stevenkesslar

John Mearsheimer, the Great Powers academic I quote a lot, said that at the time. There was certainly a logic to thinking that all the nukes in all the former Soviet republics should be put someplace safer. Mearsheimer says at the time that was being done, he was a voice in the wilderness. He argued that in the long run those nukes might help Ukraine keep its independence. You are making an excellent point.

I think you are smart. And we are both clear about what each other is saying. I already called Netanyahu a "genocidal monster." Although I watered it down by saying that is what many young US voters think. For the record, I agree with them. I'll quote Bill Clinton. He didn't call Bibi a genocidal monster. He did say Netanyahu killed peace. He is correct. On Ukraine, I called out your ridiculous statement about Ukrainian children. I view Murderous Vlad as an even worse genocidal monster. The number of Ukrainians and Russians killed thanks to Vlad's unprovoked attack on Ukraine is at least in the hundreds of thousands. Not to mention millions of refugees. The death count, all thanks to Murderous Vlad, is some massive factor larger than the number of dead Israelis and Palestinians - in this war, or even in all wars. You obviously don't agree, and want to gaslight about how swell Murderous Vlad is to Ukrainian children. I'll make two other relevant points as a compare and contrast: Nearly 90% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions to Russia - poll I've mentioned repeatedly that about 90 % of Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan. It didn't mean it worked. And part of the reason it didn't work is we never had 90 % of the Afghans behind the plan. By the time we left I'm pretty sure the majority of Afghans just wanted the US to get the fuck out. Russia can certainly relate to that. Over 90 % of Ukrainians want Murderous Vlad to get the fuck out. That's a whole lot of unity. It doesn't mean it will work. But the polls of Ukrainians are even more polarized and anti-Russia today then when Vlad attacked almost two years ago. And in this case massive majorities of Ukrainians want US and EU and NATO partnership. This is the part you and I would be more likely to find common ground on: Poll shows 41% of Ukrainians agree with Putin’s ‘one nation’ claim, but question was tweaked That finding should not come as a surprise. Since I think that is somewhere in the ballpark of the percentage of Ukrainians who speak Russian as their primary language. If we wanted to put John Mearsheimer in a room, who I have quoted extensively in arguing that the US fucked up for many years by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO, you and I would probably agree with most of his points. Like Kissinger, who is pals with Vlad, he thinks Ukraine should have been a neutral bridge between Russia and the West. Not a place to blow the shit out of. That said, Murderous Vlad gets 100 % of the credit for being the guy who decided to actually blow the shit out of it. Just like Bibi gets the credit, and shame, for the innocent women and kids his bombs are killing. Putin and Netanyahu are both trying the same thing. And history suggests it will not work. Palestinians want a state, and self determination. Ukrainians want a state, and self determination. It is very hard to stop a people who want those things, as Israel and Russia should know. Both Netanyahu and Putin can claim some wins - like territory, in the form of oblasts or settlements. But history suggests that while they may win some battles, they will lose the war. Probably not in the next year. Or even the next decade. But name some countries, other than the US or India or [someplace in Africa] that ultimately failed when they fought for independence? 😉

Thank you for being so precise about the tragic nature of the problem. When Hamas kills 1500 or so Israelis, mostly women and kids, it is genocide. When the IDF kills 9000 or so Palestinians, mostly women and kids, of course it is only and exactly what Israel needs to do to survive. That's all. If the IDF kills 90,000 Palestinians by the time it is done, that's just survival, too. Duh! If the IDF kills 900,000 Palestinians by the time it is done eradicating Hamas, that's just survival, too. Is there a problem? Besides, it's very good manners for the IDF to drop leaflets on innocent Palestinians who are trapped in an open air prison before they blow they shit out of them. The main problem with this approach is that "Hamas has been eradicated" is very much like the idea "Jews have been eradicated." Except I think it sounds better in the original German. The following point is one of logic, not anti-Semitism. Hitler actually had a plan to eradicate an entire people - Jews. It never made sense as a plan, since he couldn't get his hands on most Jews in most parts of the world. But, viewed as a plan, gas chambers at least eradicated a lot of Jews. Without much collateral damage on people the Nazis did not want to kill. Except, of course, the whole idea was so repulsive that it led to the massive killing of innocent Germans in things like fire bombings. It really doesn't seem to me that most Israelis have thought through how one thing tends to lead to another. Although they may be gaining an awareness that empowering warmongers like Netanyahu for decades has lead to ....................... wait for it ............................. more and worse wars with Hamas. Some of the smartest analysts around are saying October 7 is nothing compared to how bad the next war down the line will be. I believe them. Geez. Who could possibly have seen that coming? Certainly not the IDF. We agree about one thing. While I'm reading all stuff from all sides, including from the UN, what I find most useful is the stuff from the proponents of eradicating Hamas. Mostly because it seems like if they are proponents of the idea, they ought to have some sort of clue about how it can actually be done. And what the long-term consequences may be. In that regard, here is a very long-winded essay that I would call a must read, written by a former IDF leader who is clearly on Israel's side. With all due respect, the conclusion I reach is that the best military analysts around do not really have a clue. Although at least Orion has a clue that it will be awful for Israel. Not to mention Palestinians. Even though it won't come close to the goal that "Hamas has been eradicated." The End of Israel’s Gaza Illusions This War Is Unlike Any Other—and Must Begin at Home I think the thing I find most tragic and even sick about it is the idea the sub-header suggests, probably correctly. A generation ago most Israelis and most Palestinians wanted to find a path to peace. Now what the Israeli war planners are saying is that the entire nation has to commit first and foremost to "security." And what "security" means first and foremost is war with Palestinians - wherever it goes, whatever it takes, and however long it takes. That is in fact a formula for more and endless war. Not peace. The point is that Israelis are being told to put security, and war, above all else. I don't agree, to say the least. But apart from my moral objection, it does not even begin to make sense as a plan. I won't comment on the military part, since I am anything but an experienced military analyst. Other than I believe it when IDF leaders say this will be harder than any war we have ever fought. With more blood and treasure extracted from Israel than ever before. Here are the main parts of the political, diplomatic, and humanitarian consequences that seem illogical, and sick. Sick in the sense that one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing that never works, and somehow expect it work. I would say this plan for "the eradication of Hamas" makes about as much sense as gas chambers made sense for eradicating global Judaism. As a bumper sticker, the basic idea is this: Let's just put aside the first sentence I quoted. Other than to stipulate that even if the IDF can achieve its military objectives against Hamas, when that objective is defined as "eradication," it really means "a big setback". And the almost certain death of at least tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians. Hamas will survive and regroup, and Palestinians will have more and deeper grievances. To his credit, the author is honest about how the cultivation of "moderate" Palestinian leadership, while precisely the right goal, is anathema to Bibi the Butcher. And always has been. As the author states, correctly, Team Bibi has always seen the PA as being as bad as Hamas. Even though the two organizations actually represent a little more than half of the population of Greater Israel. How do you have peace when you define all the leaders of half the population as terrorists? Answer: you don't. You have endless and worse war. Did I mention that as Palestinian and ultra-Orthodox Jews who support Team War (even though they don't fight in them) have more kids, the demographic polarization only gets worse? How does it work that the one thing that is required by the PA, regional Arab partners, and global US and European partners - a two state solution - is defined in IDF logic as "even more far-fetched" than ever? It's a bit like saying that the right way to settle whether Biden or Trump wins in 2024 is to cancel elections. It just makes no fucking sense. Again, I think the author is being honest. In this case implicitly, not explicitly. Being a seasoned IDF guy, he of course knows that a military strategy to eradicate Hamas will of course kill lots of innocent people. And piss pretty much the whole word off. Which we are seeing already. But, hey, so what? As an American who is proud of America, including our military, perhaps I can't be objective. Maybe it is true that a plan to invade Afghanistan to deter more terror and make it a better place, which 92 % of Americans supported, was always just a fucked up idea that was going to fail. But at least 92 % of Americans did support it. And we gave it what I view as an honest shot - with the explicit goals being democracy, peace, and economic development. The fact that even that didn't work when the world's global hegemon tried it is a very dark warning to Israel. This plan does not even have majority support. Not in Israel. And certainly not in the rest of the world. It is a recipe for endless war, and endless bloodbath. The plans sucks.

