Glenn, brother, I think we are all waiting for you to apply your trademark wit and analysis to a situation that, frankly, you seem afraid to touch with the same brush you use so effectively in the context of domestic politics.
I watched your last Q and A with John, and I found your statement (made twice) that as someone who is safe outside Israel, you are not in a position to do the moral math on this conflict, extremely prescient. Indeed, it's the same rationale I use when this sensitive and volatile subject comes up with friends and acquaintances.
But if you believe what you said there, your advocacy for a "ceasefire" while Hamas holds hostages and Israel attempts to fight a war upon which its security depends, is inconsistent at best. That position seems to many of us to avoid deep water and deny the basic realities of security in the region, presupposing a perpetuating guilt on the Israeli side for the very real problem of a genocidal death cult that is the elected government of Gaza.
It's also a position that is frustratingly inconsistent with your continual (and influential) advocacy for what I would call "responsibility politics".
I'm in no position to say that Israel is prosecuting the war effectively, humanely, or economically in terms of human life; two things I'm sure of are that no war is humane and that I don't know enough to make a call about which bombs are legitimate and which aren't. I've also seen enough to understand how those analyses change over time and with hindsight.
I do know, however, that Hamas invaded Israel on 10/7, murdered over 1000 people, and still exists as the governing body in Gaza where they hold or have held innocent Israelis and Americans hostage while they continue to advocate in the public sphere for the eradication of Israel - a democratic nation allied with the United States. Demanding that Israel "cease fire" in this context - as you did quite early in this conflict and continue to do - is not consistent with your simultaneous declaration that you aren't in a position to decide how Israel should protect itself..
As one of your biggest fans, someone who appreciates both the depth and the clarity of your intellect, and a fellow traveler who felt your reluctance to judge a country and a people under threat, I urge you to explore this question more deeply. The world doesn't need you to take a side, but we would all benefit from a deeper, more realistic and more courageous analysis than "ceasefire".
Glenn, brother, I think we are all waiting for you to apply your trademark wit and analysis to a situation that, frankly, you seem afraid to touch with the same brush you use so effectively in the context of domestic politics.
I watched your last Q and A with John, and I found your statement (made twice) that as someone who is safe outside Israel, you are not in a position to do the moral math on this conflict, extremely prescient. Indeed, it's the same rationale I use when this sensitive and volatile subject comes up with friends and acquaintances.
But if you believe what you said there, your advocacy for a "ceasefire" while Hamas holds hostages and Israel attempts to fight a war upon which its security depends, is inconsistent at best. That position seems to many of us to avoid deep water and deny the basic realities of security in the region, presupposing a perpetuating guilt on the Israeli side for the very real problem of a genocidal death cult that is the elected government of Gaza.
It's also a position that is frustratingly inconsistent with your continual (and influential) advocacy for what I would call "responsibility politics".
I'm in no position to say that Israel is prosecuting the war effectively, humanely, or economically in terms of human life; two things I'm sure of are that no war is humane and that I don't know enough to make a call about which bombs are legitimate and which aren't. I've also seen enough to understand how those analyses change over time and with hindsight.
I do know, however, that Hamas invaded Israel on 10/7, murdered over 1000 people, and still exists as the governing body in Gaza where they hold or have held innocent Israelis and Americans hostage while they continue to advocate in the public sphere for the eradication of Israel - a democratic nation allied with the United States. Demanding that Israel "cease fire" in this context - as you did quite early in this conflict and continue to do - is not consistent with your simultaneous declaration that you aren't in a position to decide how Israel should protect itself..
As one of your biggest fans, someone who appreciates both the depth and the clarity of your intellect, and a fellow traveler who felt your reluctance to judge a country and a people under threat, I urge you to explore this question more deeply. The world doesn't need you to take a side, but we would all benefit from a deeper, more realistic and more courageous analysis than "ceasefire".
Thanks for all that you do (:
Fantastic comment.