long as humanity has existed, tribalism based on skin color has not. I think that it is a big deal only because people continue to make it a big deal, because at a purely rational level, organizing by skin color makes as much sense as organizing by hair or eye color. As Coleman says - in his TED talk, in his debate with Jamal Bouie, and here - using race as a proxy for advantage or disadvantage makes no sense when you can use the thing itself, advantage/disadvantage to set public policy. But John has, in the past, made similar comments without ever actually substantiating WHY he is so certain. It frustrates me every time, but to be honest, I just don't see him ever actually addressing it.
Second, in criticizing Israel's response, he says that it will simply fuel the cycle. But as Coleman points out, as far as the Israelis can see, forebearance and violence both lead to the same thing. Glenn notes that a news article compares 10/7 to 9/11 and then proceeds to talk about the disastrous consequences of the US actions in the wake of that event. Now, I would agree that the US response was awful. I thought it was awful at the time. Pinning it on Iraq seemed obviously wrong to me even in 2001 - I looked at it as baby Bush wanting to cement his legacy by finishing what daddy started. I never believed in WMDs. Personally, I think the most terrifying thing to come out of that whole affair was the Patriot Act. All that aside, however, I can ALSO see that it's unrealistic to ask a nation to accept a massive terror attack and turn the other cheek. Israel is much smaller than the US. Given the population of Israel, 10/7 would be like if 9/11 had seen 43,000 dead instead of 3,000. I think the better comparison, given that Hamas IS part of the government, not just a group based out of Palestine, would be Pearl Harbor. Except Pearl Harbor would've needed to have 20,000 fatalities to be on par with 10/7, again, given the population difference between the two nations. I would find it hard to fault Israel for nearly any action they take at this point.
Finally, there was something Glenn said that I felt was a mischaracterization. Antisemitism was never a central factor of Fascism. I *really* hate that the word has morphed into a synonym for "evil authoritarianism". It's bad enough that the people on the left do it, you do a podcast with a language professor, let's be more precise. Fascism was an Italian ideology -- it was French Syndicalism with a healthy dose of Jingoism tossed in. It was a reaction to the *international* Socialism of Russia with the adherence to a *national* Socialism predicated on an ethnic homogeneity. "Blood and soil". Socialism fails, at a fundamental level, because resources the state pools into an individual can be leveraged for greater benefit to the individual if the individual can move to a Capitalist state. That leads to people and resources leaking out of the state. International Socialism sought to solve this problem by spreading Socialism across the entire world, Fascism (or the National Socialism of Germany) sought to solve this problem by instilling a sense of national supremacy that would keep individuals emotionally (and therefore hopefully physically) tied to their homeland. Frankly, I think the international Socialists were... less stupid. Still stupid, but national Socialism was a much dumber idea. That aside, Germany wasn't particularly Fascist because there was far less Socialism and far more Nationalism; it wasn't so much a fusion of ideas as it was lip service to Socialism as a means to sell the authoritarian government to the common people. While Italy had businesses nominally owned by private individuals, the Italian government did far more to answer the economic questions of what to produce, where, when and how much. Which makes Antifa rather ironic, since it's a much closer ideological successor to Fascism than pretty much anything the American right has to offer at the moment.
Here is the simplistic, but I suspect somewhat accurate explanation of the Israeli/Palestinian Dispute
Nominal GDP per capita
USA - $75K
EU - $40K
Israel - $57K
Saudi - $30K
UAE - $54K
Russia - $16K
Iran - $4K
China - $13K
Palestine - $4k
Qatar - $88K
The first list are countries that are liberal democracies, or monarchies that extend rights to their citizens, or who would like to, allowing them to achieve their human potential. The second list are dictatorships or theocracies that do not extend the same type of rights. Qatar is the outlier because of oil and a population of 2.7 million.
