MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2023
The lives of others: The New York Times' Sunday Review was unusually meaty this weekend.
Several of the newspaper's regular columnists stated views concerning events in Israel. We started with Michelle Goldberg's warning concerning the difficulty—and the importance—of getting clear on basic facts despite the fog of war:
Goldberg: It Is Impossible to Know What to Believe in This Hideous War
It's often hard to know what factual claims to believe, Goldberg correctly observed.
Thomas Friedman gave voice to grave concerns with respect to Israel's possible future conduct. We'll post a snippet of his presentation:
Friedman: Israel Is About to Make a Terrible Mistake
I believe that if Israel rushes headlong into Gaza now to destroy Hamas—and does so without expressing a clear commitment to seek a two-state solution with the Palestinian Authority and end Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank—it will be making a grave mistake that will be devastating for Israeli interests and American interests.
It could trigger a global conflagration and explode the entire pro-American alliance structure that the United States has built in the region since Henry Kissinger engineered the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
[...]
This is not about whether Israel has the right to retaliate against Hamas for the savage barbarism it inflicted on Israeli men, women, babies and grandparents. It surely does. This is about doing it the right way—the way that does not play into the hands of Hamas, Iran and Russia.
We don't know if Friedman is right. We're presenting his viewpoint, not ours.
For ourselves, we may have been most directly struck by Nicholas Kristof's column. On balance, we agree with Kristof's general view—though he, like Friedman, was careful to note the deeply tragic, deeply problematic complexity of the current situation:
Kristof: We Must Not Kill Gazan Children to Try to Protect Israel’s Children
The United States speaks a good deal about principles, but I fear that President Biden has embedded a hierarchy of human life in official American policy. He expressed outrage at the massacres of Jews by Hamas, as he should have, but he has struggled to be equally clear about valuing Gazan lives.
[...]
In his speech on Thursday, Biden called for America to stand firmly behind Ukraine and Israel, two nations attacked by forces aiming to destroy them. Fair enough. But suppose Ukraine responded to Russian war crimes by laying siege to a Russian city, bombing it into dust and cutting off water and electricity while killing thousands and obliging doctors to operate on patients without anesthetic.
I doubt we Americans would shrug and say: Well, Putin started it. Too bad about those Russian children, but they should have chosen somewhere else to be born.
[...]
The best answer to this test is to try even in the face of provocation to cling to our values. That means that despite our biases, we try to uphold all lives as having equal value. If your ethics see some children as invaluable and others as disposable, that’s not moral clarity but moral myopia. We must not kill Gazan children to try to protect Israeli children.
Many Americans have strong ties to Israel—strong bonds of affection and concern—as is completely appropriate. On balance, Americans may have fewer ties of family, friendship and cultural tradition to those in the Gaza Strip.
Perhaps for that reason, it does seem to us that our American discourse, such as it is, does tend to pay more attention to the suffering of Israelis (as is completely appropriate), but substantially less attention to the suffering of those in the Gaza Strip.
It isn't obvious what to do next. That said, the headline on Colbert King's column in Saturday's Washington Post posed an excellent question:
King: Where are the leaders needed to reach a lasting Middle East peace?
Prayers are needed for the Middle East. But more than prayers, too.
At the conclusion of the Sunday, Oct. 8, service at St. Mary’s Episcopal Church in Northwest Washington, the Rev. Canon Michele V. Hagans led our small congregation in prayer for peace and justice in the Holy Land, which had erupted 24 hours earlier. Our prayers joined with millions of others from around the world from people mourning Israelis and Palestinians mercilessly killed and wounded in a place revered by faithful Christians, Jews and Muslims.
[...]
Brutality and warfare are stumbling blocks to a just peace.
It might take someone with...incurable optimism, intellectual stamina, world-class achievements and a belief in people’s better nature—with rock-solid U.S. and international support—to end the plague of occupation, and bring independence, peace and stability to a Holy Land riddled for decades by false, self-aggrandizing prophets.
Where are such persons when needed now?
Perhaps, I’ll pray for that.
Where are the persons who could create a lasting peace? Given the nature of a conflict like this, such persons may not exist.
The Sunday Review had some challenging columns. It also had a few columns which, in our view, largely tended to miss the point in several major areas.
Then too, it featured a column adapted from David Brooks' new book—a column about the best ways to deal with others.
How should we humans deal with others? How should we deal with the fact that others exist, and that these others will almost always be much less perfect that we are?