In other words, you agree with international agencies, like the UN, when they call out other war criminals for genocide. When international agencies instead call out Murderous Vlad for being a genocidal war criminal, they are "stupid" or "manipulators." Help me out, @forky123. What's the word for that? hypocrite noun hyp·o·crite ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

This is one of the things I give Biden and Harris, and her hubby, unambiguous kudos for. Emhoff: There is an ‘antisemitism crisis’ on our nation’s campuses The second gentleman reflected in an interview on the current state of protests around Israel. What I think is most interesting is that this is the first time a First Gentleman or Second Gentleman has played any public role on any issue. And with all due respect to Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, this one is harder than encouraging kids to eat apples, and study hard. Beyond that, Emhoff is a Jew, Harris was born to a Hindu mother, and as a child her father served as an acolyte in the Anglican Church. Team Kamala and Doug are walking poster children for putting differences aside and focusing on understanding. It makes sense that Emhoff, being a Jew, speaks out for Jews. While Kamala is doing more of the talking about people taking pot shots at Islam.

Just in case you missed it, @Moses. "I need ammunition, not a ride." What Israel and Ukraine do have in common is they were viciously attacked. And in both cases you can say that the people doing the attacking - Hamas and Murderous Vlad - are war criminals committing acts of genocide. The difference is that Ukraine provoked Russia by wanting their own state, democracy, and to be part of the West. Israel did not provoke Hamas by wanting democracy and a state for Palestinians. Biden's worst warmonger moment, to me, was his slippery advocacy of invading Iraq - which he later claims he didn't support. On Ukraine, he is defending a country that wants US help, almost unanimously. They want Murderous Vlad out, almost unanimously. The situation in Israel is anything but unanimous. I'm glad that Rep. Tlaib is pushing back on the attack on her by telling Biden that he is on the wrong side of where most Americans are actually at on a ceasefire. It's a political mess for Biden, either way. His approval ratings, which were bad, are now worse. But in this case it is a mess Hamas and Bibi created, not Biden or the US. Biden has been outspoken for a long time that Bibi is wrong, and his approach would not work. Now we see the fruits of the Netanyahu Doctrine. I almost feel sorry for Biden in this case, since on Israel he has been one of the sane people backing Israel but also pushing for compromise and a more humane approach.

I know this thread is about Israel and Hamas. But if we are talking about children, and international agencies who stand for basic human rights, we have to mention that Murderous Vlad is a war criminal with an arrest warrant, in the eyes of International Criminal Court. More Than 700,000 Ukrainian Children Taken To Russia Since Full-Scale War Started, Official Says It's not clear there is anything worse than genocide. But if there is, this is it.

Thanks for posting that @Moses. At the very least, you have demonstrated how bad I suck at being verbose. My posts are like bumper stickers compared to that. I did read the whole thing. It's obviously a very one-sided take on an intractable struggle and human rights nightmare. But I agree with most of the principles Mokhiber articulates. And I also agree with @reader. Please send a copy to Murderous Vlad, as well, @Moses. He might get some pointers on his genocide in Ukraine. Fair is fair. As compelling as the UN and Angelina Jolie are, I'll add an article by Mark Penn I read yesterday. I think it really captured why this is a sad and probably unfixable tragedy, in a way Penn didn't intend. Before I get to Mark Penn's defense of Israel, and Hillary Clinton's hawkishness, let me focus on a fact that is a clear "Fuck you Biden, fuck you Israel, fuck you apartheid lovers" statement. Anyone who does not want Trump, The Sequel in 2024 should be scared shitless by clear facts that are emerging. Young and old Americans are now completely split on Israel. The latest YouGov poll asks people who they sympathize with more, Israelis or Palestinians. In both cases, 23 % say both equally. But older voters (over 65) who are the core of Trump's support break 65/5 on supporting Israel over Palestinians. Younger voters under 30, the voters who will make or break Biden's re-election, break for Palestinians 30/17. The vast majority of older voters (82 %) say it is important or very important to help Israel. Only 38 % of younger voters agree. A plurality of younger voters (43 %) say it is not too important, or not important at all, to help Israel. ' Fuck you apartheid Israel. Fuck you Biden, for supporting Israel. The young voters who see it this way are the people that Biden desperately needs to win. Let me repeat. Fuck you, apartheid Israel. Fuck you Biden, for supporting Israel. How is this going to work out in 2024? Many young Americans feel that Netayahu is a sadistic genocidal monster who is perfectly happy to kill countless innocent Palestinian women and children. And subject all of them to cruelty and apartheid, in order to make sure there is never a Palestinian state. They're not going to be persuaded that somehow opposing apartheid makes them anti-Semitic. But let's forget about the extreme and the outspoken. As predicted, now that the great promoter of Hamas, Bibi Netanyahu, has busted loose with his bombs and inhumane cruelty, more and more people are willing to see Israel the way young Americans do. Last month, Oct 14-17, when YouGov asked the question for the first time, a plurality of 32 % of Americans said Israel's response to Hamas was just about right. 23 % said not harsh enough, and 19 % said too harsh. That's right after a mass slaughter of innocent Jewish women and kids. Now, a month later, right after a mass slaughter of innocent Muslim women and kids, 27 % say Israel's response is just about right. 23 % say too harsh and 19 % say not harsh enough. Last month, only 9 % of young voters said Israel wasn't being harsh enough. That has now dropped to 3 %, with a plurality of 36 % of young voters saying Israel is being too harsh. I've been saying Israel has lost a pro-Israel US majority. That's not true among the oldest Americans. Among the youngest Americans, though, it's actually worse. Israel is now viewed less favorably than Palestinians. And Biden is telling these voters "fuck you" on a ceasefire. Which most Americans, but especially most younger Americans, want him to press Israel on. It's 1000 % clear that Biden can't tell Israel what to do. That said, this sounds like 1968 to me. We even have Robert Kennedy running again, who is getting double digits in every poll and will probably help elect Trump. Fuck you, Biden. Fuck you, Biden. Fuck you, Biden. Go be LBJ. You back Israel, and we won't bother to vote for you. That is the message I hear emerging in poll after poll from young US voters. The good news for the great Hamas builder, Bibi Netanyahu, is that he'd rather have Trump, anyway. 🙄 He'll gin up his slaughter machine and Trump won't give a shit, knowing his older supporters mostly agree with Israel being as harsh as possible. A Ceasefire for Hamas? Penn's article is thoughtful and worth reading the whole way through. Had that been written 20 years ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with him. In fact, it was written 20 years ago. Not literally. But all the key data he cites is about that old. With the single most important point being that Arafat rejected peace when it was offered by Israel, with a heavy lift by Bill Clinton. Arafat said he'd be killed by the Hamas brand of radicals if he agreed to peace. In fact, few leaders in my lifetime have been killed for seeking peace. The main one that comes to mind is Rabin. And that just makes Arafat looks like the worthless and weak piece of shit he was. So when I was a young US voter, I fully agreed with Penn and the Clintons. But all of the things I am talking about happened 25 to 30 years ago. If Penn wants to talk about Hillary Clinton's righteous hawkishness, we might mention that her big idea to liberate Libya happened over a decade ago. It still hasn't worked out very well. So how does this support the idea that we just need to stay on a course that has led to decades of endless bloodbaths? Young voters were not even born when much of this happened. And what they seem to mostly see is the bloodbaths. So Penn is living in a past that no longer exists. Except in the minds of older Americans like me. His view of Israel doesn't fit with what young voters see on TikTok today. It's fair to say many of them see a genocidal monster killing lots of innocent people. I'm talking about you, Bibi. The fact that Penn's argument is so tired and stale and useless was especially clear in the paragraph where he basically compares Bibi Netanyahu to .........................wait for it........................ Abraham Lincoln!!!??? It's actually the point. Penn argues that demanding a ceasefire during the US Civil War would be like asking for slavery to stand. The word "slavery" is pushing it too far. But replace it with the word "apartheid," and that is the point. Many young voters do see Biden's rejection of a ceasefire as backing Bibi's policies of apartheid and cruelty. The clear logic of a ceasefire, which most Americans support, is that more violence and bloodbath is a formula for more Hamas and more Bibi, not less. Why don't we instead try something else? I'm with young voters on that. What Penn made even clearer to me is that we have a massive and probably fatal leadership problem. Fareed Zakaria said it most succinctly in the long interview of him I posted above. He said he sympathizes very much with the Palestinian people. He does not sympathize with Palestinian leaders at all. I agree. But for a long time I've felt exactly the same about Israel. They have a sadistic, worthless, Hamas building leader who has rejected peace, too. If you need someone to blame for that, Israel, blame Bibi. It is telling and truthful that polls right now say many if not most Israeli Jews actually do blame Bibi. I would like to think that Biden is the kind of leader that could create peace, like Bill Clinton came close to. But, if I'm being honest with myself in a way Penn is not, it ain't gonna work. You can't have peace when you have Hamas on the one side and Netanyahu on the other. It's not at all clear that Israelis actually even want peace anymore. The growing force of ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews who back Bibi clearly don't. So, more likely, Biden will be the transitional Democratic leader who once again failed to deliver peace. Whether Biden will also fail to get re-elected next year, in part because young voters reject or simply don't care about his leadership, like he rejected a ceasefire, is a very good question right now. The next US President who is a Democrat will be much younger. And much less tied at the hip with Israel. There is no clear prospect for how Israel or the Palestinians get leadership - from Israel, Palestinians, the US, or anywhere - that can even come close to delivering peace. Perhaps @Moses could ask Vlad to lend a hand? Then again, that probably won't work out so well, either. So, for now, it will just be bloodbath. Tragic. It won't help Biden in 2024. And it may help end his Presidency.

