I watched a longer clip that showed two interruptions with responses and explained that she had already met with a group of protestors prior to the rally. I found her response succinct and tough, and the crowd agreed.
She gave a better response today in Arizona, during her speech when the protesters started yelling again - calling on both Hamas and Israel to end the war and release the hostages.
Yeah, she gave them the Mom Stare and what for... Not giving shit to the woman in the room. It reminded me of the staff meeting where "Evan" interrupted me and I said "Evan.. what exactly is your role here? Your title? Okay, Tech Evan, I acknowledge your impulse control challenges, but I am speaking here and if you cannot control yourself from speaking over me and interrupting, I suggest you go back to your workstation and join us on Zoom on mute. So as I was saying.."
If we are to survive we need the Mom Stare and the what for, absolutely.
I'm sick and tired of men (I'm a male, by the way) behaving like clowns, boors, and assholes and parading themselves back and forth and up and down as if professional wrestling is the same thing as the work of government. Or for that matter, life.
In other words, people who seem to think playing "air guitar" is the same thing as being Andres Segovia.
The MAGA "talent show" is an orgy of frenzied mummery at the funeral of the United States of America. Either we wake up and shake our heads and recognize this or we perish. Probably we perish.
Kamala shows signs of being a new Margaret Thatcher -- not in policy, but in gravitas, maturity, deportment, and force of character. Hope?
Show me a man in America -- any male public figure today -- who can match the force of character in that stare and statement. Maybe she's the only remaining adult in the room of the republic. No crap Kamala?
The ones that come to mind do all seem to be women. Nancy Pelosi. Spanberger. Big Gretsch. Klobuchar.
I disagree that JVL thinks she should do that. I think he's saying she handled the situation well. I think he's thinking that he wishes she would've articulated her policies, but knows, as a practical matter, that the rally wasn't really the place to do that. She needs to do that on the debate stage or in an interview with a journalist and/or interviewer.
You're right. I think it comes down to televised media wants to show a brief clip of something (with no analysis following) and print media wants the latest quote to transcribe as 'breaking' news, as if anything that hasn't been said in the past hour is irrelevant ancient history. This is the malignancy in our current media system.
Televised media is shit. Every single news channel broadcasted Trump's braindump stream of consciousness lies and delusions for a full hour from Mara Loco... but not one broadcasted Kamala's speech to the UAW. It is 2016 again... even MSNBC
I agree, it was shocking. They ran it uninterrupted, no fact checking, no ads, and all I could think was, they're doing it again. Their obsession with him is depressing. He should not have been on cable news for that long uninterrupted. Honestly, who does he think he is?
Watergate hurt journalism, in my opinion. We now have too many journalists looking for "gotcha" moments that could propel them to the status obtained by Woodward and Bernstein.
My maiden name, Halliburton, was arrived at by Halley-Burton. Very distinguished even though the family was potato-famine Irish and the rest of them were “Murphy.” My great-grandmother was a Murphy and then I married one.
It’s a shame that “politics” seems to demand a simple answer to the complex issues of Israel and the Middle East more generally. If ever there were a region that could not be regarded as a set of immutable monoliths, it’s the Middle East. A millennial-old problem or set thereof. I generally agree with KH’s position as Sean has outlined it, and I wonder how often she - and the experts who see and have to deal with the complexities and contradictions - feel as though having to speak about them in detail is like trying to explain to a 6 year-old-how to find the bathroom in a strange house in the middle of the night in the dark. It’s one step, one identified corner, one long wall to slide along at a time; and let’s hope we remember where the really steep stairs are so we don’t trip and hurdle down in one clumsy and potentially dangerous move!
Back in 2020 didn't the media folks (or pundits, or whomever showed up on cable news to pontificate) squawk about Elizabeth Warren having too many plans with too much information? If anything, getting traction in today's news environment even more fully requires either an outlandish statement (please, Kamala, don't do that) or a 7-second soundbite and compelling image.
I have an incredibly boring one track mediocre mind on this. I want us to win - I do,not wàt her to try to coddle the media by doing long talk fasts where what they want to do is play gotcha or to coddle the left of the D party. I’m,delighted she told them to pound sand. If she knocks off’the fat orange felôn/rqpist/liar then We can have real debates again Right now what I want to see is’the kind of ruthlessness she is showing. All of us have to say loudly that this is not a gentle debate,between people,who have rules. It’s a knife fight, there is no équivalence, and I want her to fight to win it. Given that the NYT announced that it didn’t care about democracy I see no reason to listen to them . All they want is for her to make what they can call a mistake, so they can jump all,over it. F*** them
I thought she handled the protesters well. I kind of gave a different take on her taking a stand on the Israel/Gaza situation. She is the VP of the sitting President who is trying to navigate a cease fire. I don't see any benefit to her saying something that may put those negotiations at risk. In fact, it may undermine President Biden and that would be the wrong message completely.
She is actually responding brilliantly in the moment... not easy to do. Although guess she must have needed to think about this ahead of time in anticipation this would happen sometime...
You may also recognize it as The Teacher Look. If I had to give my students that look, no words necessary, they also knew to “stop their horseshit immediately.” It was one scary look that Kamala did.
Oh it IS The Mom Look. I learned it from my sister with four children who was the best mom I ever knew. I recognized it immediately. It was very effective.
Or how about I stop the car, you can start walking home! When my son and my brother's were squabbling in the back seat, I said that! It was pretty effective and my brother had to keep from laughing.
I'm fine with Harris being vague on Israel/Palestine. After all, as important as that conflict is to the world, it is not what this election is about here in the USA. Any substantive statement she might make on this issue might force these protestors to go through with their threatened protest vote or non-vote. Instead, she made them think seriously about whether Trump was the better pick on this issue and all others. In short, she told them the right way to think about their issue and the election.
I think I basically agree, but here's where I pause: Do we want this practice to be the exception or the rule? Because in general, I think it's probably better if candidates address major issues head-on rather than dodging them. Let the people know what they're voting for. But then again, I can also see why that could be undesirable.
The issue, I think, is that the speaker in a setting like this gets to decide the agenda. She can decide an appropriate time & place for that specific policy statement, and likely yet a different time & venue if actually holding a discussion about it.
Hijacking someone's event is theatre, not a discussion of an issue. Obvi that's the point of public protest but a protester can't assume every speaker will fall into that game.
It’s her event, her outreach to everyone there. She also took time to meet with them before. I wonder if they realize that trying to hijack her event doesn’t bring anyone to their point of view.
Amen. There is no free speech right to shout down or interrupt speakers. Your free speech right is the right to speak out, not to stop others from speaking.
