When I saw the title of this post, I thought you'd be addressing the main point your critics were making on the previous post: ie., that you left unsaid what you thought Israel should be doing about Hamas, as an alternative to the war they are engaged in now. Unfortunately, you still left that unsaid.
I’m very sorry Glenn, but I will not be renewing my subscription. Just know that the Jews who you have surrounded yourself with do not share the opinion of most of us (to be fair, I’m more upset with them than with you). Nevertheless, I cannot continue to financially support someone like yourself. I’m very sorry.
Glenn is a nice guy, but he can be too nice on occasion. He fails to realize that for Jews, this is an existential conflict for survival, against an extreme political ideology of the Muslim-Arab nation, that is hell bent on eliminating and/or dominating all the “subject nationalities”, and restoring the Caliphate which once ruled the Middle East and N. Africa and even Afghanistan, Persia, Greece and the Balkans. This is the one true path of Allah, and it is really not that far from what the Nazi’s wanted. They are not shy about saying what they intend, and they are willing to use any means necessary, without regard to collateral losses. So, for Jews, to it is a question of survival. Zionists must either fight the Arab extreamists, or surrender and hope they will grant some crumbs of tolerance. That is the reality.
In reading your words here, I'm curious to know what your opinion is of the wisdom, or lack thereof, of Israel's policy of continuing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for 57 years and counting now, contrary to international law. It appears to me that this occupation, and their manner of enforcing it, has been the chief engine of trouble for the Israelis. Are they not their own worst enemies, and not "the Arabs"?
There is no such thing as Palestine, it is a fiction created by Arab nationalists to countrt Zionist narrative. . In my opinion the Jewish natrotive is the only one with historical legitimacy, however I also think that such legitimacy is not worth much . The very fact that you speak in terms of buzzwords like “occupation” and “ international law “ gives it all away. You are not a realist, you do not respect or recognize Jewish nationalism, so there is really no point in negotiation. The issue will need to be settled with guns and war, as all of Jewish history demonstrates. War is the will of the god of the Jews against anyone who threatens the peace of Jerusalem. Anyone who hopes to help the Gaza Arabs or the Jews, should learn to deal with reality and stop arguing in terms of legalistic bull crap, The conflict can only be settled when to leaders of belligerent Arab powers sit down with Jewish leaders and talk face to face and make a deal . The European powers or the Americans cannot do much but exert financial influence. They need to decide about there own responsibilities to there own people and decide which side they want to survive and how to support their interests, as
All I can say as a Glenn Loury supporter is he is showing a high level of naïveté in this matter. As are his Jewish friends in the Synagogue. In WWII Jews being led to the slaughter were not forced by Nazis to congregate to be led to the death camps. They read the signs Nazis posted in public locations and they followed their instructions.
Let’s have a reminder of the Khartoum Resolution made by Arab countries assembled in Egypt. Nothing has changed today:
Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.[1] The summit also resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military forces."[2] The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."[3] The outcome of this summit influenced Israeli foreign policy for decades.[4]”
I am honestly not interested in the psycho-dynamics of this. I do not understand why Glenn is focusing so much on what he feels others feel about what he is saying. I've made my own view on Israel and Gaza in MANY other comments here of late (I believe all entirely respectful and temperate). My concern is with Israel's survival, which is now on the line more so than at any time after the first few weeks of the 1948 war. My issue with Glenn is his use of the word "indiscriminate" about Israel's response. The fact that it is a charge made by the whole world means nothing without an honest examination and evaluation of the available facts. I've recommended he deal with this further by bringing in actual scholars who could address it -- Michael Oren, Benny Morris, Jeffrey Herf, Ruth Wisse, Norman Goda, Matthias Küntzel, or Karin Stögner (very good on Intersectionality and antisemitism, a topic Glenn ought to find very relevant to all his other concerns) etc. Until I see some real grappling here with the nature of this conflict, I am done paying attention.