What the fighting in the Middle East is really about is the countries on the second list doing everything in their power to prevent their populations from wanting what the populations on the top list have. Israel is the fly in their ointment. It's the economic engine of its sub-region. If Israel removes Hamas, and a coalition of nations on the top list rebuild Gaza and increase the per capita GDP, the damage to the countries on the second list will be significant and could include a regime like Iran's falling.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian people are pawns in this larger geopolitical dispute. But it is a bed of their own making as the expression goes. History is littered with populations that were decimated by dynamics similar to these. And as much as many of us would like to see them not be harmed, I don't see how that is possible until the larger dispute is over, given the historical choices the Palestinians have made to stick with their leaders. If people were really interested in saving Palestinian lives, they would call for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages.
This is shameful. There is no other way to look at the situation. TED talks have gone way down to my estimation.
Coleman’s story and John’s about TedTalks reminded me of SF 2012 February Presidents’ Day Weekend when SF CounterPulse performance arts center was taken over by 5 FB activists who were “injured” because leftist bleeding-heart liberals disagreed with them. In all three cases - normal people like Hughes, McWhorter and me become disoriented in the absence of transparency. When entering into a business contract with social media platforms- transparency about rules and process is necessary. What Hughes and McWhorter experienced was the failure of Ted to interact transparently with a business partner. A few months back, Loury also experienced a transparency failure on the part of YouTube.
HR also needs to demonstrate transparency. Employee Chris shouldn’t have to speculate about getting in trouble because of imagined harm/injury. HR needs to distinguish between “offense” and “injury”.
Activist knowledge about weaponizing HR has resulted in too much harm and needs sunlight. The nationwide HR organization is located In Wisconsin. It may be in need of new leadership.
I have long rejected the idea that I have benefited from white privilege. I don't mean that I haven't been fortunate to have been born to middle-class, college-educated parents. That upbringing allowed me to do well in school and eventually become a lawyer. But I don't think any of my accomplishments were the result of my being white. Some would argue that I benefited from white privilege because I did not experience racism. That may be true, but I don't believe that not being discriminated against because of my race should be considered an unfair “privilege.” Look at it this way. If a person benefits from an unfair, unearned privilege, wouldn't the right thing to do be to remove that privilege? Presumably, that would require discriminating against everyone equally. I think working to eliminate racism and racial disparities is a much more productive approach. Not being discriminated against because of your race shouldn't be considered a privilege because it should be the right of every person.
But Coleman's experience with TED made me realize that I probably do have at least one privilege that Coleman doesn't enjoy. If I had given the same TED talk that Coleman gave, I doubt it would have created anywhere near the backlash that was aimed at Coleman. (Let's just ignore the fact that I wouldn't have been invited to give the talk.) The reason there was so much backlash against Coleman was because he is Black. Clarence Thomas has been the focus of far more hatred from the Left than was ever aimed at Antonin Scalia, even though they shared a very similar judicial philosophy. Part of that was because, being white, it was OK for Scalia to be a conservative. (Hey, I just discovered another example of white privilege!) But more of the vitriol is probably because they fear other African Americans might be convinced to share his views. Coleman is a far more persuasive advocate for color-blind policies than I could ever be. The people who were so upset at Coleman being given the platform of a TED Talk realized that they couldn't really debate Coleman on the substance of his talk. If a white man had given the same talk, they could just call him a racist and be done with it. But that is a much harder charge to successfully lodge against Coleman, not that they haven't tried.
I have a few of thoughts to share with you. I know that you all are highly intelligent and what I am about to say will not be a surprise you.
I agree that Hamas is an evil and violent organization. But under this column I would include the Israeli Likud party and its coalition partners. For instance, they protect right-wing-settler militias in the West Bank so they can terrorize the indigenous population. (That is why the response was so slow.)
They say that they don’t target civilians. That is misleading. During the first six days of this war, they dropped 1000 bombs a day on Gaza. It is impossible to drop that many bombs that quickly while properly vetting the target to assure the protection of civilians. Therefore they knew that a lot of civilians would be killed at the target.
I will add the evidence provided by the peaceful 18 month Great March of Return. During these demonstrations the Israelis routinely used snipers to aim at the knees of the protesters, maiming them for life. This kind of sub-lethal violence is what the Israelis use to terrorize Palestinians while keeping under the radar of their western allies.
Israel, under the Likud party is a violent settler-colonial power every bit as bad as the 19th century settler colonial versions that are condemned today. But this is the 21st century.