I know you know this: if we had two normal candidates with actual knowledge and experience with the issues, and actual policy opinions they could talk about, I would totally agree with you. But we don’t. As you so eloquently wrote, Harris was reframing this into something to agree on, and that is that the most important goal here is to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t get back in the presidency.
Exactly! She's staying focused on the mission, the only mission right now: Defeat Trump. Anything else is a distraction. We can have policy discussions once there are two normal parties again and not just one.
Ben, you are being super naive. You want to "let the people know what they're voting for"? LOL! The American have become child-like in their understanding of the world and its nuances and complexities. They engage in magical thinking. (The Bulwark community excepted.) If a candidate were to actually level with the American people about all the hard choices we face, that candidate would never win. So I think it is actually better if a candidate runs on values and critical thinking as opposed to specific policies. And that is what Harris and Walz are doing now.
As far as this specific instance, I think the most important thing is that Harris beats Trump. Everything, EVERYTHING, else is a sideshow. So let's keep the most important thing as the most important thing.
You are assuming that both sides are dealing in Good Faith. Which they are not. Donald and Roger learned Bad Faith from their mentor Roy Cohn.
Donald has no core policy, no closely held positions other than whatever he thinks is in his selfish personal interest in the moment. Every word is deception. He doesn't give a shit about the economy, the border, abortion, Palestine, Israel or any other policy he claims to be passionate about.
He doesn't even really want to do the job of President. Do you really believe that a 78 year old, mentally defective, criminal conman wants to show up and work in the Oval Office every day? All Donald wants to do is play golf and cheat so he can claim he's the club champion. MAGAs and pundits who think he actually cares about anything he says are conned.
Good Faith and Bad Faith pass each other like ships on the ocean. Which is why the debates are a joke. Kamala speaks Good Faith and Donald speaks Bad Faith.
While avoiding prison is his major reason for wanting to win this election, it's also true that he has a fetish for violence. He would love to be able to stoke unrest, and then send in the troops to kill people.
The New York Times and the other major media platforms report Donald's policy stances and pronouncements as though they are real. They have a financial incentive to give the impression that Donald is a legitimate candidate who actually believes in his stances on the issues of the day.
If. If Donald was, in truth, a low IQ, criminal conman, who has no true policy positions, would they reveal it? Or would they back up his con with daily "news" on Donald's phony proposals and statements?
Donald was for overturning Roe v Wade. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for improving the immigration system. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for Project 2025. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for election integrity. And now he's rigging the system.
Donald told Time Magazine he would hunt down, arrest, imprison and deport 20 million men, women and children. And the Press treats this campaign promise as legitimate. It's repeated in the RNC Platform:
What if. What if Donald is just a low IQ criminal conman who has no policies or honest positions on anything? Future historians look at us and wonder how we fell for his bullshit con game money scam for so long.
Read Judge Engeron's 92 page ruling for insight on the man that Donald really is.
Wait a minute. Are you saying Donald is not a Republican? He's sure not a Democrat. Are you saying he's a Trump World, MAGA Cult, Pro-Putin, Pro-Orban, frontman for the autocrats and billionaire oligarchs? And he doesn't really care about America and Americans?
Sure looks that way. See Anne Applebaum's new book Autocracy, Inc.
It seems to me that getting into a discussion with protesters in the middle of a speech is the road to chaos. If it's a press conference, you answer questions. Stopping to answer statements yelled from members of the audience in the middle of a rally or speech doesn't work. Harris handled it perfectly. Respectful, but firm.
I think the only realistic policy is one that can’t be said out loud. Continue supporting Israel but find a way to get Netanyahu out of there. Someone (not Harris or anyone on the campaign) needs to loudly ask why Netanyahu gets to speak to congress for a second time and yet he hasn’t invited a Democrat to speak to the Knesset? He had Elise Stefanik speak there in May. Why not Chuck Schumer?
Revealed preference would seem to suggest that, whatever they might claim, the American people hate candor from their elected officials and are ready, willing, and able to punish anything that might constitute "straight talk." Basic rule of economics; the supply will always shift to meet the demand.
As a previous commenter suggested; Harris has already stated her views here on Gaza,Israel and her disapproval of Bibbi. They are well known and are the same as Biden's.
I think this is one of the underappreciated impacts of Trumpism; maybe we will mention a policy, maybe we will tell jokes or speak about fictional characters, maybe we won't debate.
Doesn't matter what the issue is, accommodating hecklers is not the way to conduct a successful rally and heckling a rally speaker is not the way to advance your cause. Harris went full-on Mamala and took control of the moment. As we say nowadays, I'm here for it.
I LOVED Kamala's retort to the pro-Palestinian protesters. I also loved that she shut down the "Lock him up" chant. I think it's gross and something Dems shouldn't debase themselves doing.
In my opinion "Sister Souljah" is the wrong frame because it's not that calculated or part of a triangulation strategy. It can be similar in effect but I don't think that was the main thing either. More than anything she looked tough and assertive while handling the thorniest kind of problem for a campaign rally. I can imagine her giving Putin a variation of that look across the table.
1) I'm probably what you would call a progressive. That said, I was so relieved to see Harris handle the protesters in the way she did. I have been worried that some of my less mature kith and ken would make a big stink out of issues that we care about but which I think are so much less important than what's at stake now. She didn't dismiss their concerns, in fact, earlier she acknowledged that they are legitimate concerns. She showed real leadership by demanding that they show respect. She did them a real favor. Her look was withering too, by the way. My sainted mother gave me that look a time or two.
2) The Ukrainians have and will surprise the rest of a world not accustomed to how free people act. Free folk are unpredictable. That's a feature, not a bug. You might notice that our new Democratic ticket is exhibiting the same trait. These people are heroes and a blessing to the World. We should be more bold in our support.
3) Vance is a carpetbagging con man. Of a piece with his Palpatine.
I am good with her brief statement after meeting with Netanyahu. I appreciated her insistence that this is a complicated problem rather than the simple, one sided one partisans try to pretend it is. I don't think she can differentiate herself much more without undermining the President she still serves.
There's no upside for Kamala to break her speech for a nuanced discussion of the Gaza invasion. It's not the time or the place.
She played it perfectly, and I'd bet that it had probably been broached as a possible situation beforehand and she had the response in pocket.
There's not a satisfactory answer on Gaza that we can deliver in this time- we can nudge the situation here or there, but there's a lack of political consensus that makes drastic, potentially effective action on our part pretty much impossible. So any discussion of the matter beyond the basics (Oct 7th bad, killing civilians in job lots bad, etc.) is not a useful one for the campaign.
Yes. Engaging in nuance on the stump, especially in response to heckling, is just asking for trouble. We in the US have trouble with nuance under the best of circumstances. It's too often seen as weakness or inauthenticity.