Glenn-for those of us that love you, the problem I have with your position is not that you don’t agree with those that are Pro-Israel in this war. It’s that you do not seriously grapple and wrestle with the alternative and present individuals with that perspective on this platform as you’ve been so willing to do on so many other issues. Think about the brilliant, smart minds who (I’d imagine) would be happy to speak with you about this: Coleman Hughes, Bari Weiss, Douglas Murray, Eli Lake, etc. Why not hear them out on the Glenn Show?
1.) The frustration is Dr. Loury is pro Israel, yet, to over simplify things: his position on the execution of the war seems to come from the images of Gaza via CNN and he is ignoring/dismissing the herculean efforts of the Israeli army to avoid civilian casualties. As he does this he participates in the shallow group think that he is notorious for studiously avoiding.
2.) To add to the strength of the failure of grappling with the issues point: when it comes to race, economics, world politics, etc. Dr. Loury is the King of common sense and views the world through a realistic prism. When it comes to Gaza, it is as if the images from his TV dictate (successfully) he sacrifice his intellectual rigor and nuance for rainbow unicorn solutions because he wants the killing to stop ... being totally oblivious that leaving Hamas in power is going to make it worse for everyone in the region, especially the Palestinians.
People with empathy need to realize that policies based on ignoring the fact that this failing strategy of the past almost 20 years of just trying to keep Hamas in check is not working for ANYONE long term. It's time to rip of the bandaid.
To reiterate, I don't think anyone that knows Dr. Loury would accuse him of antisemitism. What his conservative (and Jewish liberal) followers are waiting for him to do is make an intellectually rigorous stand on Gaza. This mantra "I just want the death to stop" is beneath him and insinuates that people who have a hawkish view on the war don't want the death to stop. I know this is not his intention, but the insinuation is eerily similar to that of the member of the squad from Minnesota who described the Jews' view on Israel as either "pro or anti genocide."
I made a rather long post on Sunday. I hope the following sentiment was not lost: I have listened to hundreds (literally) of hours of Glenn podcasts and read so much of what you’ve written over the last decade, and I will continue to do so as long as you keep putting them out. I disagree with your opinion on Israel/Gaza, but I genuinely think you’re a national treasure. That sounds dramatic, but I mean it. I’d work hard to persuade you on the current situation in Israel because I value your opinion and your voice, but either way I would leave knowing you are an open, honest and brilliant voice, and a friend to Jewish people and all honest people of character. Please keep doing what you’re doing. Most sincerely, Cliff
I can completely understand not talking about Gaza at a synagogue. Both wars (and elections) tend to reduce all sophistication to a dichotomy. The key question is whose side are you on. Any nuance tends to bring one's loyalty into question. The popular reactions to wars should teach us that. (Incidentally, my family is of solidly German ancestry, and the World Wars raised this question in a very personal way. A German-speaking community attempted to switch to English, and my Grandfather's family changed their last name to something that sounds more English. The idea that a loyal American could speak German was vehemently rejected.). Too many people have taken criticism of the Israel's conduct of the war as anti-Semitism, and one cannot ignore the possibility that any criticism of the Israeli government will be taken as siding with Hamas.
Secondly, there is a question of whether discussion will be productive. I routinely am silent when I expect that my opinion will provoke a reaction as opposed to a discussion. I know both Trump voters and AOC fans, that really are not open to alternative points of view. When I think that my comment will result in an argument with both sides digging in, I avoid saying anything. As you read that essay, you were concerned that things would go even further with some severe damage to your reputation. It does not take much imagination to conceive of someone writing a letter to the NYT that denounces your bigotry as a result of such a talk. Things in this country are very weird right now and quite different than 50 year ago.
I admire your honesty in that essay. I think the point is not to make public declarations of what one believes, but to engage in conversations from which both parties might learn. Such declarations can be the starting point, but with volatile issues in the current environment, one cannot expect such discussions unless one knows the counterparty.