Question: do you condemn the US Native American resistance to the westward settler expansion? They committed massacres, kidnapped civilians, and mutilated bodies.
One thing can be said for in favor of the US version, the US was willing to accept the Indians into the American nation. (Note the notorious Indian schools.) The Israelis offer no such plan for the Palestinians.
Israel is truly a systemically racist country.
A Baby Boomer, a Gen X-er and a Millennial stroll into a bar...
Good stuff.
Sometimes I just wanna hear smart people engage on a critical topic in a dispassionate way (if possible).
You all touched on all of this, but even before 1967 there was "occupation" and there were "settlements." When you hear most Palestinians use these words now they're talking about all of Israel.
Also I think the 2 state solution has been impossible for over 20 years now. Israel offered 99% of what the world was demanding and in return they got the Second Intifada, and almost everyone in Israel knew someone who was killed or maimed in it. There is still a "left" in Israel but there hasn't really been a peace movement since then.
One note on the discussion about who has the power. The statement presumes Israel has the power and has exercised internal restraint.
This is an incorrect assumption. The U.S. Military Industrial complex support, the U.N., and other forces exercise external restraint.
There may be some internal restraint from the Israeli left, but they have almost no power.
As it stands, only the U.S. veto keeps Israel out of trouble. They know if they cross certain lines their billions from the U.S. dry up.
Netanyahu's cabinet has many extremists that want to engage in genocide. And if they weren't reliant on international aid, they would.
As far as support...more Israelis support Likud and their war crimes than support Hamas. And the Hamas number is likely high, as Hamas is not elected, but in power by force.
In reply to "A.S": "Netanyahu's cabinet has many extremists that want to engage in genocide. And if they weren't reliant on international aid, they would."
Are you referring to Muslim extremists in Netanyahu's cabinet or in voting public Israel has been forced to accept into their country?
I'm referring to convicted Jewish terrorists like Ben-Gvir serving in Netanyahu's cabinet. And as far as I'm concerned, nominating a convicted terrorist into one's cabinet makes one a terrorist.
The current Israeli government supports dislocation and expansion by force to what they believe their little story book gives them the right to.
And yes, logically a majority of the Jewish population supports these policies since they keep voting them into power.
I can't remember if it was here or 538, but over 30% of the Israeli population believes in the most extreme version of their religion. So Pentateuch style genocide. And the rest refuse to stand against them.
So if all Palestinians are complicit with Hamas, which rules Gaza through force, so much more so are Israelis that nominally live in a democracy and choose barbarism over and over.
As such, I'm opposed to any aid to Israel. At all. And overwhelming military force against any restricting by either Hamas or Israel to relief provided to Gaza.
A great discussion about difficult subjects.
Palestians support Hamas clearly. What innocent people are we talking about? They teach children hate. Israel’s leveling Gaza is irrelevant, they will hate. Terrorist don’t only hate Israel’s they hate Americans, they would kill all those who are protesting for them without hesitation. This is their world and they don’t get along with any neighbors, they take over countries and rule with hate. Like they did with Lebanon and Germany is next.
Thanks for stating the unvarnished truth of the matter: "Terrorist don’t only hate Israel’s they hate Americans, they would kill all those who are protesting for them without hesitation."
and "they don’t get along with any neighbors, they take over countries and rule with hate. Like they did with Lebanon and Germany is next."
37:20 Of course Coleman's right that white people preferring to associate with other white people doesn't harm him. However, I don't think "white" is a meaningful identity in the way that black or Yemeni might be. Russians associating with Russians and Arabs with Arabs (classified as "white" by the US government oddly enough) makes some sense. BTW, I happen to have pale skin, but don't like the "as an X" form of statement.
"Cards of Power"
Maybe the best episode of Glenn and John all year. There is nothing like having all three of these men together on the same platform. Reminiscent of them appearing on the Fifith Column with Kmele Foster and Thomas Chatterton Williams in 2018 and 2020.
It comes down to power. That small black group of the TED organization feel that they hold the cards because enough whites have given them so much deference through the years. They can shuffle the cards in anyway they want, but sometimes ethics and morality get lost in the shuffle.