Well, when I was in my 20's I was going to leftie protests all the time and spending lots of time on Capitol Hill getting anti-redlining legislation passed and beating up on redlining banks all over the US. I didn't talk about politics with barbers or taxi drivers, though. To each his own, I guess. 😉 The issue I care about now is whether young people who get their politics off Tik Tok will vote for Biden, or indirectly help elect Trump. Biden was a US Senator back then, when I was young once. Despite being called a fool, a gaffe machine, and now senile, he has managed to have pretty good political instincts and ride waves. We'll see how he rides this very fierce wave. If a whole bunch of polls are right, there are slightly more Americans that think Israel is not being tough enough on Hamas, as opposed to they are being too tough. Although that is a moving target, literally. 64 UN relief workers have died simply trying to help people in Gaza survive. That's completely unprecedented. One relief worker was killed alongside his wife and 8 children. So much for being cautious. Biden is being decisive. Which is a good look for someone often called senile. And the reality is that even if he got down on his knees and begged for a ceasefire, which is what a majority of Americans of all leanings want, there is zero evidence Netanyahu would agree. Biden is in a very fraught position. Caution won't work. But it's not clear what will.

Thanks, as always, @lookin, for setting a thoughtful and compassionate tone. The Left Is Tearing Itself Apart Over Israel Pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian liberal factions now divided as ugly accusations fly in both directions That article explores the potential problems for Biden 2024 more deeply. An interesting, and I think true, quote: In context, he is talking about the horrific murder of Jewish women and kids by terrorists. But obviously people opposed to the IDF bombing free for all feel the same way about Palestinians women and kids. I think the intensity is manifesting itself here. I was really surprised to be challenged so hard for something that up to 92 % of Americans agreed on after 9/11. That was for sure the moment of greatest US national unity in my lifetime. Now we have the opposite. Deep division, even within the same political parties. This can't help Biden politically. The only positive thing I can think is it ups the stakes for peace, at least among Democrats. in the long term, the only way to win a war that neither side can win, politically or militarily, is to not fight a war. And instead fight for peace. What's interesting is that neither Republicans nor Independents are the oasis where people turned off by Democratic peaceniks can go. Strong majorities of them favor a ceasefire, too. Killing a lot more innocent women and kids, on either side, probably isn't going to change that.

I'll slip this in, succinctly. It surprised me. Israeli Poll Finds 49% Support Holding Off on Gaza Ground Offensive Nearly half of all respondents believe Israel should wait with its ground operation in Gaza, while just over a quarter believe the IDF should embark on the offensive immediately. If you read the whole article, the context is 65 % of Israelis supported an immediate ground offensive when asked by the same pollster on Oct. 19. I don't think Israelis read my post and decided to give peace a chance. 😉 The big shift is short-term thinking about hostages. The article states that 50 hostages have been killed "in Israeli strikes on Gaza." Presumably bombing of Hamas tunnels where the hostages were being kept. I'm guessing Hamas thought that one through in advance. Biden can't run on age. So he has to run on wisdom. We'll see. If Sanders were POTUS and he forcefully demanded Israel agree to a ceasefire, I doubt Netanyahu or most leaders would listen to him. I'm hoping Biden is being slippery, knowing that he can't tell Americans, let alone Israelis, what to do. And they may listen to him more if they feel he is on their side. Every account I've read states the Biden White House is not telling Israel what it can or can not do. We'll see. But Biden has been clear for a long time he is not a fan of Bibi's policies.

The Biden coalition risks a damaging break over the US role in Israel’s response in Gaza Here's a good reason for liberals and progressives to try to avoid sniping based on standards of moral purity. It may get Trump elected in 2024. (Anybody remember how Nixon won in 1968?) Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good. 😵 Biden's approval rating among Democrats dropped 11 points in one month. I was hoping that an economy that we just learned is growing at an annual rate of 6 % actually might put some luster on Bidenomics. But I suspect Axios is right that this is about Biden and Israel and Arab Americans. Not to mention liberal Jews. And young people who empathize with an occupied and oppressed people. The good news is that most Americans, including a majority of Republicans, seem to favor a ceasefire. The bad news is Biden doesn't get it. As a Democrat, who is neither Arab American nor young, this is just painful. I voted for Sanders in the 2020 California primary. I did that knowing Sanders would lose the primary, hoping that Biden would beat Trump, and wanting to signal a desire to go left to Joe. Biden mostly got that message, I think. And I'm still a Democrat who approves of him. But this reminds me of all the reasons I voted for Sanders. Like, in particular, how Biden backed the Iraq War, even though he wanted to have it both ways. If I believe the common themes in countless articles I've read, Biden has: 1) slowed the invasion of Gaza right wing Israelis want down, 2) elevated humanitarian measures and aid for Palestinians, and 3) focused on measures to deter escalation into a regional war. So the verdict is out. But Trump's 40 % + will vote for him passionately, no questions asked and no facts necessary. So if Biden is discouraging a lot of his 40 % from even wanting to vote for him, this is bad news for Democrats. This is also bad news for Israeli and Jewish American hawks. Every poll shows that the vast majority of Americans empathize with Israel. And view Hamas as a terrorist organization that needs to be deterred. But this poll further reinforces that Israel has lost a pro-Israel US majority, even among Republicans, when it comes to right wing horror stories about doing "whatever it takes" to destroy Hamas.

Point taken about succinct writing. Another advantage of succinct writing is, in theory, it makes it more challenging for people to put words in my mouth. Or misquote me. Because you've done it repeatedly. The main misquote that was just weird was suggesting that I had a "revenge" agenda about 9/11 - your word, not mine. You implied that almost all Americans, presumably including Obama and Biden, shared this naive revenge agenda, which is lacking in an awareness of history. So you completely misread what I said about that. I think because you wanted to go after what something like 90 % of Americans believed at the time, and for years after. Including Obama and Biden. Although I think you tried to lay the naive thinking at the foot of Bush and Cheney, inaccurately. Obama was elected in 2008 promising to "win" the war. And he okayed the surge that exploded the count of dead soldiers and innocent Afghans. @Latbear4blk holds a similar opinion, which is that the US should have sucked it up and been a "good loser." Good for you guys for expressing yourselves, succinctly. You've now misquoted me again by laughing at words you put in my mouth. Namely, that I'm equating myself with professional nonfiction writers. I have written essays that have been published. And I've been quoted in papers and books and interviewed on TV a lot. So I know how to speak on camera and edit myself. You're correct that I don't put the time into editing myself in online posts like I do when I have an editor publishing something I write. Excellent Article by Steven Kesslar on Rentboy Shutdown My point here was completely different. And you didn't get it. Because for whatever reason it seems like you'd rather "laugh" at me, to use your word. The day I wrote that post I did spend most of the day reading long wall of text essays on the US invasion of Afghanistan. And especially the surge. I was curious what analysts years later are saying now about what worked, and what failed. My post was shorter and no more stream of consciousness than much of what I read. Some of which I quoted from. The long essays I read were all dry, somewhat boring, and very informative. Your point is that you'd like to debate, but not read essays. Which is fine. But I stand by what I said. I liked researching it, and writing it. That doesn't make me a professional writer. At least in this instance. It does make me someone interested in learning things I don't know. But I'll repeat that I'm glad you challenged me. In my mind, that's a big part of the point. Especially right now, people really need to have their minds and hearts challenged. Speaking of which, I thought about your point about "revenge" when I read this awful thought, in an awful essay with the awful headline, "Why Israel must destroy Hamas." He's referring to Friedman's excellent essay against an invasion, which I posted above. Friedman made a whole bunch of thoughtful points about how an invasion will make things worse. Including for Israel. This right winger only has one argument: the only thing that matters is destroying Hamas. Period. I think that quote is a perfect example of the kind of mindless "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" revenge I think you may have been referring to in your post above. We agree way more than we disagree. And I certainly agree with you on that. I didn't feel driven by a need for revenge after 9/11. I think most Americans felt driven by a need to deter more horrific terrorist attacks on US soil. And that motivation has actually worked out well. I think Israelis appropriately feel the same way. But I hope Israel isn't driven by revenge now. We all know one important fact. Which is that the body count of dead Palestinians is always way more than the body count of dead Israelis. That's always been true. And it is already true, yet again, in Gaza - even before an IDF invasion started. If you take out the word "Jewish" and replace it with "Palestinian" or "Arab" in that quote, exactly the same logic of revenge could be and just was used to rationalize the very sick idea Hamas has that we must destroy Israel. So I commend you for making the point that "revenge" should not be the motivation. Because it will simply feed the terrorists, and continue the violence.