I don’t know if you read the comments, however, I have a different take on the conflict in Gaza. My viewpoint is shaped by two book I read in the past year. The first is William Schires 1961 book The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich. The Second book was Flags of our Fathers, which was about the American assault on Iwo Jima.
In the book about the Third Reich the author points out by the time Hitler took over Germany had recovered from its defeat in the First World War. It had the most elite academic system in the world. The Doctorate was invented in the German University system. By 1930 doctoral students were already writing dissertations about how to develop mass killing systems and how to systematically remove gold from the teeth of corpses. By 1935 Jews were excluded from the Universities as student and instructors.
In Flags of our Fathers the author discusses how the Japanese military took over the country in the 1920’s and controlled all aspects of education. Children were taught to hate Caucasians and others and were drilled in military type schools.
The only way to defeat these foes was to completely crush them and then occupy them and re-educate them. That is what MacArthur did in Japan and what the de-nazifaction program did in Germany.
Israel is facing the same situation in Gaza. Hamas has to be crushed and the population needs to be re-educated. The population has been brainwashed into thinking they have no agency and if the Jews were destroyed their lives would magically improve.
Your logic is somewhat flawed, to my way of thinking. You describe certain aspects of National Socialist Germany and post-WWI militaristic Japan as being sufficient reason for requiring to "completely crush them and then re-occupy them and re-educate them." At the time, Germany and Japan were powerful regional nation-states, as Israel is today a powerful regional nation-state. You then state "Hamas has to be crushed and the population needs to be re-educated.", creating an equivalency between Hamas and the Germany and Japan of the 1930s. But it is in fact Israel that has the better claim to equivalency here: Israel is the powerful nation-state. Israel has been brutally occupying Palestinian lands, including Gaza, since 1967, very much after the manner that Germany brutally occupied European lands, and Japan brutally occupied Asian lands, in the 1930s and '40s.
Hamas is a militant resistance organization, essentially equivalent to the partisans of Eastern Europe, to the French Resistance fighters, and to the Warsaw ghetto uprising Jews who rose up and fought against their oppressors and illegal occupiers of their lands; and to the various resistance groups who similarly fought against the Japanese in China, the Philippines, south-east Asia, and elsewhere. Hamas is fighting their brutal Israeli oppressors and illegal occupiers of their lands in the same way.
Germany and Japan resorted to mass slaughter of civilian populations in their attempts to hang on to their stolen lands, and Israel is doing the same.
I submit, therefore, that the inexorable logic of your arguments leads to the inevitable conclusion that Israel, not Hamas, has to be "crushed", and its population "re-educated."
I do agree, but how? Glenn's position is one of surrender, not ceasefire. Perhaps being based on a campus causes osmosis of progressive thought and I'm being serious saying that. There's just so many voices programmed in anti-colonialism Marxist rhetoric with rhetorical fortresses that deny debate. A ceasefire does nothing really. Exchange of hostages is not really a positive when you think about how Sinwar himself was exchanged after being a prisoner in Israel. Certainly, the infiltration of our US education system by debilitating nefarious forces is real including repeating the meme that Islamaphobia is wrong. Why shouldn't we be afraid of Islam? Easy to cast it off as Islamism, but it's still Islam. So now we have a country of young people who mostly hate America to one degree or another as was planned and executed. We also have immigrants who hate America. Lots of them. Where do we go from here? Is this a proxy war or not? If it's not then, yes, let's crush Hamas, occupy, and re-educate. If it is a proxy war, then I just don't see how it's winnable but am all ears if someone can explain that to me.
Huge respect for the congregation of that Palm Beach synagogue on the nature of their reply to you. Unlimited best wishes to you in the matter of any future talks you may give before them or anyone else.
When I saw the title of this post, I thought you'd be addressing the main point your critics were making on the previous post: ie., that you left unsaid what you thought Israel should be doing about Hamas, as an alternative to the war they are engaged in now. Unfortunately, you still left that unsaid.
