My feelings about the Gaza War are not unique to me—they’re not even unusual. Here they are, stated plainly: Hamas’s actions on October 7, 2023 were monstrous. They slaughtered hundreds and hundreds of innocent people, took hostages, and used the civilian population of Gaza as “human shields,” effectively placing them in the line of fire. Israel had a right to respond to this attack. Nevertheless, killing thousands of noncombatants
Glenn, No country in the history of wars has ever been asked or expected to take care and caution, To feed and medically treat the enemy they are battling. ONLY ONLY ISRAEL. The number of civilian casualties are at best way over inflated, Calculated by Hamas to be used and proselytized by the mainstream media.
Hamas, Who burns and beads babies and rapes women with glee- That is what and who You are supporting while you condemn Israel, the most moral army in the world.
I have canceled my paid subscription to your Substack.
You can rationalize, you can justify, you can approve of everything they do. You can excuse them, you can attack their detractors. You can worship them, but can we at least be honest about who they are and what they are and what they have done and are doing. Can we at least be honest about their power … in the media, finance, and Congress, nothing hidden about it, all done in the open for everyone to see who bothers to look. Jews characterize any suggestion of Jewish power in the media as “Jews controlling the media” and an anti-Semitic trope, but Jews do dominate the senior ranks across the entire media spectrum and have used that power our entire lives to feed us a lifetime of constant demonization and dehumanization of Muslims in general and Arabs and Palestinians in particular while simultaneously feeding a constant super humanization of Jews … propaganda 101, again nothing hidden about it, all done in the open for everyone to see who bothers to look.
Israel’s leaders could not have been more explicit in announcing their genocidal intent mere days after October 7. Jews preach universalism to the rest if us while they practice exclusivism for themselves, planning to drive all Palestinians out. Zionism’s goal since its inception has been every last inch of Palestine for the Jews and it does not stop with Gaza and the West Bank. Eretz Israel (Greater Israel) extends into Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt.
Jews have been at the center at every level of our endless wars in the Middle East, playing us for the willing fools that we have been. Our politicians can’t agree on doing a damn thing for America but are near unanimous in their subservience to the Jewish state.
I have been immersed in Israel and Palestine for over 40 years since marrying into a large, Jewish, Zionist family and have been observing this behavior on a near daily basis ever since. I have come to know it well.
After Gaza, the world is not going to give a fuck about the holocaust. After Gaza, accusations of anti-Semitism will be met with a middle finger. Jews had better hope the United States does not tire of being Israel’s bitch.
Israeli leaders were widely misquoted as saying genocidal stuff, but if you look at the full remarks it’s obviously calumny. South Africa’s ICJ application puts it all in one place - both the misleadingly clipped quotes and the links to the full comments, where the speakers distinguished between civilians and combatants.
Israel is not killing indiscriminately Glenn, if they wanted that Israel would have just accepted from the outset that the hostages were dead and bomb the living hell out of Gaza. 1 on 5 IDF deaths is friendly fire because in war mistakes happen, if hamas surrender the mistakes will stop. hamas insisted on the release of 1,027 palestinians for one Israeli soldier (Gilad Shalit) so if thats the math of hamas each Israeli life is worth 1,027 palestinians. I do not support Israel uncritically and have been dead-set against sending EXTRA money to them, they are currently receiving 4 billion per year from the US to spend on defense so they should not be short one shell, one bullet or a pair of socks, there is no reason to give extra when after all these years the have that 4 billion per year of military aid to call upon.
I can't help but notice that nearly all of the comments address the substance of Glenn's opinions on the Gaza War, some offering insightful counterarguments and others descending into ad-hominem sucker punches. Many commenters seem to have missed Glenn's point.
The article is a meta-reflection (Glenn seems to like doing this—have you heard of a book called Late Admissions?) on the nature of being a public intellectual amidst increasingly polarizing times. A tension arises between the desire to unflinchingly speak one's mind, and the social ramifications it engenders—in this case, being labeled anti-Semitic. The balance is a difficult one, and I would urge commenters to actually try speaking publicly on such matters. It's much more difficult than you might think to formulate a clear, concise, view on any given matter, and to continually do so over a long period. I'm an undergraduate at UCLA, and during the height of the encampment mayhem, I made a long social media post calling for it to end. The encampment brought anarchy and would only further degrade the quality of discourse without actually helping any of those suffering, went my opinion. This may or may not have been correct, but I knew for certain that such matters direly needed to be debated openly.