Excellent point. While we're on the subject, I'd recommend staying away from magazines, too. Too many essays. And, at all costs, never buy a book. If you do, you are in deep trouble. 😉 I actually do take this as a compliment. The rise of Twitter and the rise of Trump coincided. I don't think that was an accident. The nicer way to say it is that social media is filled with misinformation, many lies, little fact checking, and a bounty of simplistic ideas that never hold up. Example: Trump won in 2020, and the Deep State is covering it up. Nice bumper sticker that 1 in 3 Americans actually believe. Which is why America is in deep trouble. The nastier way to say it is that social media is all about hate, venom, and vitriol. Thought? Nope. That's an afterthought on most social media. Why would anyone read a book when they can simply know Trump won in 2020, for Christ's sake? But, back to the deep trouble you are in, my love. And since you won't read this, I won't worry about your feelings. You lost me, and most of America, right out of the gate. And since you perhaps don't care about reading polls and essays, I can take my time to go through the reality you don't want to admit. Let alone debate. I was wrong when I said 88 % of Americans supported a military invasion of Afghanistan right after 9/11. Another poll said 92 %. Tell me something else really important that 92 % of Americans have ever agreed on? Including who won the 2020 election? The question "what else?" was not asked. But my guess is most of the other 8 %, and much of the rest of the world, supported legal mechanisms to seek justice, rather than military ones. Perhaps you supported them as well, since you do state "target the terrorist leaders." In truth, "suck it up" because the US bombs and murders people was not an option offered in any poll. I'm guessing maybe 1 % of Americans would have chosen "suck it up and lose." Bad news is you are at an extreme margin of the debate. Good news is you don't seem to care. The main value in debating the US 9/11 now is that Israel wants to insist it just had its own 9/11, and the world should be on its side. Meanwhile, Biden wants Israel to avoid the mistakes the US made after 9/11. So it is quite relevant. The same polls show that I am in the mainstream of Americans. Most Americans, including me, view the invasion as a failure. Most Americans thought at the outset it would be a hard fight, that would take a long time. They were right. 2 in 3 Democrats, and a majority of Republicans, now say "the war was not worth fighting." Now I may slippery, like Oily Obama and Both Ways Biden have been for decades on this issue. But I am in that 2 in 3 Democrats. I don't think the war was worth fighting, as it was actually fought. That said, I stand by what I said earlier. I think invading Afghanistan to seek justice and prevent more terrorism was the right thing to do. With 20/20 hindsight, we should have gotten out quicker, based on more limited and defined objectives. I haven't seen any poll or focus group that really explores "what the fuck else were we supposed to do?" I appreciate the fact that instead of misquoting me or attacking me, @Latbear4blk, you actually stated what else you think we should have done. You think we should have "sucked it up" and been "good losers". It's a fine opinion, which put you at a very marginal extreme. There is a 0.00000000000000000000001 % chance that Israel will now "suck it up" and be a "good loser." So this is a bit like the food fight between Cornel West and the Green Party. Interesting. But mostly it generates fodder for long articles (ugh! I hate essays!) about how The Left will never have power. Because they sound like academics who would rather have purist debates among themselves. My bumper sticker for the lesson to draw from Afghanistan is very simple and very Gay. I know it is shitty to want to expand on a vague bumper sticker and explain why I think "there's no place like home" is actually good policy. But now I will be a real shit. I think the lesson is we fucked up by thinking we could make Afghanistan a home to US-style democracy. And what many liberals like me view as basic decency. Like don't be sexist pigs to women and girls. What we learned is that many or even most Afghans liked their home the way it was. The longer we stayed, the more they wanted us to get the fuck out. This especially happened under Oily Obama, who was POTUS when most US and allied soldiers (and innocent Afghans) got killed in a hellish cornucopia of terror attacks, US counterterrorism operations, and warlord revenge bloodbaths. Since we owned the warlords, arguably the US also owned what they did to their own people. It's an important point. Because if they did it before we came, or after we left, we didn't own it. You being a well read guy, I am sure you would have connected the dots by now. If you actually read shit. The obvious lesson is we should give the Palestinians a home. Period. That is what they most want. That is how to defuse the violence and terror over the long run. The lesson of Afghanistan, and Israel, is don't feed the terrorists. Because that is what they want. That is why bin Laden killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, and Hamas went out of their way to behead Jewish babies. But here's the tricky part. While we can't feed them, we do have to kill them. More on that later. For this (ugh!) paragraph, I think the single most important long-run priority is figuring out how to get Palestinians the home they want. Not figuring out what to do in Gaza. Or how to kill Hamas terrorists. Israel has it exactly wrong, unfortunately. They think bombing the shit out of Gaza and Hamas is the priority. And figuring out a political solution is an afterthought. Or, for Bibi, a Palestinian home is just a bad idea not worth thinking about at all. The other important lesson is that once the Palestinians have a home, they can behead as many Arab babies and kill as many of each other as they want. And the US and Israel won't own it. Realistically, I'm not too worried about Palestinians wanting to behead their own babies. More realistically, though, a Palestinian government can also be as corrupt as they want. Just like Kharzai and the various other Afghan leaders backed by the US were. The US can instead spend money backing Ukrainians. Who seem to want their own home, too. And even a democracy. We can try to force Ukrainians not to be corrupt. Because it pisses US and European taxpayers off, who are sending them a fortune. Did I mention polls show Ukrainians overwhelming love Americans, because we want to help them have a home that is democratic and mostly free of corruption? But if Abbas And Friends want to behead Palestinian babies, be assholes, treat women and girls like shit, or just involve themselves in garden variety political corruption, who gives a shit? Let them run their home as they wish. That is the lesson of Afghanistan and the West Bank. Now, I've written many stupid paragraphs no one has read. But a well read person might still have this nagging thought. "But what the fuck do we actually do when they kill thousands of our people? Is terror okay? Should we just be good losers? And then won't they just do it again?" Sadly, a real debate about motivation and responding to terror would involve putting aside the idea that this can all be blamed on Bush and Cheney. Not that I don't love blaming Bush and Cheney myself. Especially for lying to the world about WMD and invading Iraq. And we'd also have to set aside the quaint notion that 88 % of Americans are seemingly naive, stupid, and hellbent on revenge. And that they (or "we") should have known better. We would have to go into detail about Oily Obama and Both Ways Biden. Both supported the invasion. Which apparently makes them part of a horrible country brimming with naive and stupid people who are hellbent on revenge. Yet, for some strange reason, most of the rest of the world likes them. At least more than Trump. Obama even started the Afghanistan surge. Which is when most US and allied soldiers and innocent Afghans died. VP Biden advised Obama against it, and lost the debate. Biden wanted to gradually withdraw and focus on counterterrorism. Which seems like what most naive and stupid Americans currently want. But people still dislike POTUS Biden for being a "good loser", because of the way he carried out Trump's withdrawal deal with the Taliban. Which suggests that there is no way to actually be a "good loser." Because it just makes you very unpopular. Which is of course why I don't read essays, books, or polls. It's just way too fucking complicated! Obama did actually define some objectives that hold very clear lessons for Israel today. (Spoiler alert: "revenge" was never a stated objective of Bush, Obama, or Biden.) Obama ran for President based on the bumper sticker, "This is a war we have to win." Americans being naive and stupid, they elected this guy in a landslide in 2008. And lest we naively think his agenda was "revenge," he did clearly lay out objectives for the surge: Take out the words "al Qaeda" and "Taliban" and replace them with "Hamas" or "Palestinian," and the lessons for Israel are right there in black and white. Of course, who in their right mind would read an essay, and think about such things? Israel wants to deny Hamas a safe haven. But they can't, and won't. What they do to try to eradicate Hamas will almost certainly add to the momentum of Palestinians who think Israel sucks. This is what Hamas wants. Just like Obama's surge added momentum to the Taliban and opponents of the corrupt government the US backed. And added momentum to the idea that we should kill US and allied soldiers who are occupying our home. There's another idea that was never even tried, that is worth a mention: permanent occupation. McCain argued we should just occupy these places like Afghanistan or Iraq for 100 years. Or however long it takes. I feel like a shit for comparing McCain to Netanyahu. I admired McCain, mostly. And I mostly despise Bibi. But the US happily didn't even want to try to occupy Afghanistan or Iraq for 100 years. So maybe Americans have actually figured out something all the Israelis who back Bibi need to eventually learn. Both Ways Biden has been all over the map, both on Afghanistan and Iraq. That said, I think he has been consistently less wrong than Bush 43, Cheney, and also Oily Obama on this issue. I think if you had put Bush 41, Colin Powell, and Both Ways Biden in a room, they would probably have quickly agreed that the Powell Doctrine makes a lot of sense. And tended to work well, like in the first Gulf War under Bush 41. "We" (the US and many global allies) had defined objectives that were winnable. Like, "don't eat other countries." And we won. Arguably, we could have done the same in Afghanistan. Or at least tried. Here is a long and well written (ugh!) defense of Biden's doctrine of counterterrorism. The evidence suggests that counterterrorism is a pretty good strategy. It's been over 20 years since 9/11. And we haven't had another 9/11, or anything even close. (School shootings don't count.) The Taliban doesn't seem to be itching to blow up more US cities, kill more Americans, or go through 20 more years of running from US soldiers and targeted assassinations. Which mostly left the assholes dead or in prison. Or feeding fish at the bottom of an ocean. You don't want to debate complicated ideas, rather than anti-Cheney slogans. Which is fine. But the question a statement like this begs is: "What the fuck should we do, then?" I agree with Fareed that since terrorists kill lots of innocent people in horrific ways because they want us to react, the first thing we should do is think hard about how to react. But anyone who thinks most Americans or Israelis like to be "good losers" to terrorists is being both extreme, and naive. The evidence suggests that for the US, and our military, counterterrorism has worked pretty well. Outside of the tortured history of Afghanistan and Iraq, US soldiers tend to kill assholes, rather than be killed by them. It has stopped anything like our 9/11 or Israel's 9/11. Palestinian Americans are not plotting on how to behead Christian babies. There is no evidence the Taliban, which is back in the saddle, has either the capacity or will to blow up US cities or kill lots of Americans. They would rather have their own home, so they can fuck it up just the way they want. If we are going for a political center, rather than an extreme, I think Biden was right. Obama won in a landslide in 2008. That would have been the best moment I can think of to flip flop, which they both have done a lot anyway, and get the fuck out. There is no political way Bush 43 could withdraw from Afghanstan after being the POTUS that got us in. Had Obama listened to Biden, it would have prevented most of the deaths of US soldiers, allies, and innocent Afghans. Obama would have taken a big political hit, like Biden did in 2021, for being the "good loser" who let the Taliban back in on his watch. But I personally think the policy of counterterrorism has been pretty effective to date, both in the US and Israel. For a well read guy, the implications for Israel seem pretty clear. Let Palestinians have the home they want. Most of them won't kill Jews. If they end up being corrupt, or inept, and fuck up their home, let them. But it means Israel, like the US, is going to have to be very good at counterterrorism. Which, happily, Israel tends to be very good at. Until Netanyahu fucked it up with his stupid and counterproductive "Hamas building" strategy. There. No more nation building. Except for the Palestinians. Problem solved. Next? I'm so glad nobody read this. Because I really enjoyed researching and writing it. 🙄