Putting it another way, how might we humans find ways to stop turning others into Others? Assuming we want to stop otherizing others, what are the best ways to do that?
On its face, Brooks' column didn't seem to be a primer on productive political conduct. On its face, his column seems to be offering basic ideas about the best ways to deal with other people in our daily lives.
How should we interact with others? Here's a tiny sample of Brooks' lengthy piece:
David Brooks: The Essential Skills for Being Human
I have learned something profound along the way. Being openhearted is a prerequisite for being a full, kind and wise human being. But it is not enough. People need social skills. The real process of, say, building a friendship or creating a community involves performing a series of small, concrete actions well: being curious about other people; disagreeing without poisoning relationships; revealing vulnerability at an appropriate pace; being a good listener; knowing how to ask for and offer forgiveness; knowing how to host a gathering where everyone feels embraced; knowing how to see things from another’s point of view.
People want to connect. Above almost any other need, human beings long to have another person look into their faces with love and acceptance. The issue is that we lack practical knowledge about how to give one another the attention we crave. Some days it seems like we have intentionally built a society that gives people little guidance on how to perform the most important activities of life.
It sounds like Brooks is restricting himself to the best ways to deal with others in our personal lives.
That said, it seemed to us that Brooks was speaking directly to the existential dilemma confronting our failing society. Somewhat strangely, so did an oddly similar column by Arthur Brooks, no known relation, over at The Atlantic:
Arthur Brooks: The Sociopaths Among Us—And How to Avoid Them
Sociopaths are quite prevalent, Arthur Brooks basically said. He seemed to say that the offshoot known as "Dark Triads" make up roughly seven percent of the adult population. He noted that they may be especially prevalent along major elected officials.
In our view, David Brooks was describing the disastrous otherization which has helped bring our failing nation to its current, largely dysfunctional state. He didn't claim to be doing that, but we'd say that's what he was doing.
Arthur Brooks was discussing a part of that problem too. We'll return to the annals of Otherization, in the Middle East and in the midwest, all through the rest of the week.
We'll return to what Hillary Clinton said. We'll also return to Bill Clinton.
Tomorrow: Seeing others as Others
The Very Serious People are concerned. How sweet of them.
ReplyDeletePolitics is about leadership. The people elected tend to be referred to as our nation's leaders. And yet Somerby looks elsewhere for leaders to create a lasting peace, and he doesn't find them. No mention of Biden's strenuous efforts to keep this current crisis from exploding into regional war.
ReplyDeleteSomerby has never had much use for psychology. He appears to know very little about it and he has never mentioned it (or any psychologist) in positive terms. Yet today he lauds David Brooks, who does nothing more than translate current psychology into his own language.
In the context of discussing Trump, Somerby has focused on sociopathy, calling its diagnsis a matter of "modern medical science," yet it too is psychology, whether Somerby admits it or not. That "dark triad" is antisocial personality disorder, narcissism and Machiavellianism (putting one's self interest ahead of all else) and it not only characterizes Trump but also the basic makeup of internet trolls. But Somerby has no use for diagnosis or careful use of such labels -- he wants to use them as name-calling, not realizing that this too is "otherization," mistakenly justified by "medical science" while throwing out all of the careful work that characterizes psychological diagnosis of mental disorders by trained professionals. Forget all that, Somerby goes straight to the part where you call someone crazy and then take pity on them. So Somerby ignores the professionalism involved in applying psychological terms to other people.
Tomorrow Somerby says he will talk about Hillary and Bill Clinton again. I expect he will repeat his dislike of Hillary's comment about deplorables and the need to deprogram them from their MAGA cult. I expect he will tell us how wonderful it is that Bill Clinton admired Pentecostals despite their extreme religious views, while campaigning for William Fulbright as a young politician. It is an excerpt from Clinton's autobiography. None of that is going to advance anyone's knowledge about how to resolve our current crisis in the Middle East.
So, instead of acknowledging the active leadership of those working to try to defuse tensions and prevent wider war, Somerby will blame his old favorites (Hillary) and praise those who reflect his own opinions (Bill) and ignore the Republican dysfunction while expropriating psychological terms to apply to politicians (but not MAGA Republicans) and using the parts he likes in Brooks I and II editorials.
That isn't analysis of any kind. It is borrowing the term sociopath to label those he dislikes while urging us to all get along, using platitudes, dissing psychology except when it suits his own purposes. All while wailing and moaning that there is no solution to human problems. In his passive writing style that leaves his readers to guess what he really thinks among a collection of sentences about what he does not necessarily agree with.