I was super impressed by Harris’ response to the heckler. While is fine staying as vague as possible, not sure it is entirely sustainable given she is with the Biden administration the whole time. I expect her policies will be similar substantively but less tethered to historical US support like Biden. Ultimately, what she said immediately after Biden stepped down struck the right tone, and her statement against pro-Hamas rioters during Bibi’s visit was good.
While I thought Biden did an excellent job uniting allies after the Russian invasion, I too agree we were always a day late and a dollar short. But what’s in the past cannot be changed. The only way to defeat Putin is to make sure Trump does not return to the WH.
Kinzinger’s rebuttal to JD Vance’s lies was terrific. Harris should bring him onto her campaign.
Some people, including the author of this column have lost their moral compass when it comes to the Israel/Palestine question. Luckily some people (Prof. Robert Reich) have talked to both sides to help them find it. Here are some principles everybody could agree too:
"1. What Hamas did on October 7 was morally despicable.
2. Hamas’s avowed aim to murder all Jews is morally despicable.
3. What the Israeli government has done since then in Gaza is also morally despicable.
4. The murder or kidnapping of innocent civilians is morally wrong.
5. Israel’s policies toward Palestinians have been segregation and discrimination, based on ethnicity and religion, which are morally wrong.
6. It is morally wrong to urge genocide against any group — whether they constitute a religion, ethnicity, race, or nation.
7. All of us have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to prevent and stop all forms of genocide, all killing of innocent civilians, and the promotion of hate."
Seen from this perspective, of a moral compass, this answer is not only masterful but right. Because for every single principle listed above, Donald Trump will make it worse.
PS: Kudos to Kathleen Weber for pointing me to this Substack.
Hi Alejandro! Thanks for reading. I don't think those rules are as straightforward as they appear. For example, if there's a genocide going on, are we morally allowed to go to war to stop it, even if civilians will die in that war? Are we morally required to do so? Laying out rules is useful, but it's the beginning—not the end—of the analysis.
Hi Benjamin, thanks for answering. I appreciate the coverage you do using the access you have, and the trust you get from people in the IDF. I also appreciate all the coverage you do focusing on the sacrifice of the people serving in the armed forces, whose sacrifice is neither well understood nor well appreciated. I also understand ( in the abstract, I have never served in a military, nor participated in a conflict) that war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas to its participants with decision-making that happens instinctively when facing life or death situations, I can only have empathy for that, and thank you for your service.
Beyond that, one can only write well from what one knows, and what you know, you cover masterfully. What’s truly valuable about Reich’s principles is that he sat down with pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel students to make sense of what is morally right, and what we can agree on in terms of the conflict. In the case of the picture that you give us misses the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end of the Israeli offensive, on this it is on par with most coverage from center-right sources which do not cover at all the Palestinian viewpoint.
To caricature, imagine yourself being a male Palestine growing up in Gaza in your 20s: you have grown up in an area half the size of DC under constant bombarding and intervention from the Israeli military. Chances are you have many family members who have been killed in such an intervention in horrific manners, and you have no chance, and no opportunity of getting ahead other than joining Hamas, which gives you prestige, and the opportunity of giving one finger up to the “oppressor”.
And while this choice is morally repugnant, it exists in a context that is the perfect brewing ground for those choices. You cannot solve the Israel/Palestine question without addressing those historical, structural, and political issues. You need to give a choice, and an opportunity to live and thrive to Palestinians, to have their own state to be able to find a path to peace.
And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end. Netanyahu and co. have worked effectively for 30 years to block that path, but it does not mean that it does not exist.
I agree with all of this except about one sentence. "And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end." I think if we learned anything from 20 years in Afghanistan and many years in Iraq (and in Vietnam before that), it takes more than military might to make a society free and stable and viable. I'm not sure Israel actually has the capability to do that.
Israel can create the conditions in Gaza for a free, stable and viable society. They did so in 2OO5. What did the Gazans do with the withdrawl of the IDF?
They gave control to Hamas, who did nothing to help Gaza be viable. Their hatred of Jews is more important.
Israeli leadership is on a position of building towards an outcome that offers that possibility.
Just like Netanyahu and co. walked a path to make it almost impossible to build a path towards a viable two state solution, a new leadership could build towards that.
Carrot and stick, led by people with moral clarity. Empathy towards the others, playing a game that sidelines extremists and offers a path to compromise. it would be extremely difficult and requires commitment in the long run. But it's the only way out.
New leadership? That's up to the Israeli people. Currently, "more Israelis favour Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister than any other leader, and his Likud party is poised to win the most seats in a new election, according to a poll published on Friday" [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-netanyahu-likud-israel-election-poll].
"war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas" - well said.
As to a path to peace, it's on the Gazans to renounce Hamas and their stated goal to eliminate Israel. That's the first step. The first choice to be made. Without that, Israel can only be defensive. There can be no peace until the Gazans recognize Israel's right to exist. The Israelis gave Gaza the opportunity to to live and thrive when they withdrew in 2OO5. In 2OO7, the Gazans gave control to Hamas. Did the Gazans live and thrive? No. As you noted, working for the Hamas "syndicate" was the only path available.
Hamas would like to perform a genocide, but can't, which is why the stick to horrible acts of terrorism. What the state of Israel does is partly apartheid, partly mass displacement and heavily risks becoming a genocide.
Bibi and co. have been actively destroying any possibility for a two state solution since at least the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and the Oslo accords. It's a life goal of his. That's way he funneled money for Hamas in the 2000s and he lend a hand in making sure they would become the facto government in Gaza. But that is a political question, before that, there is a moral one: What moral ground do we share? What could be the moral foundation of an agreement?
Rabin was assassinated in the 90's. The Oslo process did move forward in the aughts under a Labor PM--I believe Elud Barack. Labor lost control specifically because of the the relentless terror attacks of Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade. So who is to blame?
I doubt that either Hamas or Hezbollah or any other Palestinian entity are any more interested in a two-state solution than Netanyahu or the Israeli right.
Such a scenario would rely on Just War Theory for some of those answers, which is what our military essentially does....and what the IDF under Bibi has not.
I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, Colleen [doesn't it come from Thomas Aquinas?], Colleen. Can you point to what the IDF under Bibi has done that violates that theory? Thanks.
In the Western tradition Aquinas was the first serious scholar to develop a theory, but it has it's roots in Augustine of Hippo. The Gaza war was imminently justifiable to engage in. The problems come from how it's been waged.
The two points I have issues with are: There must be serious prospects of success and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Bibi never had an exit strategy and his definition for success has changed more than once. Originally the hostages were a main focus but it quickly switched to the 'total destruction' of Hamas. That's an unattainable goal that has been used to justify a whole lot of carnage disproportionate to the initial attack on Israel. That's my opinion and I'm sure others would see it differently. I also don't think this is a genocidal campaign, but that certainly doesn't make it a completely moral campaign because it isn't.