I also love the analogies the men made when referring to Hamas. It doesn't take much to see the similarities.
Feel free to agree or disagree.
I happened to listen to Coleman's "Colorblindness" Ted Talk last week and found it wonderfully coherent, thoughtful, factual and informative. However, upon listening to Coleman's podcast describing the surprising, negative, turn of events initiated by Chris Anderson and a few Ted Talk staff, I found myself reaching for my blood pressure meds. (I immediately thought Glenn is going to have Coleman on his show to discuss this.) The level of depravity and absolute cowardice levelled at Coleman's very rational talk and the lack of promotion from the TT organization was irrational and unfair. Essentially, Coleman was subtly punished for delivering a talk that lacked a hefty dose of a victim narrative with emphasis on systematic racism and white-blaming. This was simply too much for me to stomach.
A message to white CEOs and corporate managers: STOP allowing yourselves to be held hostage by uninformed, unenlightened, people who perpetually see themselves as victims. You are not helping us to live up to Dr. King's dream of colorblindness by kow-towing to the cultural elites employed by TT. Moreover, please get a backbone, grow a pair, and stand up to black and white bullies of the woke persuasion that throw unnecessary temper tantrums. What happened to the Ted Talk mission to "foster the spread of great ideas." Did they forget?
I thought that Rev. William Barber had a good article on how to think about the Hamas terror attacks:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/13/hamas-no-moral-justification-william-barber
Netanyahu did not want a two-state solution, so he propped up Hamas to diminish the Palestinian Authority.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Hamas does not want normalization of relations between the Saudis and Israel. It carried out a murderous attack hoping Israel would severely punish those in Gaza. Muslims in other countries would look as a Saudi-Israel treaty as a betrayal of Muslims. Hamas expects the Saudis to back off. They may reach their objective. They care little about the loss of life on either side.
Shameful and continuing bad behavior from the TED execs. I think John is dead on about why these "nice guys" have acted as they have.
John asserted that Gaza is “undereducated”. That doesn’t seem to be accurate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_State_of_Palestine. Last week, in hearing about youth unemployment and having heard how destructive it is here I read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/27/gaza-graduates-demand-unrwa-solutions-for-high-unemployment-rate. Here’s another if Al Jazeera is off putting, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/. “Undereducated” makes it sound like these are people who aren’t interested in having a better life, and that doesn’t seem like an accurate description of the problem.
It is a beautiful thing to listen to conversation of this caliber. Thank you, all.
More beauty, a dream, would be to have the Red Cross, NATO, or other humanitarian organizations be flooded with private funds dedicated to providing early childhood support and education to the families on the Gaza strip, and in Israel, for decades to come. The stress of this region, and elsewhere around the world, needs to be reduced, so children may have the chance to grow in a more healthy and balanced manner. Perhaps these children could then grow in ways that would allow them to discern for themselves what is good in their chosen religion, and what is a false mask to hide behind promoted by extremists of that religion, that allows distortion of ego and power to take root. The mother in me wants to just bathe, and feed, and read stories to, and love these folks, on both sides. What then?
Why does Anderson not stand up to a group of black employees? Because woke white liberals are more afraid of being called a racist than anything else in life. They cower and hide while American institutions are dying and ideas like “color blindness “--perhaps the only way this multiracial and multi ethnic society survives--are driven into the ground by the work left.
I am so fucking angry. Thoughtful men like Glenn, Coleman and John are harangued and harassed and driven to the periphery of their own group for defending noble ideas and white liberals, baby boomers and gen x folks who should no better, have not got the goddam guts to stand up.
Not at all surprising that the last ten minutes of this has solicited more comments than the entire discussion on Coleman's Ted misadventure. But that means I have to point people to this Substack that had an interesting perspective on the Israel/Palestine conflict from a strictly economic point of view. It was not something I have seen reported on before and added some context outside of religion.
https://open.substack.com/pub/adamtooze/p/chartbook-245-gaza-beyond-de-development?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=bjkrf
Despite the seemingly large number of those supporting the Palestinians, (as I do the innocent ones who did not vote for Hamas), I hope the Christian world realizes that without Israel, as constituted, to protect them, the Holy Places would no longer exist. Just look to what the fundamentalists did in Syria & Iraq to historical sites. Would they respect those sacred to the "Infidels"?