Okay love. Here ya go. Problem solved. Piece of cake! Thank God Israel listened to John and Yoko back when this was filmed. And there has been nothing but love and peace between Israelis and Palestinians ever since. I just fucking hate history and complexity. Let alone ambiguity. It's so unnecessary! Any other global crisis we need to solve with a bumper sticker? This was fun! I'm free tomorrow. Are you guys up for solving things between Vlad and Xi and Joe? I have a few great bumper stickers in mind. 😉

Thanks for pushing back. I'm intentionally saying some things to provoke debate. As I suspect other people posting are. It would be a very good thing if there were a long and deep debate right now. Among Israelis and Palestinians especially. But also among the world who will be held hostage by whatever Israel and their enemies decide. Sorry if you don't want anything more than sound bites. If sound bites win, I'd bet on "Hamas = Hitler = Bomb Them Into Oblivion" being the winner. Which would be a tragedy. I actually believe more is more. That's a five minute summary by Fareed that pretty much sums up how I feel about the current situation. Sorry if listening to someone for more than a sentence or a paragraph is too exhausting for some people. But this longer 45 minute conversation with Fareed gets even deeper into ambiguities, and I think adds a lot. Less is not more. Sound bites are not policy. Sorry if I'm offending Trump lovers or Twitter lovers who prefer simple sound bites. You did seriously misrepresent what I said about what I believe motivated the US. Which was not revenge. National building is more like the opposite of revenge. In sound bite terms, building a nation is much more difficult than bombing a city into a parking lot. I did say the immediate goal was to "get rid of the Taliban." I still think that was the right thing to do. In that regard, Americans are seemingly very much like Israelis - both in 2001 and today. The principle I agree with, and I think most people agree with, is that terrorists and acts of terror need to be punished, so they don't occur again. I don't think that is the same as "revenge." Part of the reason I think toppling the Taliban in 2001 and then leaving Afghanistan shortly afterward might have made more sense is that even if the Taliban eventually returned to power, whether in 2011 or 2021, the experience of being removed from power - or killed - might have taught them not to try that again. Hopefully that is still true of the Taliban today. Israel clearly has the same thing in mind with Hamas. And I agree with that policy. They talk as if they think they will destroy Hamas. They won't, of course. But it makes sense to let Hamas and the world know that beheading Jewish babies is a very bad idea, and will result in the certain assassination of Hamas leaders. I stand 1000 % behind Israel on that. "Nation building" is pretty much the opposite of "revenge," I think. Sorry if thinking things through irritates some people here. But a conservative Republican friend who loved posting on Daddy's site and I pretty much correctly predicted 20 years of tragedy within months of 9/11. He argued that we need to just bomb the living fuck out of Afghanistan. But, he predicted, W. will fuck it all up by putting US boots on the ground. I asked him what happens if we bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan, and what rises from the ashes is even worse? He said, verbatim, "That's easy. Then we just go bomb the fuck out of them again." I think that five minute conversation pretty much nailed 20 years of tragic American history. Especially when you add Iraq to the mix. And how we bombed the fuck out of a country we had no right to invade. And instead managed to create ISIS. "Nation building" in Afghanistan was not a "revenge" motivation. You can argue it was liberal. And you can certainly argue it was naive. And expensive, in treasure and blood of the US and our allies. I think the record is clear that the agenda was to make Afghanistan a better place, and a democracy. Not to blow it to shit and turn it into a parking lot. And that is precisely where I part ways with Israel. And I think lots of moderate people who abhor violence do. Sorry to believe more is more. But Fareed mentions in his 45 minute conversation that past Israeli PMs, like Barak and Olmert, offered Palestinians a state that they were dead wrong not to take. Because whatever deal future Palestinians could possibly get as they grow weaker and weaker, and more of the occupied lands are settled by Israelis, will only be worse. So you could argue Israel used to be for at least accepting a Palestinian nation. If not actual nation building. As Fareed argues, I think the Netanyahu Doctrine was basically "nation denying." The one thing Bibi and his right wing supporters could not tolerate was the idea of a Palestinian state. It's perhaps a stretch to argue, as Fareed does, that Bibi was essentially for "Hamas building." Because having them around as bad guys made it easier to suppress peaceful and moderate Palestinian voices. But I agree with Fareed on that. I lay the blame at the feet of Netanyahu. I'm glad many Israelis do, too. I don't think you can compare a 20 year nation building project in Afghanistan that promoted democracy, womens' rights, and economic development with the idea of systematically turning Gaza into an open air prison. And then turning off their lights and water when they do something hawks in Israel don't like. If your point is that Afghanistan was a 20 year failed effort, we agree. If your point is that Americans spent 20 years of blood and treasure because we wanted revenge, plain and simple, I think you are just wrong. There's one more complicated and ambiguous point Fareed makes that is vital. As fucked up, and as predictably fucked up, as the Iraq invasion was, it's not like the withdrawal of US power in the Middle East has resulted in a utopian society anchored in tolerance and peace. It created a power vacuum that is clearly being filled by bad players doing bad things. So I don't think "it's just that America sucks, stupid" is a useful bumper sticker. I was loud that America sucked for starting a war in Iraq. I don't think America did or does suck for what we tried to do in Afghanistan. As Biden said, explicitly, these are exactly the things Israelis should be debating and reflecting on if they want to avoid 20 more years of tragedy. I hope they listen to him.