Over the two decades during which Hamas has ruled Gaza, there have been dozens of attempts by the IDF to limit Hamas' will and/or capacity to terrorize Israel. October 7 was the result. As much as I dislike Bibi, I believe that he is 100% justified to destroy Hamas completely--and that any responsible leader would do the same.
It may not be contrary to the rules of war but their total lack of ROEs or desire to punish transgressions sure suck. See the way they handled the murder of the 3 escaped hostages.
The IDF's ROE are fundamentally the same as ours, in conformance with international law. Our military has expressed that they think the IDF does at least as well as we did in Iraq. Mistakes happen in war. Civilian casualties are only war crimes if they are deliberate, or the result of callousness. Hamas has charged the IDF with both of those, but Hamas lies. Civilian casualties are baked into their game plan. Again, I am asking for proof, not Hamas allegations.
Destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, indiscriminate use of dumb bombs, and an excessive civilian casualty rate which will get higher as famine takes hold.
1) It is permissible to damage or even destroy civilian infrastructure if it is being used to military advantage. It is not news that Hamas uses schools, mosques, and hospitals to military advantage. The case of Al Shifa hospital is instructive. Hamas has used it for military purposes for years, and in (I believe) 2014 even admitted as much. During this war, the IDF spent a month imploring medical staff to evacuate the hospital so that they could enter. Medical staff (Hamas) claimed there was no military presence there; and claimed that it was impossible to evacuate the hospital. (Interesting, since during a wildfire where I live the hospital that serves me was evacuated in a matter of hours.) Finally, the IDF entered the hospital, moving patients from area to area for their safety. And guess what? There was so much no Hamas presence there that a two-week long battle ensued. Hamas, which has steadfastly insisted on counting all casualties as civilian, claim that hundreds of civilians, patients, had been killed. The IDF said those were Hamas fighters, the people they had fought against. The IDF claimed that their operations met the gold standard for urban warfare. Hamas screamed war crimes. Everybody lies in war, but, again, you tell me what objective evidence is there of IDF war crimes?
2) No use of munitions is "indiscriminate." They cost a bundle and they are used deliberately. Whether their use amounts to murder or shows a callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure depends on the the law of war, specifically whether reasonable care has been taken and whether damage is proportional to military necessity.
3) Hamas lies about casualties. It is in their interest to cite high casualties. I has been their game plan for years to cite high casualties. The do not and will not distinguish civilians from combatants in their reports. Statisticians are dubious of the reports, stating that they do not reflect naturally occurring events.
There is no doubt that civilians have been harmed. That's why offensive war, using human shields, using infrastructure for military purpose are all war crimes--war crimes that Hamas has clearly committed.
Unfortunately, defense is often the justification for offensive war. Hitler claimed that Poland had attacked Germany. GW Bush, perhaps deceived by others, claimed that attacking Iraq was defending against WMD's.
I consider the actions of the Netanyahu government in Gaza to be war crimes of the first degree. What Israel is doing in Gaza, however reprehensible and counter productive, is not genocide and it is morally inexcusable to abase the term genocide by suggesting that it is.
It's not like any of the other Arab countries have been lining up to open their borders to Palestinian refugees. One could make a moral case they are complicit in Bibi's war crimes. It's not like the countries surrounding Ukraine didn't demonstrate how to handle a massive flow of war refugees.
I agree not genocide, but what war crimes in the first degree? While it's possible war crimes have been committed, I have not seen that proven, either in court or in the court of rational discourse. ( And Hamas propaganda is not proof; neither is the fact that civilian Gazans have been injured or killed proof. Sadly, civilians are injured and killed in war.)
Apartheid is a tricky term: I, and I think most people, view it as dejure discrimination within a country. I've never seen the term used in the context of occupied territory. Unless you are contending that Israel proper practices apartheid. Which is a big stretch. If Israel incorporates Gaza and the West Bank into itself, then yes, it would be apartheid. Which is why so many Israelis want a two-state solution.
Agree about the term. However, here is an update on Israelis and a two-state solution: "Prior to the attack, many Israelis supported this path to peace with the Palestinians. Now, 65% oppose it, with nearly half of this shift occurring directly as a result of October 7, reflecting a deepening skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan amid ongoing terrorism and violence emanating from Gaza" [https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/08/02/polling_shows_shift_in_israeli_opinions_of_gaza_and_two-state_solution_1048994.html].
In what occupation would there NOT be apartheid? Occupation, by its nature, previleges those who are occupying. In any case, the Court did not rule in its advisory opinion that Israel itself is an apartheid state. But half the student protesters will think it is. I'd also be interested to know what percentage of protesters think ALL of Israel is 'occupied'.
The problem for Kamala to comment on Gaza while a ceasefire is being negotiated, is that it could prove counterproductive.
We’ve seen how Bibi reacted when Biden threatened to withhold some offensive weapons being used to bomb civilians in Gaza. He and his messianic Jewish cohorts in the Knesset, annexed another 2,000 acres of land in The West Bank for settler development.
Make no mistake, Bibi is a friend to no one, least of all Israel and America. His religious wing-nuts are even worse. They don’t care about the hostages, civilian casualties in Gaza, or the treatment of Palestinian prisoners.
Additionally, they will not agree to a two state solution, or Palestinian governance in Gaza. They even ruled out international occupation. In short, Bibi has no solution to the problem once an ultimate ceasefire is reached, which is a recipe for disaster.
Furthermore, Bibi continues to have delusions of grandeur; believing Hamas can be defeated. News flash: an ideology cannot be defeated. If we learned anything from 9/11, it’s when you defeat one terror group, several more emerge from the shadows.
Case in point. Al Qaeda, which never existed before we invaded Iraq, eventually splinted into two groups: one being ISIS, the other, Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Today, after the US spent over $6 trillion fighting the war on terror, we actually created more terrorist groups, currently operating in countries where Muslim extremism never existed before. Bottom line: we created more terrorists than we killed and suffered more casualties than during 9/11, and we’ve been playing whac-a-mole ever since.
Furthermore, Israel is heading down the same rabbit hole we did, and they aren’t America. They can’t just print money like we do, and their military isn’t built for long wars of attrition. Their military is 80% reservists, and their economy is currently the third largest in all of Western Asia and the Middle East; behind Turkey and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
A long war on several fronts will eventually destroy their robust economy which is one of the riches per capita in the world. It is a country of 9 million (not including the Palestinian territories), with a GDP just under $600 billion.
Bibi and his incompetent and demonic allies are willing to throw this all away for what? And the US would be stupid supporting a suicide pact with a morally bankrupt, narcissistic sociopath like Bibi; yet here we are.