Please make a clip of Glenns statement about barbarism! I am proud to listen to this show after this episode.
This discussion of the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, which Coleman Hughes had with Dr Benny Morris in 2022 is a must for anyone wanting to understand the historical context https://youtu.be/wv8F4NLr4E0?si=lJTM2P7dbNYfO0IO
Coleman's most recent talk with Andrew Gold is even better.
Excellent show. Three of my favourite thinkers!! One note of concern on the Israel/Palestine discussion at the tail end: Glenn said that the story of the region since the inception of the state of Israel has been one of tragedy. Well, from the perspective of displaced Palestinians this has certainly been the story. From the perspective of the Jewish people who at last have a place of security in the world it has certainly not been a tragedy, but rather a triumph of hard work, unity, human rights, and the rule of law. As Coleman pointed out, Hamas doesn’t value the human lives of its own people, using them as human shields with no human rights at all. In the oppressor/oppressed worldview so popular in the Western elite at the moment, how can Hamas not been seen for the oppressors (of their own people) they are?
Also as Coleman pointed out, the Palestinian leadership has been given many opportunities for a two state solution (ending the oppression of Palestinians) and they have simply rejected it. The solution the Palestinian leadership
continues to impose on its own people is the one they decry as oppression. Again, who is the oppressor of the Palestinian people in this context?
The "3 Musketeers", how wonderful!! All should listen to the referenced Coleman's Corner/Conversations with Coleman. His discussion with Andrew Gold is a must.
I appreciate the even-handed discussion of the Israeli situation. I am glad there is no question about the utterly barbaric pogrom Hamas carried out. I do have reservations about the way you all discussed two issues -- the possibility of an "overreaction" by Israel and the place of the settlements in the whole conflict.
Daniel Pipes has for a long time argued that no settling with the Palestinians will be possible until they experience total defeat - a la Germany and Japan after WWII. Maybe he's right or wrong, but in any case, I think Israel has no viable option other than the total defeat and annihilation of Hamas. Hamas is not in the least interested in governing Gaza or for that matter in winning a Palestinian state. It is openly and avowedly purely genocidal. It cares not a whit for the people of Gaza, who will have no hope of a decent life until Hamas is eliminated. Whatever war Israel conducts, therefore, will not be an "overreaction" if it achieves this objective of total victory.
As for settlements, I am not a big fan of them, nor are I believe most Israelis. But I think you all vastly overrate the significance of the conflict over the settlements. For one thing, Gaza has no Jewish settlements, in fact no Jews at all. Israel took all of them out in 2005, even though the Jews there resisted that. It was an extreme right-wing prime minister who did that, by the way. The departing Jews left a viable economy in place, which Hamas proceeded to trash. It then turned what is falsely labeled the "open air prison" of Gaza into what is in truth a "medieval fortress," from which it sallies forth every so often to kill Jews. What the critics of the settlements need to do is explain why Israel should have any doubts about what would happen in the West Bank if it were to do what it already did in Gaza. The example of Gaza tells Israelis why it is futile to think an abandonment of the settlements would make a bit of difference.
The Palestinians are in the grip of an ideology that is in fact a fusion of Nazi and Islamist thinking that was brought to full fruition during World War II especially. It is genocidal, and its ultimate goal has nothing to do with a Palestinian state -- which Israel has offered several times to no avail. Unlike you all, however, I do not think this will go on another 75 years. The rest of the Middle East (except Iran) is already moving toward ever more substantial reproachment with Israel. Once the genocidal dreams of the Palestinians die, they will move that way as well. A total defeat of Hamas could put an end to the massive aid the UN, Europe and America have provided and that keeps the Palestinian leadership in power, and this would force the people of Gaza to embrace pragmatic and economically motivated leaders. TOTAL defeat of Hamas is what I believe to be the only hope for Gaza as well as for Israel.
Yesterday, I heard that it was Israel (Netanyahu) who intentionally empowered Hamas as a way to thwart progress on a two state solution…https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/. If this is true, does this change how you see the plight of the millions in Gaza?