I’m very sorry Glenn, but I will not be renewing my subscription. Just know that the Jews who you have surrounded yourself with do not share the opinion of most of us (to be fair, I’m more upset with them than with you). Nevertheless, I cannot continue to financially support someone like yourself. I’m very sorry.
Glenn is a nice guy, but he can be too nice on occasion. He fails to realize that for Jews, this is an existential conflict for survival, against an extreme political ideology of the Muslim-Arab nation, that is hell bent on eliminating and/or dominating all the “subject nationalities”, and restoring the Caliphate which once ruled the Middle East and N. Africa and even Afghanistan, Persia, Greece and the Balkans. This is the one true path of Allah, and it is really not that far from what the Nazi’s wanted. They are not shy about saying what they intend, and they are willing to use any means necessary, without regard to collateral losses. So, for Jews, to it is a question of survival. Zionists must either fight the Arab extreamists, or surrender and hope they will grant some crumbs of tolerance. That is the reality.
In reading your words here, I'm curious to know what your opinion is of the wisdom, or lack thereof, of Israel's policy of continuing the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for 57 years and counting now, contrary to international law. It appears to me that this occupation, and their manner of enforcing it, has been the chief engine of trouble for the Israelis. Are they not their own worst enemies, and not "the Arabs"?
There is no such thing as Palestine, it is a fiction created by Arab nationalists to countrt Zionist narrative. . In my opinion the Jewish natrotive is the only one with historical legitimacy, however I also think that such legitimacy is not worth much . The very fact that you speak in terms of buzzwords like “occupation” and “ international law “ gives it all away. You are not a realist, you do not respect or recognize Jewish nationalism, so there is really no point in negotiation. The issue will need to be settled with guns and war, as all of Jewish history demonstrates. War is the will of the god of the Jews against anyone who threatens the peace of Jerusalem. Anyone who hopes to help the Gaza Arabs or the Jews, should learn to deal with reality and stop arguing in terms of legalistic bull crap, The conflict can only be settled when to leaders of belligerent Arab powers sit down with Jewish leaders and talk face to face and make a deal . The European powers or the Americans cannot do much but exert financial influence. They need to decide about there own responsibilities to there own people and decide which side they want to survive and how to support their interests, as
All I can say as a Glenn Loury supporter is he is showing a high level of naïveté in this matter. As are his Jewish friends in the Synagogue. In WWII Jews being led to the slaughter were not forced by Nazis to congregate to be led to the death camps. They read the signs Nazis posted in public locations and they followed their instructions.
Let’s have a reminder of the Khartoum Resolution made by Arab countries assembled in Egypt. Nothing has changed today:
Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.[1] The summit also resolved that the "oil-rich Arab states" give financial aid to the states who lost the war and to "help them rebuild their military forces."[2] The final communique of the meeting "underscored the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine—that is, to destroy the State of Israel."[3] The outcome of this summit influenced Israeli foreign policy for decades.[4]”
I am honestly not interested in the psycho-dynamics of this. I do not understand why Glenn is focusing so much on what he feels others feel about what he is saying. I've made my own view on Israel and Gaza in MANY other comments here of late (I believe all entirely respectful and temperate). My concern is with Israel's survival, which is now on the line more so than at any time after the first few weeks of the 1948 war. My issue with Glenn is his use of the word "indiscriminate" about Israel's response. The fact that it is a charge made by the whole world means nothing without an honest examination and evaluation of the available facts. I've recommended he deal with this further by bringing in actual scholars who could address it -- Michael Oren, Benny Morris, Jeffrey Herf, Ruth Wisse, Norman Goda, Matthias Küntzel, or Karin Stögner (very good on Intersectionality and antisemitism, a topic Glenn ought to find very relevant to all his other concerns) etc. Until I see some real grappling here with the nature of this conflict, I am done paying attention.
Extra: Regarding "indiscriminate" - https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/the-biggest-media-scandal-of-the-era-has-arrived/
Well said!