I’m Jewish and love Israel, but revenge isn’t the same as defense. We should have learned that emotional reactions are never the best way to solve a conflict or deal with a terror attack. Actions need to be thought out and deliberate. Bibi has shown he has no idea what he is doing, and we should not follow this man into the abyss.
Not sure I can agree with #3. Please explain what Israel should have done in response to the Hamas attack that would have been morally right. As you yourself said, "war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas." How can Reich be so sure about what is morally wrong?
As to #5, that statement is incomplete. Yes, Palestinians have been segregated based on religion and ethnicity. But why? Because the Israelis are just like white people everywhere [this is Ta-Nehasi Coates' view]? Or is it because their leaders don't accept Israel's right to exist and they therefore threaten Israeli security?
You should read the article, this is not what Reich thinks, but what came out of bringing together and facilitating a discussion between pro-israel and pro-palestine students. It just summarizes the common ground they found together.
Bothsides-ism. Hamas painted themselves and Gazans into the corner by their tireless pursuit of terror over decades. Hamas began this war on October 7, shattering the peace. Hamas committed a half dozen clear war crimes. Israel's attack on Hamas in response been judged to be self-defense and therefore just. While it is possible that Israel has also committed war crimes, that remains to be seen--unless one mindlessly accepts the statements of Gaza health authorities (Hamas health authorities) at face value).
You left out that it is morally wrong for Hamas to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. While one can complain that Israel's response isn't targeted sufficiently narrow, if Hamas weren't using civilians as human shields, that wouldn't be near the problem that it is.
Harris is not an enigmatic “cypher” or an opportunist who supported any policy she thought was popular in 2019. She is continuing to establish her own positions without directly undermining the administration she still serves.
Ukraine is much farther into Russia than 10 km. And why isn’t the US MSM talking about this???!!!??? All NATO countries who’ve donated kit to Ukraine have said “it’s theirs, they can do what they want with it”. Projections that they are aiming for the Kursk nuclear power plant are rampant in Ukraine media (and Twix and YouTube and Telegram). Seriously, this is the most interesting development for the Ukrainians in like 18 months. It’s fucking huge!
I was referring more to the talking people vs the writing people. 😏The writing people have more space available to scribble while the video people are so entirely consumed with election drama that very little else seems to break through. Sorry for not being more precise.
PS. It’s not like people READ that much these days as is evidenced by the fact that the NYT is now a lifestyle brand” of games and cooking and the WaPo is itching to get onto that same bandwagon to stem their losses. The state of our MSM is not strong.
Exactly! This is yet another example of infinite deference and the unconditional benefit of the doubt offered to Russia, in spite of all the evidence pointing to this being absolutely devastating to them. I said in my own comment, but I'll say here too: this invasion has the potential of ending the war.
She’s already given her Israel policy after she met with Bibi:
1) she supports Israel’s right to defend itself and supports giving them what they need to do so
2) she said that Oct 7 was horrific
3) she said that what is happening now in Gaza is awful as well and needs to stop through a negotiated cease-fire
4) and she said she supports a two-state solution
Not sure what else she can or should say beyond that.
The author acts like she’s she supposed to stop the momentum and give a detailed response.
I watched a longer clip that showed two interruptions with responses and explained that she had already met with a group of protestors prior to the rally. I found her response succinct and tough, and the crowd agreed.
She gave a better response today in Arizona, during her speech when the protesters started yelling again - calling on both Hamas and Israel to end the war and release the hostages.
Yeah, she gave them the Mom Stare and what for... Not giving shit to the woman in the room. It reminded me of the staff meeting where "Evan" interrupted me and I said "Evan.. what exactly is your role here? Your title? Okay, Tech Evan, I acknowledge your impulse control challenges, but I am speaking here and if you cannot control yourself from speaking over me and interrupting, I suggest you go back to your workstation and join us on Zoom on mute. So as I was saying.."
If we are to survive we need the Mom Stare and the what for, absolutely.
I'm sick and tired of men (I'm a male, by the way) behaving like clowns, boors, and assholes and parading themselves back and forth and up and down as if professional wrestling is the same thing as the work of government. Or for that matter, life.
In other words, people who seem to think playing "air guitar" is the same thing as being Andres Segovia.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=segovia+youtube+link+bach&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzgFw0AAcGX8
The MAGA "talent show" is an orgy of frenzied mummery at the funeral of the United States of America. Either we wake up and shake our heads and recognize this or we perish. Probably we perish.
Kamala shows signs of being a new Margaret Thatcher -- not in policy, but in gravitas, maturity, deportment, and force of character. Hope?
She did the absolute right thing. Plus a hard stare down when he/they wouldn’t stop. No insults, no disrespect.
oh man, as a former child, that cold eyed stare made my blood run cold.
My mother perfected that look.
That look was the warning. Once she invites you to the ladies room, you know you are in for it.
Show me a man in America -- any male public figure today -- who can match the force of character in that stare and statement. Maybe she's the only remaining adult in the room of the republic. No crap Kamala?
The ones that come to mind do all seem to be women. Nancy Pelosi. Spanberger. Big Gretsch. Klobuchar.
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Eh, I think Ben was just making a distinction between his personal interest and how successful campaigns actually work. I didn’t take it negatively.
I disagree that JVL thinks she should do that. I think he's saying she handled the situation well. I think he's thinking that he wishes she would've articulated her policies, but knows, as a practical matter, that the rally wasn't really the place to do that. She needs to do that on the debate stage or in an interview with a journalist and/or interviewer.
Yes, and of course that would be very unhelpful in this context.
You're right. I think it comes down to televised media wants to show a brief clip of something (with no analysis following) and print media wants the latest quote to transcribe as 'breaking' news, as if anything that hasn't been said in the past hour is irrelevant ancient history. This is the malignancy in our current media system.
Televised media is shit. Every single news channel broadcasted Trump's braindump stream of consciousness lies and delusions for a full hour from Mara Loco... but not one broadcasted Kamala's speech to the UAW. It is 2016 again... even MSNBC
I agree, it was shocking. They ran it uninterrupted, no fact checking, no ads, and all I could think was, they're doing it again. Their obsession with him is depressing. He should not have been on cable news for that long uninterrupted. Honestly, who does he think he is?
Watergate hurt journalism, in my opinion. We now have too many journalists looking for "gotcha" moments that could propel them to the status obtained by Woodward and Bernstein.
That definitely explains the 'scrum', as Joe Perticone puts it.
You have the same last name as me..related...???? Please tell me.
I am Ingrid Robertshaw @ tensladyir@aol.com
Definitely a cool name. British?
I'm guessing two British surnames that were once hyphenated, as the British like to do (Roberts-Shaw). Just my guess, and it's my name!