No, it does not. Why would it? The stress here on Netanyahu is misplaced. Israeli leaders, the UN, the US, the Europeans, Qatar, Iran and many other sources of funds keep Hamas going. Obviously, the Israeli hope was to buy them off and induce them to behave. It was always a stopgap and likely always doomed. As for being a way to "thwart progress on a two-state solution," I say what progress? NO Palestinian faction, party or leader has ever actually taken the idea of a two-state solution seriously. They have had it offered to them by Israelis several times. The response is always the same: Lead the Israelis on up to the edge and then start up the next intifada. The Times of Israel does not like Netanyahu, but count me deeply skeptical about their emphasis on him alone.
Besides, in what sense does any Israeli's bumbling effort to manage the dangers posed by Hamas and the P.A. undercut the horrors of what Hamas did, and did alone, or the need to destroy it now?
I in no way am attempting to undercut the horrors of Hamas, I just don’t believe in collective punishment of the civilian population for the terrorism of a minority. My understanding of this article, which was new to me, was that Netanyahu empowered Hamas, while taking power away from Abbas specifically because he might have sought a compromise. You can for sure argue that Palestinians have never wanted peace, but I have heard countered that what was called “peace plans” didn’t actually offer a real Palestine for Palestinians like with control of borders and autonomy. When I hear talk of Palestinians, it most often is talk of the terrorists as though they are all the same. That makes me incredibly nervous. My take from history is that the first step before atrocities is dehumanization, and we know that Hamas has dehumanized all Israelis, but if Israel responds by demonizing a large Palestinian population… especially if Israel on purpose put Palestinians in a position to be aligned with terrorists instead of more moderate forces specifically to be more easily demunanized…
There was also an article Haaretz https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000, if that is a better source? It has a paywall, so I don’t know if it rebuts the thesis or not. From my perspective, it seems like there is plenty to dislike about Netanyahu, especially of late.
Two points and then I believe I have overused my space and time here.
First, the ONLY people who believe in the "collective punishment of the civilian population" of Gaza are the leaders of Hamas, who put their people in harms way and will not even allow them to get out of harms way by going south a few miles now. Israel is not engaging in collective punishment by going into Gaza for the sole purpose of destroying Hamas. I simply do not accept your way of framing this, which is tragically the way the world frames it.
Secondly, when you say Netanyahu empowered Hamas to undercut Abbas, you imply there is a big difference between those two. In fact, when Abbas speaks to his own people in their language, it is the language of Hamas. Your talk of Israel not offering "a real Palestine" implies that Abbas, unlike Hamas, wants a real Palestine that would not endanger Israel's very existence. Abbas and the P.A. play a double and duplicitous game, but what he tells his own people is "right of return." which would swamp Israel and end it as a Jewish nation. "From the river to the sea," a land judenrein, is the chant that all the friends of the Palestinians in the West love to chant. They understand perfectly what the "real Palestine" has to be.
Anyway, that's all for me. Have at it.
No one with any humanity wishes for collective punishment. Leaving aside the guilt or innocence of those who elected Hamas to govern Gaza, what course of action would you suggest Israel take to secure its right to exist?
The first casualty of war is humanity. I have heard leaders of the current Israeli government call for leveling Gaza. The current push to get the residents of Gaza to leave is being called potential ethnic cleansing (which I would think the Jewish people of all people would be against.) As was shutting off water, electricity, and food to Gaza in addition to demanding millions of people move often by foot to a new place (southern Gaza) with no resources. Mustafa Barghouti, apparently a long time peace activist, believes that as long as the occupation continues there can be no peace. I haven’t heard a lot from the Gaza perspective, just characterization of Gaza, so I don’t know, except for this man and a professor from Columbia. In fact, I haven’t heard much about how to fix things, just rage about the atrocities. And resignation about the imminent, but somehow unavoidable, slaughter of civilians.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/10/08/gps-1008-mustafa-barghouti-on-israels-war-on-hamas.cnn
Israel faces an existential threat. They respond or they die. You use the word "occupation" as if they were from someplace else and just stationing troops like the US did in Germany and Japan. This is in reality the home land for many jews for thousands of years. Many others migrated and integrated from the early 1800s. More came after partition in 1948 and with the end of the mandate, attempted to set up two independent states. The Arabs refused and offered war, repeatedly. We may decry violence, but violence has already visited, and will again if unchecked.