Glenn-for those of us that love you, the problem I have with your position is not that you don’t agree with those that are Pro-Israel in this war. It’s that you do not seriously grapple and wrestle with the alternative and present individuals with that perspective on this platform as you’ve been so willing to do on so many other issues. Think about the brilliant, smart minds who (I’d imagine) would be happy to speak with you about this: Coleman Hughes, Bari Weiss, Douglas Murray, Eli Lake, etc. Why not hear them out on the Glenn Show?
I would like to try to straighten your point:
1.) The frustration is Dr. Loury is pro Israel, yet, to over simplify things: his position on the execution of the war seems to come from the images of Gaza via CNN and he is ignoring/dismissing the herculean efforts of the Israeli army to avoid civilian casualties. As he does this he participates in the shallow group think that he is notorious for studiously avoiding.
2.) To add to the strength of the failure of grappling with the issues point: when it comes to race, economics, world politics, etc. Dr. Loury is the King of common sense and views the world through a realistic prism. When it comes to Gaza, it is as if the images from his TV dictate (successfully) he sacrifice his intellectual rigor and nuance for rainbow unicorn solutions because he wants the killing to stop ... being totally oblivious that leaving Hamas in power is going to make it worse for everyone in the region, especially the Palestinians.
People with empathy need to realize that policies based on ignoring the fact that this failing strategy of the past almost 20 years of just trying to keep Hamas in check is not working for ANYONE long term. It's time to rip of the bandaid.
To reiterate, I don't think anyone that knows Dr. Loury would accuse him of antisemitism. What his conservative (and Jewish liberal) followers are waiting for him to do is make an intellectually rigorous stand on Gaza. This mantra "I just want the death to stop" is beneath him and insinuates that people who have a hawkish view on the war don't want the death to stop. I know this is not his intention, but the insinuation is eerily similar to that of the member of the squad from Minnesota who described the Jews' view on Israel as either "pro or anti genocide."
I’d love to see a Glenn Lowry discussion of Israel/Gaza with NYT columnist Brett Stephens, I would expect some thoughtful disagreement.
I made a rather long post on Sunday. I hope the following sentiment was not lost: I have listened to hundreds (literally) of hours of Glenn podcasts and read so much of what you’ve written over the last decade, and I will continue to do so as long as you keep putting them out. I disagree with your opinion on Israel/Gaza, but I genuinely think you’re a national treasure. That sounds dramatic, but I mean it. I’d work hard to persuade you on the current situation in Israel because I value your opinion and your voice, but either way I would leave knowing you are an open, honest and brilliant voice, and a friend to Jewish people and all honest people of character. Please keep doing what you’re doing. Most sincerely, Cliff
💯
I can completely understand not talking about Gaza at a synagogue. Both wars (and elections) tend to reduce all sophistication to a dichotomy. The key question is whose side are you on. Any nuance tends to bring one's loyalty into question. The popular reactions to wars should teach us that. (Incidentally, my family is of solidly German ancestry, and the World Wars raised this question in a very personal way. A German-speaking community attempted to switch to English, and my Grandfather's family changed their last name to something that sounds more English. The idea that a loyal American could speak German was vehemently rejected.). Too many people have taken criticism of the Israel's conduct of the war as anti-Semitism, and one cannot ignore the possibility that any criticism of the Israeli government will be taken as siding with Hamas.
Secondly, there is a question of whether discussion will be productive. I routinely am silent when I expect that my opinion will provoke a reaction as opposed to a discussion. I know both Trump voters and AOC fans, that really are not open to alternative points of view. When I think that my comment will result in an argument with both sides digging in, I avoid saying anything. As you read that essay, you were concerned that things would go even further with some severe damage to your reputation. It does not take much imagination to conceive of someone writing a letter to the NYT that denounces your bigotry as a result of such a talk. Things in this country are very weird right now and quite different than 50 year ago.