Many have offered counterarguments in the spirit of open discourse, but unfortunately some have decided to chastise Glenn for his views on the matter. If you had a knee-jerk reaction to think "I can't believe Glenn said this or that", and took the time to comment as such, then consider that you may be part of the reason why Glenn harbors such fears about open expression. Those of us in Glenn's community should understand the danger of cancel culture, and each of us should consider it a responsibility to presume good faith in dialogue and allow for people to be large, and contain multitudes. Only by ditching the my-side-your-side mentality can we lower the suffocating veil of censorship, and achieve a real degree of discourse.
Critique of Glenn has nothing to do with cancel culture or censorship, it's, obviously, just a passionate disagreement with his views on this topic. Sorry if you can't see this.
I actually do see this. I drew a distinction between those who passionately disagree and those who morally condemn Glenn. Even if it’s not a manner of literal censorship, the latter creates a stifling aura which discourages the healthy form of discourse needed on these types of subjects. Maybe I’ve misjudged the comment section here, but it seemed like there are a number of people saying things like “I can’t believe Glenn would say such a thing” instead of straightforwardly offering their different viewpoints. We can disagree robustly without moral condemnation, and our discourse would be better without it in the majority of cases.
The first four paragraphs of Glenn's article might be the most humane and balanced view of the Gaza situation that I've read so far. The only possible exception is the word "indiscriminate", which is arguably excessive. But if you follow the link where that word occurs and watch the video, you will see that Glenn's expanded views on the subject are much more nuanced. Every thoughtful person should be agonizing about the appropriate balance between necessary force and collateral damage in Gaza and Glenn does exactly that.
I infer from Glenn's comments in this essay (as well as other comments he has made on this site) that he has been called antisemitic or a jew hater because of some of his stated views. If that has indeed happened it is unfortunate and from my perspective untrue.
Depending on the topic I follow the comments section here fairly regularly. On the subject of Israel and Gaza I follow the comments closely. I can't recall reading any comment here that says or implies that Glenn holds antisemitic views. On the contrary, I see commenters going out of their way to say that they do not believe Glenn to hold such obnoxious views.
What I do often see in the comments are opinions that Glenn's analyses on the Israel/Hamas/Gaza topic leave much to be desired concerning their lack of rigor and completeness. He seems to be unable to place in context the work of photojournalists vying for Pulitzer Prize winning horrific photos of grief stricken mothers cradling the wrapped body of an infant with the well documented practice of Hamas intentionally manufacturing the situation leading to that photo. He doesn't appear to be able to see the absurdity of a celebrity chef accusing the IDF (without a shred of evidence) of intentionally killing volunteers in the midst of the chaos that surrounds all efforts associated with providing humanitarian relief inside a war zone. There is a fairly consistent view from many commenters that Glenn has not subjected his views to critical review by well informed, call them what you will public intellectuals, historians, scholars, knowledgable observers.........who come to conclusions that don't agree with his own. I am not aware of any reply or even acknowledgement by Glenn to these types of comments/suggestions.
Someone in this comment stream suggested that I need to "give Glenn a break" because of his recent surgery. I can assure you that I know full well what's involved in the type of surgery Glenn had and is recovering from as I had similar surgery several years ago. I assume though that since Glenn spent the time and energy writing "Self Censorship in the Time of War" that he wants to get fully involved in his Glenn Show endeavors.
On Sunday June 2, Fareed Zakaria had a guest who was Jewish and as a child escaped Nazi Germany. He was critical of current Israeli policy in Gaza. Granted, Hamas could have prevented this by not attacking Israel to begin with, and afterwards, by releasing all of the hostages and recognizing Israel's right to exist. But, Israel should be wise enough to avoid creating new animosities when defending itself. The current suffering of the Gaza civilian population plays directly into the goals of Hamas; which are to cause world opinion to shift against Israel. Your concerns seem valid and should not be perceived as antiIsraeli.
The Hamas attack is often compared to Nazi holocaust, but in a critical way it was worse. The Nazis kept their atrocities a secret as long as they could -no doubt it helped manage their captives as they unknowingly complied with their doom. Not Hamas. Videos celebrating the despicable atrocities, for the world to see and for the deluded to celebrate.
This is about Israel’s existence, but it is also about naked barbarism and the West. Hamas must be destroyed, just as the Nazis were destroyed.
Jerry Seinfeld’s lightening fast answer to Bari Weiss’ lighting-round question: “Who is your hero?” was Marcus Aurelius because, said Seinfeld “PERSPECTIVE is the most important single word in life.”
Glenn, this came to my mind immediately upon finishing your post on the Israel/Hamas war.