I think that is true of Biden. I'm not sure I would say that about the US, in general. There are lots of warmongers in both political parties. And lots of people say this is black and white. Hamas is Hitler, and they need to be exterminated. Period. Read some of the posts above. I used the pronoun "we" to generally refer to the 88 % of Americans who supported an invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, at least in one poll. I don't think there is as clear a "we" - meaning a vast majority of Americans - on Israel and Gaza now. A much better example would be the Iraq invasion, which I deeply opposed and which was bitterly divisive in the US from the start. Not to mention the world. I've maintained that the US no longer has a pro-Israel majority. Meaning a majority of Americans who will back Israel, "whatever it takes." I think many, and perhaps a majority, of Americans see deep moral ambiguity. And they lean toward peace, not war. That is particularly true of younger Democrats. All that said, everything I see, read, and hear leads me to believe that most Palestinian Americans feel Biden has stabbed them in the back. He is sending weapons to Israel, and dismissing their concerns. That is part of what makes this both poilitically and morally fraught. ‘The man broke my heart’: Biden’s Arab-American boosters begin to leave his side These Arab-Americans were among Biden’s biggest fans. Now they’re warning they — and others — could abandon him in 2024. If Trump beats Biden by 100,000 or so votes cast in a few swing states in 2024, like he beat Clinton in 2016, it could be blamed on about 1,000 different things he did. But this would be one at the top of the list. If it is another thing that makes young voters especially feel like Biden's moral compass is off. With Trump, at least we don't have to worry about it. He has no moral compass. ☹️ If Trump beats

I agree. This time, I'll be brief. There is a sort of moral certainty, one could even say moral superiority, in saying that these people are like Nazis. And we simply have to wipe the vermin out. And the guy who is talking in that interview I posted above ran Israeli intelligence, and knows way more than you and I about practical methods for wiping out vermin. He's very good at it, and rational in his plans for the eradication he supports. He clearly believes what he says. And the moral justification of it. Therein lies the tragedy. As you said, it is a noble undertaking. But impossible. And it will lead to even more extremes.

Is this the right GIF for, "We fucked ourselves"? ☹️ I stand by that question. It's a good question. What the fuck were we supposed to do in response to brutal and unprovoked terrorism that killed thousands of Americans? So I'll turn it around. What the fuck was the US supposed to do? Say, please, come fly more airplanes into our skyscrapers to punish us for being imperialist pigs? Should we have said, "We deserve to die, because we are hopeless murderous mother fuckers. Please, kill us." Is that the right response? Should Israel say, "You stupid assholes. You did not behead and burn enough of our babies. We are all genocidal monsters, and our babies all deserve to die. Come finish the job, quickly!" I cited a poll above that said after 9/11 most of the world thought the US should have pursued legal mechanisms rather than military ones. So that is one obvious answer of what we could have done instead. That said, how would taking the Taliban or bin Laden to court have worked out? Not very well, I'm guessing. Another answer is a different version of a military response. We should have invaded, overthrown the Taliban, and left. The good news is it would have taught the terrorists a lesson, and got the US military and our allies out of a mess that instead lasted for decades. The bad news is an invasion probably still would have created a mess that lasted for decades. Whether it would have been a worse mess than the mess the Taliban had already created is a question that can't honestly be answered. That certainly makes more sense with 20/20 hindsight. There's two big differences that I think put the US in a better position globally after 9/11 than Israel is now. Other than the obvious thing, which is the US's overwhelming military might. Of course, Israel has overwhelming military might, too. First, it was hard to argue the US somehow did something to provoke 9/11. Yes, we will always have Paris, and US imperialism. But we didn't occupy Afghanistan. The argument that was made at the time was that our benefactors actually turned on us. It's not like we had spent decades turning Kabul into an "open air prison," like Gaza is referred to. Second, while the immediate goal was to get rid of The Taliban, which we did (for a while), the broader goal was to national build. Which, with hindsight, now looks like the biggest mistake. But that's likely why public support lasted as long as it did. The main priority of the US wasn't to blow the shit out of lots of buildings and people in Kabul in order to take out terrorists. We spent a huge amount of money to develop Afghanistan. There are still many people who think we abandoned women and girls to the Taliban when we left. Meanwhile, nobody is arguing that Israel somehow protects Palestinian women and girls from Hamas, or any other Palestinian organization. I'm not stating either point to defend what what the US did, or how we did it. I am stating them to underline how we underestimated how difficult it was going to be. And, yes, it's easy to argue in retrospect that Afghan History For Dummies was all anyone needed to read. I personally don't regret that we invaded, even with the benefit of hindsight. If we had a do-over, I would support a short-term invasion to topple the Taliban, drive al Queda into the hills, and then get the fuck out. Then watch them like a hawk to try to prevent them from regrouping and doing it again. Which is basically the position that Israel is in. They can't get rid of Hamas, even if they do turn Gaza into a parking lot. Part of the reason I feel this way is that the idea of using legal mechanisms to bring the Taliban or al Queda to justice seems like a joke. I'm curious if anyone wants to suggest how a legal approach to 9/11 could have worked. Sue bin Laden in Afghan courts? Or, for that matter, how is Israel supposed to bring Hamas terrorists to justice in - what? Palestinian courts? Instead, to paraphrase you, @Latbear4blk, I think it makes sense to "target the terrorist leaders" with bullets. I don't regret that bin Laden was turned into fish food in an ocean. I doubt many Americans feel sorry for the guy. ‘Netanyahu Got All the Warnings,’ Says Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence Former chief of Israeli military intelligence Amos Yadlin on where the war goes from here. I was going to post that anyway. It fits in here as one respected Israeli hawk's answer to the question, "What the fuck else are we supposed to do?" That article has a certain kind of moral clarity to it, that goes like this: Hamas = Nazism = Holocaust = They Are Evil And They Must Be Destroyed. Whatever It Takes. It's just that simple. And that's the only way it can be. Given who the guy is, and how many people he has probably ordered killed, there is a clarity to saying we really just have one priority. "We are going to destroy Hamas, as Nazi Germany was destroyed," to quote Yadlin. No worries about whether Israel did anything to provoke Hamas. Or whether what Israel is doing now may provoke terror in the future. No worries about Palestinian nation building. The point is this: we will kill a lot of Nazis, and build really good defenses. That is what matters now! And that is what we will do! I'm guessing Yadlin is right that most Israelis, as well as perhaps most Jews across the world, see things this clearly. Or this black and white, if you prefer. Netanyahu won't be replaced by a dove. Yadlin is interesting because he was a Labor candidate. And he is a self-proclaimed "dove" on supporting a political two state solution. But what he makes crystal clear is that the real priority isn't a political settlement. In fact, any political settlement just got a lot harder, he says. The real priority is to destroy Hamas. Period. Just like the Nazis were destroyed. For that reason, I can't imagine this is going to work out better for Israel than it did for the US in Afghanistan. Part of the US's "what the fuck were we supposed to do?" is we tried for a few decades to develop a political solution. In retrospect it's easy to say it was doomed to fail. In part, of course, because of all the human rights abuses that were tolerated along the way, as one article I posted above argued. In the short term it will probably help Israel - and certainly the IDF - that they have the moral clarity of feeling, "They are evil, and they must be destroyed." But the lesson of the US 9/11 is that it's not that simple. The moral clarity many people feel now will dissipate. And so it's going to lead to a lot more destruction. I hope Yadlin is right that the scope of the war can probably be contained. Which is what Biden clearly wants to do.