JasonT, this from Brendan O'Neill seems to me to sum up what we are up against and what it comes down to.
"So let me get this right. If Israel bombs Hamas targets in Gaza, it is recklessly endangering civilian life. But if it gives civilians fair warning to move away from certain areas, it is engaging in ethnic cleansing. If it drops bombs in built-up suburbs, it is committing a war crime. But if it advises civilians to leave those built-up suburbs before the bombs come, it is also committing a war crime. If it attacks northern Gaza, that’s genocide. Yet when it tells the civilians of northern Gaza to leave first, that’s ‘forced transfer’, which is to say: genocide. Everything Israel does is a war crime. Everything. Killing civilians – war crime. Trying not to kill civilians – war crime. Bombing populated areas – war crime. Giving a population time to leave before dropping bombs – war crime. "
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/10/16/why-wont-the-jews-just-let-themselves-be-killed/
To which Bob Dylan in Neighborhood Bully gets the last word:
"Well, the chances are against it, and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac
He's the neighborhood bully."
So, did you see that the IDF subsequently bombed the areas that Palestinian civilians were told to move to? Did you see all the children, both the killed and the survivors? If Gaza authorities are to believed, and you may not, as of today some 3000 children have been killed in Gaza. Do you really think this is a good thing for Israel’s long term prospects?
I watched an interview with a boy, clearly traumatized, whose next door neighbor’s house was leveled. The whole family gone. The boy said he missed his friend who lived there, because they played together every day. Do you think this boy is going to grow up to want to make peace with Israel? I suspect no more than the survivors of the 10/7 terror attacks want to make peace with Palestinians.
First, no. I do not believe the Gaza Health Ministry's numbers. Why on earth would I, or anyone.? These are the assertions of a terrorist organization that is notorious for lying and exaggerating. They reported the explosion in the parking lot next to that hospital as caused by Israel and as taking 500 lives. It was not caused by Israel, and the latest independent numbers I have seen are that 10-50 may have died. I would discount your 3,000 figure by at least that factor.
As for that boy, he will grow up to want war with Israel not because of this, but because his education, partly supported via the UN, etc., involves constant, vile antisemitic nonsense and such nice activities as dressing up as a suicide bomber. A sick culture is likely to produce him as a future terrorist, if anything does. Otherwise, he may well end up like the vast majority of Germans and Japanese, thankful that his side lost, and that a saner leadership arose in its place.
And really, Amy, if the IDF bombed areas from which civilians were told to move, but some of whom did not, and some died, whose responsibility is that? Hamas started this war, and Hamas prevents those people from leaving. This is a war crime, on Hamas, not Israel. They are using their own people as shields in the HOPE that Israeli attacks will inadvertently kill them. And in the assumption that our corrupted media will accept their spin on it all. The blood is entirely on Hamas' hands. Every single death is on their hands. Had they not done Oct, 7, NO ONE in Gaza would be dying from Israel's totally justified defense.
No, you misunderstood, the IDF bombed the areas the Palestinian civilians were told to move *to*.
I can tell that you are 100% in the pro-Israel camp. Hopefully you recognize the fire of your convictions is the same as those who support Palestine. I just feel sadness for suffering, especially the future suffering that all this current conviction will bring about.
Israel has powerful enemies and fickle friends. They do not have the luxury of independent action. Eventually their enemies will win unless Israel destroys them.
By the way, also, I believe I once before suggested you get Jeffrey Herf to be a guest to discuss all this. He is a top scholar of Israel's history, of Nazi Germany, and of the Nazi influence on Islamist radicalism. He latest book on the founding of Israel is a pathbreaking work. Jeffrey long ago broke with his New Left past, but he remains a liberal I believe on most matters, both in the US and Israel. I don't even always agree with him, but I think he could provide a fascinating perspective on all this.
4:07 AFAIK, we're all half something.
A podcast with Glenn, John and Coleman? Magnificent.