While you feel understandably relieved to have un-canceled yourself, I respectfully offer that your synopsis lacks the larger, more encompassing perspective. Rather than my description of that perspective I think it could be meaningful to hear a dialogue between you and other respected public intellectuals on this complex issue.
I suggest Nialll Ferguson, Sam Harris,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, or Victor Davis Hanson.
I hope you will consider this.
In closing I want to tell you glad I am that your surgery and recovery went well.
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".
An earlier commenter has already brought up the historical parallel of America’s dropping two atomic bombs on civilians, mostly women and children since many military-age men were elsewhere engaged in combat against the WWII Allies. Instantly, over 200,000 civilians perished and the cities almost entirely obliterated.
I was born just a few months before that horrific “genocide.” As soon as I was old enough to read and learn about history and what my country had done, I felt much of the ethical burden Glenn describes. The atomic bombings resulted in worldwide condemnation and calls for war crimes against the US.
However, the result of jolting the Japanese emperor and military was that unconditional surrender happened, the emperor and military were no longer viewed by Japanese people as unconditional leaders, rebuilding began (e.g., cities, economy, educational viewpoints, etc.) with substantial help from the Allies. Japan has become a staunch ally in global affairs.
My point is that horrific casualties and destruction of homes and livelihoods are just that—horrible—but positive and permanent change can come about with the ending (no suggestion of Hiroshima-Nagasaki type of bomb usage!) of an enemy (Hamas) along with immediate and constructive restructuring of Gaza, which includes education aimed at tolerance and societal and economic productivity, as well as rebuilding cities and services.
I would like to see a discussion of the future for this region, that is, the “end game.” My hope is for durable peace and prosperity for the entire region. History has shown that warring people who have inflicted horrific devastation on one another can become allies.
Glenn and others seem to object to the Israeli response to October 7 but I have yet to hear a coherent alternative. Hamas vows to destroy Israel and apparently has the support of very many Gazans. What course of action should Israel pursue in response?
As I read this sad pseudo apologia of yours I noticed that you seem to have no muslim friends. More than anything, that suggests that you have been brainwashed to believe the Arabs to be "beasts, sub-human animals, etc". [Don't you know that black Africans were referred to as "animals" and "beasts." ?even in our lifetime?]. I value your opinions regarding race relations in this country, Glenn, but re the Middle East, the less said the better.
Glenn, I hope you listen the below interview, especially if you care about the innocent Palestinians.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-jordan-b-peterson-podcast/id1184022695?i=1000658513117
Glenn, No country in the history of wars has ever been asked or expected to take care and caution, To feed and medically treat the enemy they are battling. ONLY ONLY ISRAEL. The number of civilian casualties are at best way over inflated, Calculated by Hamas to be used and proselytized by the mainstream media.
Hamas, Who burns and beads babies and rapes women with glee- That is what and who You are supporting while you condemn Israel, the most moral army in the world.
I have canceled my paid subscription to your Substack.
You can rationalize, you can justify, you can approve of everything they do. You can excuse them, you can attack their detractors. You can worship them, but can we at least be honest about who they are and what they are and what they have done and are doing. Can we at least be honest about their power … in the media, finance, and Congress, nothing hidden about it, all done in the open for everyone to see who bothers to look. Jews characterize any suggestion of Jewish power in the media as “Jews controlling the media” and an anti-Semitic trope, but Jews do dominate the senior ranks across the entire media spectrum and have used that power our entire lives to feed us a lifetime of constant demonization and dehumanization of Muslims in general and Arabs and Palestinians in particular while simultaneously feeding a constant super humanization of Jews … propaganda 101, again nothing hidden about it, all done in the open for everyone to see who bothers to look.
Israel’s leaders could not have been more explicit in announcing their genocidal intent mere days after October 7. Jews preach universalism to the rest if us while they practice exclusivism for themselves, planning to drive all Palestinians out. Zionism’s goal since its inception has been every last inch of Palestine for the Jews and it does not stop with Gaza and the West Bank. Eretz Israel (Greater Israel) extends into Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt.
Jews have been at the center at every level of our endless wars in the Middle East, playing us for the willing fools that we have been. Our politicians can’t agree on doing a damn thing for America but are near unanimous in their subservience to the Jewish state.
I have been immersed in Israel and Palestine for over 40 years since marrying into a large, Jewish, Zionist family and have been observing this behavior on a near daily basis ever since. I have come to know it well.
After Gaza, the world is not going to give a fuck about the holocaust. After Gaza, accusations of anti-Semitism will be met with a middle finger. Jews had better hope the United States does not tire of being Israel’s bitch.