This is not what we need in these times. Intelligent people are not afraid to discuss what is happening in the Middle East, naming names and referring to actions and proposals and current events. That does not include Somerby, who is apparently distressed by real emotion, has no insights to share, but wants everyone to get along, but has no clue how to get from war to peace, given that no one wants to give up their territory or turn the other cheek to injury.
If Somerby has no proposal for world peace himself beyond magic, the least he can do is leave Hillary Clinton alone.
anon 10:43, you say that TDH has never had "that much use for psychology." What does it mean to "have use for psychology?" What about your psychology? Every day, usually with multiple comments, you obsessively fault the blogger for whatever he says like some insane harridan. You aren't the least objective, as one would ordinarily expect from one so smart as you think you are. what's the psychology of your behavior?
DeleteSomerby has relentlessly called for Trump’s mental state to be examined and discussed. Somerby has already judged Trump to be mentally ill, even absent that discussion. He routinely calls right wingers deranged or disordered. Would he like to speculate about the mental health of all public figures? How about bloggers who have a very specific agenda? Are they fair game?
DeleteI doubt Somerby took Psych 101. There are so many things he is ignorant about concerning mind, brain, behavior and human relationships. I will start pointing them out.
Deletemh - I think TDH is misguided in his approach that trump is disordered, and we should feel pity for him - though that's far from being pro-Trump. He's not uniques in this record - there is even a documentary on Netflix where Trump being "disordered" is the whole subject matter .I don't understand all your questions. If your asking me, i don't know if TDH would like to speculate about the mental health of all public figures. I don't see any evidence that is the case. What's your point? Or boggers with special agendas? The questions you raise - things to ponder, I suppose, if you're so inclined, though I would think there are more important questions, and more interesting ones.
Deleteanon 4:56 - you don't have to have taken a psych course in college to know something about mind, behavior, and human relationships. (About the brain - maybe that's a specialized field of science). But this is something to look forward to - you starting to point out all the many things about these subjects that TDH is ignorant about. Good luck on your endeavor!
DeleteThere is a lot of psych misinformation floating around, a lot of pseudoscience and nonsense from Dr Phil and selfhelp books. A lot of what is scientific in psych is counter-intuitive. An actual course helps sort the wheat from the chaff.
DeleteIsrael is not requiring Gaza doctors to operate without anesthetics. If Hamas were going to launch an attack against Israel, the retaliation is predictable. Why did Hamas not stockpile water, food and anesthetics in advance of its attack? It did stockpile munitions. Is it possible that Hamas has no concern for Gaza children? Shouldn't the blame be placed where it belongs?
ReplyDeleteSomerby goes along with Brooks when he pretends that Israelis are targeting Gaza in order to hurt Palestinians. But how do you get a city to surrender, release hostages, stop its own hostilities? The methods Israel has used to put pressure on Hamas to stop its war are not intended to kill children. They are intended as the least violent way of getting Hamas to stop killing Israelis.
Somerby could point out the unfairness of Brooks' arguments, but he prefers to attack Hillary tomorrow instead.
Again, the desire for peace is uncontroversial. The means of accomplishing peace are the hard part. Somerby is mum on that subject. But he isn't mum on blame. He wants to blame ALL politicians, apparently, but he doesn't even mention the extreme dysfunction in Congress while our president does his best to address this flare up of an old old war.
I certainly agree with Somerby that Brooks and Brooks are no more helpful than anyone else at suggesting what should be done. But blaming this Hamas attack on Otherization is hugely stupid. And Somerby has no idea whether the crisis started because of otherization or the otherization arose because of the mistreatment of Palestinians by Jews or Jews by Palestinians (and other Arabs).
The most offensive part of Somerby's essay today is the assertion that Israel wants to kill Gazan children. But it isn't hard to believe that Hamas wanted to kill Israeli children, since they did so without provocation in their initial attack, and neither Somerby nor either Brooks has acknowledged that. And yes, that matters.
The provocation you speak of has been going on for decades.
DeleteThere was no reason for Hamas to kill children or rape women or kill anyone at all in this latest attack.
Delete"It also had a few columns which, in our view, largely tended to miss the point in several major areas."
ReplyDeleteThis would be a good place for Somerby to explain HOW he thinks each article misses the point and in which major areas. But Somerby instead describes each column and never gets around to telling us what he thinks was missed. A lost opportunity.