So a question to legal eagles out there. Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of Trump’s fake elector scheme, pleads guilty in Georgia Chesebro’s plea comes one day after another close Trump adviser, Sidney Powell, entered a plea deal. Both have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Is it correct that this means the legal noose is almost certainly tightening around Trump? I'm not a lawyer or judge. But it seems like if Chesebro and Powell are guilty, and if they are presumably willing to cooperate with prosecutors, it is going to be hard to find Trump innocent. The main argument I can think of is that he didn't know about it. Or that it doesn't matter, because he has immunity, anyway. But both of those seem unlikely. The idea that he is simply innocent because nothing criminal happened seems to be drifting further and further away as a legal strategy.

I'm going to keep posting thoughtful and verbose content on the subject that I think connects lots of dots. Speaking of which: The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada Yoram Schweitzer Schweitzer headed the IDF's international counter-terrorism unit in the 90's and has been an expert on the subject ever since. The period this paper covers focuses on the period during 2001-2003 when suicide bombing terrorism spiked. Which former PM and Jerusalem Mayor Olmert spoke about above. There are in fact always choices. Many, many choices. I quoted Olmert because I generally agree that the choices made at the time were smart, and limited in scope. They prioritized defense - like walls - and avoided killing women and children. Arguably, that is why they were mostly viewed as successful in putting down a few years of suicide bombing escalation. The whole essay is great. And I think even-handed and objective in exploring the motivation of terrorists and youth, and how that fed from and reinforced the overall Palestinian public mood at the time. Here is the most significant part regarding what Schweitzer thinks worked: A few general comments relevant to the choices Netanyahu faces. And how and why he will likely fuck them up and simply provoke more terrorism and baby killing. Even back then, 30 years ago, when Oslo and peace had much more cache, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were the known bad actors. Their specific goal was to undermine the idea that peace was the solution. And instead promote the idea that armed struggle was the solution. The reason their pioneering slaughter activities did not catch on for years is that people wanted peace, and it seemed achievable. This adds substantial evidence to the idea that Hamas is way smarter than Hitler. Hitler thought he could win. But he did lose. Hamas makes Hitler look like a rookie. All the evidence suggests they know they can't win. And they haven't won. But they also know they can't lose. And they haven't lost. In fact, if you compare the Hamas of 2023 to the Hamas of 1993, Hamas is bigger and more powerful. So right out of the gate, terrorism is all about undermining peace and promoting armed struggle. Any response to terrorism that also undermines peace and promotes the idea that armed struggle is the path to victory inherently favors Hamas, and helps them grow. Which they have done, for decades. The Netanyahu Doctrine is a fundamentally pro-Hamas strategy in that it blocks peace and promotes armed struggle. For decades this has consistently helped Hamas grow and become more powerful in their capacity to wage terror and armed struggle. If Bibi Netanyahu did not exist, Hamas would have had to invent him. Without being able to predict the future, Schweitzer foreshadowed this in his conclusions: And, almost prophetically: Ya think? There are some parts of this that are just objective facts. Hamas is bigger and more powerful than they were when they pioneered suicide bombings 30 years ago. They did win political power in part because they were viewed as the bad asses that actually fought hard for Palestinian rights. They have now brought the idea of making Israel pay for its occupation to a whole new and terrifying level. 94 % of Israel feels unsafe. And a majority of them right now blame it on Netanyahu, at least according to one poll. You can say all we have to do is put this down, just like we did the suicide bombers 20 years ago. Fine. But look where that led. It would be incorrect to say Israel won the battle, but lost the war. I think the correct idea is that because the worst actors on both sides are growing in power, that means both sides are losing the war. Not to mention the rest of the world is losing the war. $100 a barrel oil, anyone? Maybe $150 if we really let the hawks loose? The definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same things that don't work again and again. What is even more depressing is that the things that make the most sense don't even make sense. Like targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders. As Schweitzer notes, the Second Intifada was set off by the targeting killing of a Palestinian activist. During the wave of suicide bombings, as Schweitzer notes in his conclusions, Israel started to target and kill Palestinian organization leaders. One can conclude, as Schweitzer does, that it was one tool in the counter-terrorism tool box that was effective. Certainly right now I think most people would agree that the IDF should focus on killing Hamas leaders, not innocent women and children. Unfortunately, if that is the main tool in the toolbox, I think we already know what the outcome is. Not as a guess. As an objective fact. Hamas vows suicide bombings, ‘unprecedented response’ if Israel targets its leaders Terror group threatens ‘regional earthquake,’ massive rockets attacks if Sinwar, other leaders hit; Egypt reportedly mediating between Jerusalem, Gaza to prevent escalation 7 May 2022, 8:27 pm Note the date on that article. Is there any way in which anyone can argue what just happened in Israel was the least bit surprising? There's only one type of article about the terror attack I quit reading after a paragraph or two. It's the "They Are Evil And Must Be Destroyed" articles that the hawks are pushing. It includes all kinds of nasty undertones. Like if I don't think Hamas being evil and being destroyed is the only thing that matters, it means I am evil and I supported The Holocaust. Which doesn't explain why so many Jews, in the US and Israel, don't agree with the Netanyahu Doctrine, either. Nor does it explain why the hawks, if they are so smart, failed to notice this evil shit for the last half century or so. I've read article after article based on the ridiculous premise that somehow Hamas fooled Israel. And now we've just come to find out all along they were wolves in sheep's clothing. It's total and almost laughable bullshit. Perhaps it's the only way Israeli hawks can rationalize how badly they fucked up. Hamas was incredibly clear to Israel and the IDF. Fuck with our leaders and we'll burn your babies alive. Fuckers! Go ahead, fuckers! Fuck with us. Go ahead. We will kill your fucking babies. With glee. Fuck with us. Go ahead. They almost goaded Netanyahu that clearly, and bluntly. Do I support the policy of killing Hamas leaders? Yes, of course. Did I mention that I'm glad bin Laden is dead at the bottom of an ocean? But if this is all Israel can do, I think we don't even have to guess what the outcome is. We have 30 years of experience on how and why it leads to more terror, and more armed struggle. Israel and Netanyahu have lots of choices on how to respond to Hamas. If Israel continues to kill peace and promote armed struggle, the certain outcome is more terror. If Israel wants less terror, they need to make better choices and have stronger leaders than Netanyahu. I've mentioned several times I hope Arafat is burning in hell for killing peace. Now that I went into a treatise on terrorism I will add one more hypothesis. Bill Clinton has said, even to this day, he does not understand why Arafat would not take a peace deal which former PM Barak agreed to which would have left Palestinians, and I think Israelis, way better off than they are today. And probably stopped the rise of Hamas, period. Clinton must be willfully ignoring what Arafat actually said, publicly. Arafat argued that had he signed the peace deal, Hamas - or some other terror faction - would have killed him. Which might have been true. Hamas knows that the one thing that will fuck up armed struggle is peace. So maybe they would have killed Arafat. That said, it still makes Arafat a moral worm of a leader who failed his people, miserably. Rabin was assassinated because he fought for peace. If Arafat had been assassinated for peace, at least he would have a legacy like Rabin. And not one as a weak and failed leader of his people.

I'll post these brand new polls about delivering weapons to Israel as an addendum to the post above. I find these results encouraging. First, America is not actually that divided on these questions by party. Both Republicans and Democrats sympathize with both Israelis and Palestinians. There is enough of a debate in each party that there is plenty of room to meet in the middle. If that is what we actually want to do. (Spoiler alert: that is what Biden actually wants to do, as he just said on TV.) Here's the three poll questions I found most revealing: The first poll reinforces my belief that Israel has now lost a pro-Israel US majority. What I mean by that is NOT that we don't sympathize with Israel right after the worst terrorist attack in their history. I mean that, even in a moment like that, you don't have 50 % of Americans - let alone a huge majority - saying we should send arms to Israel. Whether it works in Israel or not, the Netanyahu Doctrine has failed in America. While all three partisan groups are internally divided, I take it as good news that a majority of Democrats and Independents tend to lean away from sending arms to Israel as the right response, and toward focusing on the humanitarian issues - both for Israel and Palestinians. Biden is, as on all things, a transitional figure. Certainly a President Sanders, and probably even a President Harris, would be prioritizing the 70 % of Democrats and 59 % of Independents who want to focus on things like humanitarian aid to Palestinians. This poll is also a particularly good example of why Biden is suffering from a sort of Goldilocks polling principle. Probably not by coincidence, the percentage of people who who approve of Biden's handling of the conflict (44 %) is exactly the same as the percentage who think our response is just right (44 %). Everyone else is split between too little or too much support for Israel. This helps explain why on most issues Biden's approval rating is low. Even though Trump and Biden have been essentially tied in the horse race polls all year. Trump clearly has a mostly unified MAGA Party behind him. But they can't agree on much else. Meanwhile, Biden has constant incoming fire from both the left and the right. This issue is a great example. As long as the economy and his health holds up, this is why Biden will win in 2024, I think. People will vote for moderation and compromise over crazy and impasse.