I admire your honesty in that essay. I think the point is not to make public declarations of what one believes, but to engage in conversations from which both parties might learn. Such declarations can be the starting point, but with volatile issues in the current environment, one cannot expect such discussions unless one knows the counterparty.
I don’t know if you read the comments, however, I have a different take on the conflict in Gaza. My viewpoint is shaped by two book I read in the past year. The first is William Schires 1961 book The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich. The Second book was Flags of our Fathers, which was about the American assault on Iwo Jima.
In the book about the Third Reich the author points out by the time Hitler took over Germany had recovered from its defeat in the First World War. It had the most elite academic system in the world. The Doctorate was invented in the German University system. By 1930 doctoral students were already writing dissertations about how to develop mass killing systems and how to systematically remove gold from the teeth of corpses. By 1935 Jews were excluded from the Universities as student and instructors.
In Flags of our Fathers the author discusses how the Japanese military took over the country in the 1920’s and controlled all aspects of education. Children were taught to hate Caucasians and others and were drilled in military type schools.
The only way to defeat these foes was to completely crush them and then occupy them and re-educate them. That is what MacArthur did in Japan and what the de-nazifaction program did in Germany.
Israel is facing the same situation in Gaza. Hamas has to be crushed and the population needs to be re-educated. The population has been brainwashed into thinking they have no agency and if the Jews were destroyed their lives would magically improve.
Just my thoughts
Your logic is somewhat flawed, to my way of thinking. You describe certain aspects of National Socialist Germany and post-WWI militaristic Japan as being sufficient reason for requiring to "completely crush them and then re-occupy them and re-educate them." At the time, Germany and Japan were powerful regional nation-states, as Israel is today a powerful regional nation-state. You then state "Hamas has to be crushed and the population needs to be re-educated.", creating an equivalency between Hamas and the Germany and Japan of the 1930s. But it is in fact Israel that has the better claim to equivalency here: Israel is the powerful nation-state. Israel has been brutally occupying Palestinian lands, including Gaza, since 1967, very much after the manner that Germany brutally occupied European lands, and Japan brutally occupied Asian lands, in the 1930s and '40s.
Hamas is a militant resistance organization, essentially equivalent to the partisans of Eastern Europe, to the French Resistance fighters, and to the Warsaw ghetto uprising Jews who rose up and fought against their oppressors and illegal occupiers of their lands; and to the various resistance groups who similarly fought against the Japanese in China, the Philippines, south-east Asia, and elsewhere. Hamas is fighting their brutal Israeli oppressors and illegal occupiers of their lands in the same way.
Germany and Japan resorted to mass slaughter of civilian populations in their attempts to hang on to their stolen lands, and Israel is doing the same.
I submit, therefore, that the inexorable logic of your arguments leads to the inevitable conclusion that Israel, not Hamas, has to be "crushed", and its population "re-educated."
Oh blah fucking blah. Who ever wins the war will win the war. They will enforce the peace
I do agree, but how? Glenn's position is one of surrender, not ceasefire. Perhaps being based on a campus causes osmosis of progressive thought and I'm being serious saying that. There's just so many voices programmed in anti-colonialism Marxist rhetoric with rhetorical fortresses that deny debate. A ceasefire does nothing really. Exchange of hostages is not really a positive when you think about how Sinwar himself was exchanged after being a prisoner in Israel. Certainly, the infiltration of our US education system by debilitating nefarious forces is real including repeating the meme that Islamaphobia is wrong. Why shouldn't we be afraid of Islam? Easy to cast it off as Islamism, but it's still Islam. So now we have a country of young people who mostly hate America to one degree or another as was planned and executed. We also have immigrants who hate America. Lots of them. Where do we go from here? Is this a proxy war or not? If it's not then, yes, let's crush Hamas, occupy, and re-educate. If it is a proxy war, then I just don't see how it's winnable but am all ears if someone can explain that to me.
Huge respect for the congregation of that Palm Beach synagogue on the nature of their reply to you. Unlimited best wishes to you in the matter of any future talks you may give before them or anyone else.