This is not all bad survey of the Op Ed reaction to the
ReplyDeletecurrent crisis at the NYTs. Alas, as the above poster notes,
Bob can't help but bring things back to his own dubious
prejudices and grievance.
Beyond that, his assessment of the coverage is stale,
based on the fact that he is not really paying attention to
the political media in any serious way. MSNBC has
presented coverage and commentary from the
Palestinian point of view, certainly in the Netanyahu
years, showing how the Israeli Right has been kicking the Tiger for years.
For some of us, Oct 7th was shocking but not
surprising.
BUT, since Bob has spent years sticking his
childish fingers in his ears and going "Nah Nah
Nah, Trump Trump Trump" I guess he had no way
of knowing what was going on.
MSNBC has three presenters who are Muslim, or of Muslim background: Ayman Mohyeldin, Mehdi Hassan, and Ali Velshi, all of whom have had things to say about the Middle East over the years.
DeleteYes. It calls for one possible helpful
Deleteelement that might make things better:
quality debate programming that
was not dumbed down and fact
checked. It could be a commercial
smash. It never seems to occur to
Bob to call for this.
I have no patience with pundits like Friedman and Kristof. They opine glibly on any subject of current interest. But what is their opinion worth? Israel has been coping with attacks from its neighbors since literally the day it was founded. Israel has tried all sorts of things. Israel knows what the results of various approaches have been.
ReplyDeleteFriedman and Kristof have nothing to tell Israel.
I am particularly annoyed by people like Friedman who tell Israel that they're doing it wrong. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize. But, can Friedman tell Israel how to do it right? That is, does Friedman have a strategy that will allow Israel to live in peace with its neighbors? Of course not. Nobody has such a strategy -- at least not a strategy that they can confidently predict that it will work.
If Arab nations are locked in mortal conflict, to the point of destructive wars, over differences between Sunnis and Shiites, how can anyone expect that they will leave Israel alone when its religious beliefs are way more divergent than intra-Muslim theological disputes?
DeleteThis isn't a matter of who is otherizing whom. It is a matter of informing Arab nations that they must follow international rules and expectations for living in peace with neighbors, no matter what their religious differences.
Or perhaps, rather, it's a matter of informing European settler-colonists in Palestine that the colonial era has been over for 60 years.
DeleteWhen the British left Palestine, the nation of Israel was created. Palestinians refuse to accept that reality. (Many Israelis are not European settlers but refugees from Arab nations and of course many were born in Israel.)
Delete"Palestinians refuse to accept that reality."
DeleteYes, naturally. And the settler-colonists refuse to accept that reality.
I actually agree with David about the glibness of these pundits. That used to be what Somerby preached, but apparently he now finds some sort of value in their words, at least on this specific topic. I can’t actually identify any way in which Kristof or Friedman et al have managed to say anything of value about anything.
DeleteThe only value I see is they provide some counterweight to the extreme advocates for Israel to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
Delete"It's often hard to know what factual claims to believe, Goldberg correctly observed."
ReplyDelete"We don't know if Friedman is right. We're presenting his viewpoint, not ours."
"On balance, we agree with Kristof's general view—though he, like Friedman, was careful to note the deeply tragic, deeply problematic complexity of the current situation:"
"It isn't obvious what to do next."
"Where are the persons who could create a lasting peace? Given the nature of a conflict like this, such persons may not exist."
"In our view, David Brooks was describing the disastrous otherization which has helped bring our failing nation to its current, largely dysfunctional state. He didn't claim to be doing that, but we'd say that's what he was doing."
Somerby's most definitive statement was about Brooks discussing how to treat other people -- but Somerby says that is limited to personal interactions. But what other kind of interactions are there?
Beyond that, I disagree strongly with Somerby's tone of nihilistic despair. He doesn't seem to think there is anything to be done about any situation. And he overgeneralizes specifics to entire populations and then gives up on it all.
Is our entire nation failing? Are we all dysfunctional? I don't think so. The government is not failing, despite Republican efforts to defund it. The senate is not failing. Only the House is dysfunctional, and there, only the Republicans, who unfortunately are in the majority. It falls on the Republicans to elect a speaker who will provide leadership in House deliberations. The Republicans are dysfunctional and cannot accomplish that task because of their own disunity. The Democrats voted as a bloc with no defectors, over and over during the speaker votes. That is not dysfunction on the left.