I thought this interview was spot on. When I first read this State Dept. bureaucrat resigned, I thought of it as political grandstanding. Which it is. But it is interesting to hear why he did what he did in his own words. Of course, we are talking about the State Dept., not the Defense Dept. So a bias toward diplomacy is probably baked into the cake. But this is a guy who has a pragmatic perspective on what it means to send US arms to countries who are far from perfect for decades - like Israel and Egypt. ‘There Are Options for Israel That Do Not Involve Killing Thousands of Civilians’ He also addresses what @Latbear4blk is saying. Not his words, but how we are essentially feeding the beast. It's an excellent point. There's no reason to think that arming a country to the teeth somehow incents them to rush toward peace. Paul raises another excellent point. Which is that people in the State Dept., among others, have a pretty good idea of who the better players and worse players are. The US knows which Israeli military units have a track record of civilian casualties, and could make decisions to arm on that basis. That said, in this instance I don't agree with Paul, for all the reasons he cities about politics. Again, spot on. Everything he is saying is pretty obvious to anyone being a realist. If Republicans ran the show right now, there would be choruses of "whatever it takes." Even though Paul is right that this is the policy that probably guarantees more Jewish babies will be beheaded and burned alive. At least we showed those fuckers! Speaking as a Democrat, there is no reason Democrats need to have a huge internal fight about Israel right now. Any more than they need to have a huge internal fight about who the 2024 nominee should be. Biden is proving in real time he is perfectly capable of handling a crisis. I thank God Trump is not in charge. Even moreso, I thank God George W . Bush is not in charge. Bush 43 is the one who has a Netanyahu-like track record of sending in the cavalry with guns blazing. But no long term plan for peace. Mostly, the reason I disagree with Paul is this is not America's decision to make. It is Israel's, which is a democracy. And for now they've chosen the terrorist trainer, Netanyahu. Who maybe now polls say they want to get rid of. Because maybe they are getting the idea that the more Netanyahu they have, the more terror they have. But this is the debate Israelis and Palestinians need to have. Meanwhile, I'm fine with Biden doing the same kneejerk thing we have done for decades that hasn't worked. Paul himself said, correctly, his views are being expressed "too soon." Whatever real opportunities for peace there are come after Netanyahu is gone. And probably after the world recoils, yet again, from what Netanyahu is about to do.

If you are talking about the various Netanyahu governments, I agree. I'll ramp up the rhetoric. Netanyahu deserves to burn in hell for eternity. Why? Because, to quote Bill Clinton, he killed peace. And Clinton, as much as any US POTUS, can say he tried as hard as he could to fight for peace in Israel. So I trust Clinton on this one. Netanyahu killed peace. I'd take it further and say Netanyahu wrecked Israel. Whatever the best hope is, it won't happen with Netanyahu in charge. For the record, I hope Arafat is burning in hell for eternity, too. I think he killed peace. Burn in hell, Yasser. I would not say the same for all Israeli governments, for all time. I give Biden credit for making a few very basic things very clear. First, Israel has the right to defend itself. Period. Second, that does not mean they can do whatever it takes. I quoted former Israeli PM Olmert above, talking about the challenge of terrorism when he was Mayor of Jerusalem. There's a word that I would say characterizes him. And it is not "soulless." My word would be "conscience." Right now the big challenge of many US mayors is too many poor immigrants. But that basically means people left some place they saw as a shithole to work and find a better life. They are not suicide bombers. So maybe NYC or Chicago needs more shelters. But it is not a bad thing that poor people see the US as a refuge. Olmert talks about how in Jerusalem on his watch Palestinian poor people wanted to blow themselves up and take Jews with them. On an almost daily basis. That is a much bigger moral and pragmatic challenge for a Mayor. Olmert says, correctly, they did smart things to deal with a challenge no Mayor wants. And what they did worked most of the time to reduce terror. And 20 years later Olmert is saying the same things as before. The only solution is peace, in the form of a two state solution. To me there is a word for that. Conscience. Biden is a moral and religious man. My personal view is that he went to Israel to hug them, and to appeal to their conscience. It was the right thing to do. Good for him. That said, Netanyahu is the leader of Israel So I ain't holding my breath for acts of conscience. What is interesting about that poll that says almost all Israelis feel insecure, and the majority feel the Netanyahu government failed them, is this question: what does it mean for Israel to defend itself? If the body count of dead Palestinians is higher than the body count of dead Israelis, does that mean they are secure? I hope Israelis really debate that question. Because I think Netanyahu wrecked their country. He has been a horrible leader, that has now reaped what he sowed. Apparently many Israelis agree. So I am hating on Israel by saying that. One reason I like Luttwak, the Jewish hard liner who is good at military strategy who I also quoted above, is that he is blunt and honest. So he says that the game is basically for Israel to grow. And they have grown. They went from a fragile state after the Nazi Holocaust to now being a sort of fortress nobody can penetrate. What used to be a potential Palestinian state is now a checkerboard of Jewish settlements. Luttwak is right, on his own terms. And at least until last month, at least half of Israelis - including most of their own recent more conservative immigrants - agreed with Luttwak. So it is a moment of conscience for Israel. If I had to bet, based on recent elections, i'd bet that the majority will say fuck these animals. They are vermin. Kill them. Whatever it takes. That is Netanyahu's legacy.

I agree with both posts. I think that one word is the key difference. Hamas intentionally terrorized and slaughtered innocent civilians in the most intentionally brutal ways. I don't think the IDF does that. For that matter, there was not that much evidence the US Army intentionally slaughtered innocents in places like Afghanistan. And the ones that did were punished. That is a key difference. I'm glad Biden went, and helped underscore that difference. One small difference he made, for what it is worth, is he forced at least a temporary delay of any invasion to force more attention to humanitarian measures for innocent Palestinians. The polls say, among Democrats, Biden is facing more pressure from people who say Israel's response is "too harsh" (25 %) than "not harsh enough" (9 %). The plurality of Democrats says Israel's response is "about right" (32 %). (Question is on page 92). Among Republicans, the plurality says Israel's response is "not harsh enough" (40 %) and only 8 % say "too harsh". Independents are almost equally split. I think it is safe to say that if Trump were POTUS Netanyahu would feel more empowered to do "whatever it takes." Biden will put more stress on the humanitarian issues that helped make Gaza and the West Bank open-air terrorist training camps in the first place. It's also a good bet that if there is an invasion that causes mass casualties among Palestinians, the balance among Americans will shift further against Netanyahu's harsh terrorist training adventures. Poll: 94% of Israelis say gov’t failing to protect them Survivors of kibbutz attack turn their ire on Netanyahu A massive security failure and antagonism toward Palestinians means many Israelis think Netanyahu has to answer for Hamas’ attack. Those poll results really surprised me, and deepened my sympathy for Israel. At least in one important regard, this may be the opposite of America's 9/11. Public support immediately rallied behind George W. Bush, and stayed there for a long time. He was the hero, or at least the protector. Not the villain. It wasn't until Trump ran in 2016 that Republicans in particular could begin to tolerate, let alone agree with Trump, that perhaps Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11. My assumption is that the most likely knee jerk response is that Israel will make all or at least some of the same mistakes the US did after 9/11. Which Biden thankfully cautioned Israel not to do, in person. Maybe they will actually listen. It's not clear yet how much of this Israeli response is that Netanyahu was not tough enough, and now we need to pave Gaza into a parking lot. And how much is a belief that Netanyahu's great achievement as a horrible leader is killing peace and turning both Gaza and the West Bank into terrorist training camps. There is no way that approach will change as long as Netanyahu is leader. So for the time being my guess is the basic trend doesn't change. Sadly.