Israeli leaders were widely misquoted as saying genocidal stuff, but if you look at the full remarks it’s obviously calumny. South Africa’s ICJ application puts it all in one place - both the misleadingly clipped quotes and the links to the full comments, where the speakers distinguished between civilians and combatants.
Israel is not killing indiscriminately Glenn, if they wanted that Israel would have just accepted from the outset that the hostages were dead and bomb the living hell out of Gaza. 1 on 5 IDF deaths is friendly fire because in war mistakes happen, if hamas surrender the mistakes will stop. hamas insisted on the release of 1,027 palestinians for one Israeli soldier (Gilad Shalit) so if thats the math of hamas each Israeli life is worth 1,027 palestinians. I do not support Israel uncritically and have been dead-set against sending EXTRA money to them, they are currently receiving 4 billion per year from the US to spend on defense so they should not be short one shell, one bullet or a pair of socks, there is no reason to give extra when after all these years the have that 4 billion per year of military aid to call upon.
Please have Douglas Murray on the podcast. You’ve had his polar opposite Norman Finklestein on. Balance the scale.
I may not agree with you on this issue but I will fight to death for your right to say what you believe Glenn!
I can't help but notice that nearly all of the comments address the substance of Glenn's opinions on the Gaza War, some offering insightful counterarguments and others descending into ad-hominem sucker punches. Many commenters seem to have missed Glenn's point.
The article is a meta-reflection (Glenn seems to like doing this—have you heard of a book called Late Admissions?) on the nature of being a public intellectual amidst increasingly polarizing times. A tension arises between the desire to unflinchingly speak one's mind, and the social ramifications it engenders—in this case, being labeled anti-Semitic. The balance is a difficult one, and I would urge commenters to actually try speaking publicly on such matters. It's much more difficult than you might think to formulate a clear, concise, view on any given matter, and to continually do so over a long period. I'm an undergraduate at UCLA, and during the height of the encampment mayhem, I made a long social media post calling for it to end. The encampment brought anarchy and would only further degrade the quality of discourse without actually helping any of those suffering, went my opinion. This may or may not have been correct, but I knew for certain that such matters direly needed to be debated openly.
Many have offered counterarguments in the spirit of open discourse, but unfortunately some have decided to chastise Glenn for his views on the matter. If you had a knee-jerk reaction to think "I can't believe Glenn said this or that", and took the time to comment as such, then consider that you may be part of the reason why Glenn harbors such fears about open expression. Those of us in Glenn's community should understand the danger of cancel culture, and each of us should consider it a responsibility to presume good faith in dialogue and allow for people to be large, and contain multitudes. Only by ditching the my-side-your-side mentality can we lower the suffocating veil of censorship, and achieve a real degree of discourse.
Critique of Glenn has nothing to do with cancel culture or censorship, it's, obviously, just a passionate disagreement with his views on this topic. Sorry if you can't see this.
I actually do see this. I drew a distinction between those who passionately disagree and those who morally condemn Glenn. Even if it’s not a manner of literal censorship, the latter creates a stifling aura which discourages the healthy form of discourse needed on these types of subjects. Maybe I’ve misjudged the comment section here, but it seemed like there are a number of people saying things like “I can’t believe Glenn would say such a thing” instead of straightforwardly offering their different viewpoints. We can disagree robustly without moral condemnation, and our discourse would be better without it in the majority of cases.
The first four paragraphs of Glenn's article might be the most humane and balanced view of the Gaza situation that I've read so far. The only possible exception is the word "indiscriminate", which is arguably excessive. But if you follow the link where that word occurs and watch the video, you will see that Glenn's expanded views on the subject are much more nuanced. Every thoughtful person should be agonizing about the appropriate balance between necessary force and collateral damage in Gaza and Glenn does exactly that.
I infer from Glenn's comments in this essay (as well as other comments he has made on this site) that he has been called antisemitic or a jew hater because of some of his stated views. If that has indeed happened it is unfortunate and from my perspective untrue.
Depending on the topic I follow the comments section here fairly regularly. On the subject of Israel and Gaza I follow the comments closely. I can't recall reading any comment here that says or implies that Glenn holds antisemitic views. On the contrary, I see commenters going out of their way to say that they do not believe Glenn to hold such obnoxious views.