My maiden name, Halliburton, was arrived at by Halley-Burton. Very distinguished even though the family was potato-famine Irish and the rest of them were “Murphy.” My great-grandmother was a Murphy and then I married one.
Explains the middle initial - interesting.
Wow, it's such a rare name! Not to my knowledge, but will get in touch just the same.
It’s a shame that “politics” seems to demand a simple answer to the complex issues of Israel and the Middle East more generally. If ever there were a region that could not be regarded as a set of immutable monoliths, it’s the Middle East. A millennial-old problem or set thereof. I generally agree with KH’s position as Sean has outlined it, and I wonder how often she - and the experts who see and have to deal with the complexities and contradictions - feel as though having to speak about them in detail is like trying to explain to a 6 year-old-how to find the bathroom in a strange house in the middle of the night in the dark. It’s one step, one identified corner, one long wall to slide along at a time; and let’s hope we remember where the really steep stairs are so we don’t trip and hurdle down in one clumsy and potentially dangerous move!
Back in 2020 didn't the media folks (or pundits, or whomever showed up on cable news to pontificate) squawk about Elizabeth Warren having too many plans with too much information? If anything, getting traction in today's news environment even more fully requires either an outlandish statement (please, Kamala, don't do that) or a 7-second soundbite and compelling image.
Agree. Thanks for the details.
I have an incredibly boring one track mediocre mind on this. I want us to win - I do,not wàt her to try to coddle the media by doing long talk fasts where what they want to do is play gotcha or to coddle the left of the D party. I’m,delighted she told them to pound sand. If she knocks off’the fat orange felôn/rqpist/liar then We can have real debates again Right now what I want to see is’the kind of ruthlessness she is showing. All of us have to say loudly that this is not a gentle debate,between people,who have rules. It’s a knife fight, there is no équivalence, and I want her to fight to win it. Given that the NYT announced that it didn’t care about democracy I see no reason to listen to them . All they want is for her to make what they can call a mistake, so they can jump all,over it. F*** them
Maggie Thatcher Kamala
It’s part of their new meme. Just ignore reality and complain.
I thought she handled the protesters well. I kind of gave a different take on her taking a stand on the Israel/Gaza situation. She is the VP of the sitting President who is trying to navigate a cease fire. I don't see any benefit to her saying something that may put those negotiations at risk. In fact, it may undermine President Biden and that would be the wrong message completely.
Yeah, but a journalist could write a breathless column about her statement. Priorities!
😮💨
We’re a tough crowd.
Well we'll see, because she did include a statement about the war today in Arizona's speech.
She is actually responding brilliantly in the moment... not easy to do. Although guess she must have needed to think about this ahead of time in anticipation this would happen sometime...
Excellent point.
Whoever thinks Kamala Harris doesn't "really" have children because they're step children, has not seen her do The Mom Look.
You know the one. Where you stop your horseshit immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYtSaSWuKZg&t=163s
Yes! And that Mom Look she gave the hecklers! Guaranteed each of those hecklers recognized it, too.
The only thing she didn't do is call them by their middle names. Now there is the mark of disapproval!
First plus middle name, and you knew you were in deep doodoo.
I remember those days; DAVID LEE!
Ha ha, yes!
I think we can all remember that,Sandy
I sure recognized that look immediately. Froze like a deer in the headlights.
100%! The look was EVERYTHING.
She is really very smart, right???
That look was just like the one my mom used when the next step was the paddle.
You may also recognize it as The Teacher Look. If I had to give my students that look, no words necessary, they also knew to “stop their horseshit immediately.” It was one scary look that Kamala did.
Oh it IS The Mom Look. I learned it from my sister with four children who was the best mom I ever knew. I recognized it immediately. It was very effective.
I know the one. In fact, my Mom used it to stop me and my MAGA dad from fighting.
It's the look from the front seat to the back: Don't make me pull this car over. I wore it myself back in the day; my kids knew it well.
Or how about I stop the car, you can start walking home! When my son and my brother's were squabbling in the back seat, I said that! It was pretty effective and my brother had to keep from laughing.
It truly had its intended effect. They all STFU.
I got that look also from my female teachers. I know it well.
I'm fine with Harris being vague on Israel/Palestine. After all, as important as that conflict is to the world, it is not what this election is about here in the USA. Any substantive statement she might make on this issue might force these protestors to go through with their threatened protest vote or non-vote. Instead, she made them think seriously about whether Trump was the better pick on this issue and all others. In short, she told them the right way to think about their issue and the election.
I think I basically agree, but here's where I pause: Do we want this practice to be the exception or the rule? Because in general, I think it's probably better if candidates address major issues head-on rather than dodging them. Let the people know what they're voting for. But then again, I can also see why that could be undesirable.
The issue, I think, is that the speaker in a setting like this gets to decide the agenda. She can decide an appropriate time & place for that specific policy statement, and likely yet a different time & venue if actually holding a discussion about it.
Hijacking someone's event is theatre, not a discussion of an issue. Obvi that's the point of public protest but a protester can't assume every speaker will fall into that game.
So well said! Completely agree.
I have organzied events which others have attempted to hijack, and I considered it to be theft.
It’s her event, her outreach to everyone there. She also took time to meet with them before. I wonder if they realize that trying to hijack her event doesn’t bring anyone to their point of view.
As Adam Kinzinger suggested and I agree. I don't like these interruptions of any speaker (at any time) with any dumb rhyming slogans.
Amen. There is no free speech right to shout down or interrupt speakers. Your free speech right is the right to speak out, not to stop others from speaking.
Yeah that chant makes it worse.
If your slogan’s a rhyme
I aint got the time!
😊
Love it! The only time I was entertained by such is when Mohammed Ali did It!
genuine GOAT more ways than one!
I know you know this: if we had two normal candidates with actual knowledge and experience with the issues, and actual policy opinions they could talk about, I would totally agree with you. But we don’t. As you so eloquently wrote, Harris was reframing this into something to agree on, and that is that the most important goal here is to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t get back in the presidency.
Exactly! She's staying focused on the mission, the only mission right now: Defeat Trump. Anything else is a distraction. We can have policy discussions once there are two normal parties again and not just one.
Ben, you are being super naive. You want to "let the people know what they're voting for"? LOL! The American have become child-like in their understanding of the world and its nuances and complexities. They engage in magical thinking. (The Bulwark community excepted.) If a candidate were to actually level with the American people about all the hard choices we face, that candidate would never win. So I think it is actually better if a candidate runs on values and critical thinking as opposed to specific policies. And that is what Harris and Walz are doing now.
As far as this specific instance, I think the most important thing is that Harris beats Trump. Everything, EVERYTHING, else is a sideshow. So let's keep the most important thing as the most important thing.