Biden has been showing strength and purpose, effective leadership in dealing with Israel and Gaza. Somerby appears to demand exactly equal treatment of both, complaining that we have more sympathy for Israel than for Gaza. Is that warranted under the circumstances when Gaza's behavior has been very different than Israel's? The two adversaries are not the same and their differences demand a different response to each. So why then does Somerby insist that we should be treating and respond to them in the same manner? Just as Democrats and Republicans are not equally dysfunctional yet Somerby insists that our entire nation is failing and dysfunctional, not just the obviously failing and dysfunction right wing.
Fairness does not dictate that Gaza and Israel be treated exactly alike. It dictates that their actions, needs and history be weighed fairly and treated accordingly -- and that means differently because they are not the same.
Somerby has some underlying purpose in what he writes. It is never made obvious to readers. Today, he wants to blame the left for Otherizing the right, hinting that we are Otherizing Palestinians too. He won't say what he means, so readers must guess. But that doesn't make it any less true that Somerby has his agenda, whether he exposes it or not.
IMO fairness is less important than effectiveness. What is needed is some sort of policy that will bring the animosity and killing to an end. Israel tried leaving the Palestinians alone with no interaction with Israel. Obviously that didn’t work.
DeletePast wars have generally ended only after one side won an overwhelming victory. Israel has the means to win such a victory. Israel could destroy the Palestinians. They are deterred by world opinion and their own morals. At some point the Palestinians may have the means of destroying Israel. When that day comes, I don’t the Palestinians will hesitate.
David in Cal
And if David Brooks is such a great guy,
ReplyDeletewhy did he try to stick it to Biden with that
epic fail tweet about a hamburger at the
airport? He never had anything very
open hearted to say about Hillary
Clinton, and was happy to go along
with the Demonizers.
Brooks is such a poster boy for the spoiled, inane mainstream pundit that it’s disconcerting that Somerby credits him with anything other than empty headed bs.
DeleteWhoa - an "epic fail tweet" - though I thought it was about how much he had to pay for an airport hamburger, when he forgot to mention how many drinks he had. was he also trying to "stick it" to Biden in this failure of a tweet? As far as not having anything good to say about Ms. Clinton - he wasn't the only one, she got a lot of bad press, a lot of it unjustified, from "our" side too, and TDH defended her valiantly.
DeleteTDH did not defend Hillary, much less “valiantly”.
DeleteAC, the point of that silly and ultimately
DeleteEmbarrassing tweet was to kvetch
about inflation, so yes, he was trying
to stick it to Biden. If you think he
is excused from sticking it to HC
because everyone was doing it,
O.K., but it doesn’t jibe with trying
to pass him off as a choirboy, as
Bob (and he himself) is trying to
do here.
anon 7:23 - you're completely wrong. Examples I can think of off the top of my head - He defended her on Bengazi, on the Canadian uranium issue, and when she was lambasted by liberals for her responses on 60 minutes about whether she believed Obama was a Muslim. I'm pretty sure there were many others.
Deletequotes of Somerby defending Hillary needed to support this claim
DeleteDo a site search for "Hillary-hatred", jackass.
DeleteHere's one from 7/29/2016 re. the mainstream press:
Delete"This fall, their twenty-four years of Hillary hatred may end up giving us Trump."
That doesn’t defend Hillary. It predicts Trump will win. The claim was Bob defended Hillary so you need Somerby quotes, not media quotes.
DeleteI posted that just because it was interesting. You can search the archives and see a ton of Somerby defending Hillary Clinton. Over and over and over and over and over and over again. Do a search for "Hillary hatred". Jackass.
DeleteWait. That does defend Hillary. Stupid f****** jackass.
DeleteSomerby dislikes Hillary and he criticizes her, even when she was the Dem nominee. He doesn’t defend her.
DeleteSo you've told us.
Deleteanon 11:52, TDH faulted Clinton because of the remark she made at some fund raiser in someone's house where she called Trump supporters "deplorables>" Also for her recent remark about them needing to be "deprogrammed." But you are completely wrong about him not defending her, even against the so-called liberal media, over and over again. I'd think you would want to be fair and honest. But maybe not - a glaring fault of so many here.
DeleteBob did not care for Hillary's rosy-eyed optimism about only half the Republican voters being deplorables, but that doesn't mean he never defended her.
DeleteMatthew Duss says Biden's Middle East policy has failed.
ReplyDeletehttps://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/19/biden-israel-palestine-gaza-hamas-middle-east-mirage-mcgurk/
Did you agree with it? Is this someone you follow?