What I do often see in the comments are opinions that Glenn's analyses on the Israel/Hamas/Gaza topic leave much to be desired concerning their lack of rigor and completeness. He seems to be unable to place in context the work of photojournalists vying for Pulitzer Prize winning horrific photos of grief stricken mothers cradling the wrapped body of an infant with the well documented practice of Hamas intentionally manufacturing the situation leading to that photo. He doesn't appear to be able to see the absurdity of a celebrity chef accusing the IDF (without a shred of evidence) of intentionally killing volunteers in the midst of the chaos that surrounds all efforts associated with providing humanitarian relief inside a war zone. There is a fairly consistent view from many commenters that Glenn has not subjected his views to critical review by well informed, call them what you will public intellectuals, historians, scholars, knowledgable observers.........who come to conclusions that don't agree with his own. I am not aware of any reply or even acknowledgement by Glenn to these types of comments/suggestions.
Someone in this comment stream suggested that I need to "give Glenn a break" because of his recent surgery. I can assure you that I know full well what's involved in the type of surgery Glenn had and is recovering from as I had similar surgery several years ago. I assume though that since Glenn spent the time and energy writing "Self Censorship in the Time of War" that he wants to get fully involved in his Glenn Show endeavors.
I think he should interview Douglas Murray. It would be nice for him to get another viewpoint from someone who has personally witnessed the situation.
On Sunday June 2, Fareed Zakaria had a guest who was Jewish and as a child escaped Nazi Germany. He was critical of current Israeli policy in Gaza. Granted, Hamas could have prevented this by not attacking Israel to begin with, and afterwards, by releasing all of the hostages and recognizing Israel's right to exist. But, Israel should be wise enough to avoid creating new animosities when defending itself. The current suffering of the Gaza civilian population plays directly into the goals of Hamas; which are to cause world opinion to shift against Israel. Your concerns seem valid and should not be perceived as antiIsraeli.
The Hamas attack is often compared to Nazi holocaust, but in a critical way it was worse. The Nazis kept their atrocities a secret as long as they could -no doubt it helped manage their captives as they unknowingly complied with their doom. Not Hamas. Videos celebrating the despicable atrocities, for the world to see and for the deluded to celebrate.
This is about Israel’s existence, but it is also about naked barbarism and the West. Hamas must be destroyed, just as the Nazis were destroyed.
Laura Sanderson
Jerry Seinfeld’s lightening fast answer to Bari Weiss’ lighting-round question: “Who is your hero?” was Marcus Aurelius because, said Seinfeld “PERSPECTIVE is the most important single word in life.”
Glenn, this came to my mind immediately upon finishing your post on the Israel/Hamas war.
While you feel understandably relieved to have un-canceled yourself, I respectfully offer that your synopsis lacks the larger, more encompassing perspective. Rather than my description of that perspective I think it could be meaningful to hear a dialogue between you and other respected public intellectuals on this complex issue.
I suggest Nialll Ferguson, Sam Harris,
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, or Victor Davis Hanson.
I hope you will consider this.
In closing I want to tell you glad I am that your surgery and recovery went well.
🎯
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.
An earlier commenter has already brought up the historical parallel of America’s dropping two atomic bombs on civilians, mostly women and children since many military-age men were elsewhere engaged in combat against the WWII Allies. Instantly, over 200,000 civilians perished and the cities almost entirely obliterated.
I was born just a few months before that horrific “genocide.” As soon as I was old enough to read and learn about history and what my country had done, I felt much of the ethical burden Glenn describes. The atomic bombings resulted in worldwide condemnation and calls for war crimes against the US.
However, the result of jolting the Japanese emperor and military was that unconditional surrender happened, the emperor and military were no longer viewed by Japanese people as unconditional leaders, rebuilding began (e.g., cities, economy, educational viewpoints, etc.) with substantial help from the Allies. Japan has become a staunch ally in global affairs.
My point is that horrific casualties and destruction of homes and livelihoods are just that—horrible—but positive and permanent change can come about with the ending (no suggestion of Hiroshima-Nagasaki type of bomb usage!) of an enemy (Hamas) along with immediate and constructive restructuring of Gaza, which includes education aimed at tolerance and societal and economic productivity, as well as rebuilding cities and services.
I would like to see a discussion of the future for this region, that is, the “end game.” My hope is for durable peace and prosperity for the entire region. History has shown that warring people who have inflicted horrific devastation on one another can become allies.
Glenn and others seem to object to the Israeli response to October 7 but I have yet to hear a coherent alternative. Hamas vows to destroy Israel and apparently has the support of very many Gazans. What course of action should Israel pursue in response?
As I read this sad pseudo apologia of yours I noticed that you seem to have no muslim friends. More than anything, that suggests that you have been brainwashed to believe the Arabs to be "beasts, sub-human animals, etc". [Don't you know that black Africans were referred to as "animals" and "beasts." ?even in our lifetime?]. I value your opinions regarding race relations in this country, Glenn, but re the Middle East, the less said the better.