You are assuming that both sides are dealing in Good Faith. Which they are not. Donald and Roger learned Bad Faith from their mentor Roy Cohn.
Donald has no core policy, no closely held positions other than whatever he thinks is in his selfish personal interest in the moment. Every word is deception. He doesn't give a shit about the economy, the border, abortion, Palestine, Israel or any other policy he claims to be passionate about.
He doesn't even really want to do the job of President. Do you really believe that a 78 year old, mentally defective, criminal conman wants to show up and work in the Oval Office every day? All Donald wants to do is play golf and cheat so he can claim he's the club champion. MAGAs and pundits who think he actually cares about anything he says are conned.
Good Faith and Bad Faith pass each other like ships on the ocean. Which is why the debates are a joke. Kamala speaks Good Faith and Donald speaks Bad Faith.
While avoiding prison is his major reason for wanting to win this election, it's also true that he has a fetish for violence. He would love to be able to stoke unrest, and then send in the troops to kill people.
All Donald Trump wants to fo is escape prison
Trump's other mentor is V. Putin.
The New York Times and the other major media platforms report Donald's policy stances and pronouncements as though they are real. They have a financial incentive to give the impression that Donald is a legitimate candidate who actually believes in his stances on the issues of the day.
If. If Donald was, in truth, a low IQ, criminal conman, who has no true policy positions, would they reveal it? Or would they back up his con with daily "news" on Donald's phony proposals and statements?
Donald was for overturning Roe v Wade. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for improving the immigration system. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for Project 2025. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for election integrity. And now he's rigging the system.
Donald told Time Magazine he would hunt down, arrest, imprison and deport 20 million men, women and children. And the Press treats this campaign promise as legitimate. It's repeated in the RNC Platform:
https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/
What if. What if Donald is just a low IQ criminal conman who has no policies or honest positions on anything? Future historians look at us and wonder how we fell for his bullshit con game money scam for so long.
Read Judge Engeron's 92 page ruling for insight on the man that Donald really is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f203be39-020c-4f82-a423-96aa20c08e3a.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_3
Wait a minute. Are you saying Donald is not a Republican? He's sure not a Democrat. Are you saying he's a Trump World, MAGA Cult, Pro-Putin, Pro-Orban, frontman for the autocrats and billionaire oligarchs? And he doesn't really care about America and Americans?
Sure looks that way. See Anne Applebaum's new book Autocracy, Inc.
It seems to me that getting into a discussion with protesters in the middle of a speech is the road to chaos. If it's a press conference, you answer questions. Stopping to answer statements yelled from members of the audience in the middle of a rally or speech doesn't work. Harris handled it perfectly. Respectful, but firm.
I think the only realistic policy is one that can’t be said out loud. Continue supporting Israel but find a way to get Netanyahu out of there. Someone (not Harris or anyone on the campaign) needs to loudly ask why Netanyahu gets to speak to congress for a second time and yet he hasn’t invited a Democrat to speak to the Knesset? He had Elise Stefanik speak there in May. Why not Chuck Schumer?
Revealed preference would seem to suggest that, whatever they might claim, the American people hate candor from their elected officials and are ready, willing, and able to punish anything that might constitute "straight talk." Basic rule of economics; the supply will always shift to meet the demand.
As a previous commenter suggested; Harris has already stated her views here on Gaza,Israel and her disapproval of Bibbi. They are well known and are the same as Biden's.
I think this is one of the underappreciated impacts of Trumpism; maybe we will mention a policy, maybe we will tell jokes or speak about fictional characters, maybe we won't debate.
Doesn't matter what the issue is, accommodating hecklers is not the way to conduct a successful rally and heckling a rally speaker is not the way to advance your cause. Harris went full-on Mamala and took control of the moment. As we say nowadays, I'm here for it.
Can't wait to see the Maya Rudolph version of Mamala shifting from fun'n'games to That Look in 5 seconds flat ;-)
I LOVED Kamala's retort to the pro-Palestinian protesters. I also loved that she shut down the "Lock him up" chant. I think it's gross and something Dems shouldn't debase themselves doing.
"When they go low, we stay high". That is great advice. Don't act like those idiotic, door knob cult followers known as Trumpers.
In my opinion "Sister Souljah" is the wrong frame because it's not that calculated or part of a triangulation strategy. It can be similar in effect but I don't think that was the main thing either. More than anything she looked tough and assertive while handling the thorniest kind of problem for a campaign rally. I can imagine her giving Putin a variation of that look across the table.
Angela Merkel certainly gave Trump that look. complete with shaking index finger.
like Nancy Pelosi
Hah! Yes. I'm sure Putin's mom gave it when he was a child.
Not enough.
Great piece, Mr. Parker. I have some thoughts:
1) I'm probably what you would call a progressive. That said, I was so relieved to see Harris handle the protesters in the way she did. I have been worried that some of my less mature kith and ken would make a big stink out of issues that we care about but which I think are so much less important than what's at stake now. She didn't dismiss their concerns, in fact, earlier she acknowledged that they are legitimate concerns. She showed real leadership by demanding that they show respect. She did them a real favor. Her look was withering too, by the way. My sainted mother gave me that look a time or two.
2) The Ukrainians have and will surprise the rest of a world not accustomed to how free people act. Free folk are unpredictable. That's a feature, not a bug. You might notice that our new Democratic ticket is exhibiting the same trait. These people are heroes and a blessing to the World. We should be more bold in our support.
3) Vance is a carpetbagging con man. Of a piece with his Palpatine.
I am good with her brief statement after meeting with Netanyahu. I appreciated her insistence that this is a complicated problem rather than the simple, one sided one partisans try to pretend it is. I don't think she can differentiate herself much more without undermining the President she still serves.
There's no upside for Kamala to break her speech for a nuanced discussion of the Gaza invasion. It's not the time or the place.
She played it perfectly, and I'd bet that it had probably been broached as a possible situation beforehand and she had the response in pocket.
There's not a satisfactory answer on Gaza that we can deliver in this time- we can nudge the situation here or there, but there's a lack of political consensus that makes drastic, potentially effective action on our part pretty much impossible. So any discussion of the matter beyond the basics (Oct 7th bad, killing civilians in job lots bad, etc.) is not a useful one for the campaign.
Yes. Engaging in nuance on the stump, especially in response to heckling, is just asking for trouble. We in the US have trouble with nuance under the best of circumstances. It's too often seen as weakness or inauthenticity.
I was super impressed by Harris’ response to the heckler. While is fine staying as vague as possible, not sure it is entirely sustainable given she is with the Biden administration the whole time. I expect her policies will be similar substantively but less tethered to historical US support like Biden. Ultimately, what she said immediately after Biden stepped down struck the right tone, and her statement against pro-Hamas rioters during Bibi’s visit was good.