DeleteIt's always the person handed the hot potato that takes the blame. How easy it must be to be a Matthew Duss or a Juan Cole.
Deletemh, yes I agree.
DeleteI don't follow Duss, but I often read
https://www.eschatonblog.com/
which linked to his article this morning.
“It might take someone with...incurable optimism, intellectual stamina, world-class achievements and a belief in people’s better nature—with rock-solid U.S. and international support—to end the plague of occupation, and bring independence, peace and stability to a Holy Land riddled for decades by false, self-aggrandizing prophets.
ReplyDeleteWhere are such persons when needed now?”
Somerby has devoted lots of posts to accusing mainstream pundits of engaging in “performative virtue signaling.” Is there any reason to believe King, Kristof, et al are genuinely concerned, or are they merely collecting their latest 6 figure check by writing what they perceive to be a required column about the Middle East?
King with his “where are the supermen” to lead us to salvation, Kristof, the great moral scold (Somerby’s one time description) with his two cents.
I’m not even saying they are wrong per se, but how helpful have they been in the past regarding the Middle East? Why is Somerby suddenly discussing at length the reactions to an attack that seemed to take even Israel by surprise? Where was he when the massive anti-Netanyahu protests were going on in Israel just a few months ago? Isn’t he a pot calling the kettle black by claiming that “blue tribe media” didn’t discuss this until now, after the fact, when he himself never mentioned the subject? Of course, that charge is false, because all of us are aware via media reporting what has been going on over there.
Back to king’s “where are the supermen” to lead us out if this, and Somerby’s “the annals of Otherization, in the Middle East “:
Does it ever occur to Somerby that there are reasons other than “I hate you” why groups are in conflict? From the historical realities in the Middle East to the political issues driving our civil war.
Somerby likes to idolize Lincoln (a man many would say fit King’s wish list to a tee) and his humanistic views, but I constantly remind him that when the south seceded, Lincoln did not hesitate to take sides, vowing to crush the rebellion and force the south back into the union. And it wasn’t because Lincoln viewed southerners as “Others.”
Just as a side note, there’s nothing I despise more than a high-paid prominent pundit (or blogger) a la Colbert King decrying the lack of a “perfect savior” to save us all from all the world’s problems. It’s the worst kind of know nothing-ism there is, and it relegates all the people trying to work on this to the trash heap of inferiority, or not being perfect enough or well known enough to suit Colbert King.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like Bob.
Deleteno, he doesn’t
DeleteAnonymouse 10:48pm, yes, he does.
DeleteThat is as delightfully ironic as when anonymices expound upon the flawed psyches of their contrarians.
you sound like a troll
DeleteLet’s just say that Kristof, King, Friedman, Somerby, not even the sacred David Brooks are going to solve the problems of the Middle East. Hell, they leave that task to others than themselves, explicitly in King’s case, pleading for someone (but not me!) to solve the problem, but guess what? “Given the nature of a conflict like this, such persons may not exist.”
ReplyDeleteThus, all us pundits can continue to moan. Perfect.
mh - no one has solved the problems in the Middle East for 70 years, maybe longer. If the world gets out of this mess in one piece, and Biden, or anyone else, can somehow have brought this about, he deserves lots of credit. Maybe he deserves some credit for the current mess - I dunno.
Delete“ We don't know if Friedman is right. We're presenting his viewpoint, not ours.”
ReplyDeleteWtf? Why post it if you have nothing to say about it?
The relationship between the US and Israel has always been give and take. We give, they take. It is doubtful that 9/11 would have occurred without our unbalanced view of the middle east. We give lip service to a two state solution and along with the EU condemn the Israeli West Bank settlements. They could care less, in the knowledge that we have their backs unconditionally, irrespective of the growing Israeli violence against West Bank Palestinians, and the anger in the Arab community that grows from Netanyahu's cynical policy - one that nurtured the idea of funding Hamas as recently as 2019 in order to split the Palestinians into two factions and preclude a two state solution. Current US policy of unconditional support for Israel , irrespective of their actions, places US interests and its citizens at risk. The college student protests, while misguided, come from an understanding that the lives of the West Bank Palestinians have been oppressed and are made miserable by Israeli policy. David Brooks, for all his kumbaya psychobabel has a son, incidentally, who joined the Israeli military.
ReplyDeleteunamused - i tend to agree - though the situation seems intractable. For the root cause, you have to go back many centuries.
DeleteMany millenia.
Delete