While I thought Biden did an excellent job uniting allies after the Russian invasion, I too agree we were always a day late and a dollar short. But what’s in the past cannot be changed. The only way to defeat Putin is to make sure Trump does not return to the WH.
Kinzinger’s rebuttal to JD Vance’s lies was terrific. Harris should bring him onto her campaign.
Kinzinger's doing great as an independent operator but I hear ya!
I think he is tangentially affiliated with it...he is part of the Republicans for Harris group
Some people, including the author of this column have lost their moral compass when it comes to the Israel/Palestine question. Luckily some people (Prof. Robert Reich) have talked to both sides to help them find it. Here are some principles everybody could agree too:
"1. What Hamas did on October 7 was morally despicable.
2. Hamas’s avowed aim to murder all Jews is morally despicable.
3. What the Israeli government has done since then in Gaza is also morally despicable.
4. The murder or kidnapping of innocent civilians is morally wrong.
5. Israel’s policies toward Palestinians have been segregation and discrimination, based on ethnicity and religion, which are morally wrong.
6. It is morally wrong to urge genocide against any group — whether they constitute a religion, ethnicity, race, or nation.
7. All of us have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to prevent and stop all forms of genocide, all killing of innocent civilians, and the promotion of hate."
Seen from this perspective, of a moral compass, this answer is not only masterful but right. Because for every single principle listed above, Donald Trump will make it worse.
PS: Kudos to Kathleen Weber for pointing me to this Substack.
Source: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/moral-clarity-on-campus-about-the
Hi Alejandro! Thanks for reading. I don't think those rules are as straightforward as they appear. For example, if there's a genocide going on, are we morally allowed to go to war to stop it, even if civilians will die in that war? Are we morally required to do so? Laying out rules is useful, but it's the beginning—not the end—of the analysis.
Hi Benjamin, thanks for answering. I appreciate the coverage you do using the access you have, and the trust you get from people in the IDF. I also appreciate all the coverage you do focusing on the sacrifice of the people serving in the armed forces, whose sacrifice is neither well understood nor well appreciated. I also understand ( in the abstract, I have never served in a military, nor participated in a conflict) that war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas to its participants with decision-making that happens instinctively when facing life or death situations, I can only have empathy for that, and thank you for your service.
Beyond that, one can only write well from what one knows, and what you know, you cover masterfully. What’s truly valuable about Reich’s principles is that he sat down with pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel students to make sense of what is morally right, and what we can agree on in terms of the conflict. In the case of the picture that you give us misses the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end of the Israeli offensive, on this it is on par with most coverage from center-right sources which do not cover at all the Palestinian viewpoint.
To caricature, imagine yourself being a male Palestine growing up in Gaza in your 20s: you have grown up in an area half the size of DC under constant bombarding and intervention from the Israeli military. Chances are you have many family members who have been killed in such an intervention in horrific manners, and you have no chance, and no opportunity of getting ahead other than joining Hamas, which gives you prestige, and the opportunity of giving one finger up to the “oppressor”.
And while this choice is morally repugnant, it exists in a context that is the perfect brewing ground for those choices. You cannot solve the Israel/Palestine question without addressing those historical, structural, and political issues. You need to give a choice, and an opportunity to live and thrive to Palestinians, to have their own state to be able to find a path to peace.
And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end. Netanyahu and co. have worked effectively for 30 years to block that path, but it does not mean that it does not exist.
Btw, I also never served. I just write about foreign policy and military topics a lot. Trying to close the civ-mil gap one paragraph at a time.
I agree with all of this except about one sentence. "And in this case, Israel with all of its military might is the one who has the upper hand and the ability to make choices that can lead to that end." I think if we learned anything from 20 years in Afghanistan and many years in Iraq (and in Vietnam before that), it takes more than military might to make a society free and stable and viable. I'm not sure Israel actually has the capability to do that.
Everything else I agree with.
Israel can create the conditions in Gaza for a free, stable and viable society. They did so in 2OO5. What did the Gazans do with the withdrawl of the IDF?
They gave control to Hamas, who did nothing to help Gaza be viable. Their hatred of Jews is more important.
Israeli leadership is on a position of building towards an outcome that offers that possibility.
Just like Netanyahu and co. walked a path to make it almost impossible to build a path towards a viable two state solution, a new leadership could build towards that.
Carrot and stick, led by people with moral clarity. Empathy towards the others, playing a game that sidelines extremists and offers a path to compromise. it would be extremely difficult and requires commitment in the long run. But it's the only way out.
New leadership? That's up to the Israeli people. Currently, "more Israelis favour Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister than any other leader, and his Likud party is poised to win the most seats in a new election, according to a poll published on Friday" [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-netanyahu-likud-israel-election-poll].
Two-state solution? "Prior to the attack, many Israelis supported this path to peace with the Palestinians. Now, 65% oppose it, with nearly half of this shift occurring directly as a result of October 7, reflecting a deepening skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan amid ongoing terrorism and violence emanating from Gaza" [https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/08/02/polling_shows_shift_in_israeli_opinions_of_gaza_and_two-state_solution_1048994.html].
The only way out is for the Gazans to accept Israel's right to exist. Without that, there can be no two-state solution.
"war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas" - well said.
As to a path to peace, it's on the Gazans to renounce Hamas and their stated goal to eliminate Israel. That's the first step. The first choice to be made. Without that, Israel can only be defensive. There can be no peace until the Gazans recognize Israel's right to exist. The Israelis gave Gaza the opportunity to to live and thrive when they withdrew in 2OO5. In 2OO7, the Gazans gave control to Hamas. Did the Gazans live and thrive? No. As you noted, working for the Hamas "syndicate" was the only path available.
Also, if there’s genocide going on, isn’t Hamas complicit?
Hamas would like to perform a genocide, but can't, which is why the stick to horrible acts of terrorism. What the state of Israel does is partly apartheid, partly mass displacement and heavily risks becoming a genocide.
I guess you missed the blown up busses and rockets which made bottling Hamas up in Gaza imperative for Israel.
I do think that Bibi and at least some of the rest of Likud should be in prison for what they're doing in the West Bank.
Bibi and co. have been actively destroying any possibility for a two state solution since at least the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and the Oslo accords. It's a life goal of his. That's way he funneled money for Hamas in the 2000s and he lend a hand in making sure they would become the facto government in Gaza. But that is a political question, before that, there is a moral one: What moral ground do we share? What could be the moral foundation of an agreement?
Rabin was assassinated in the 90's. The Oslo process did move forward in the aughts under a Labor PM--I believe Elud Barack. Labor lost control specifically because of the the relentless terror attacks of Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade. So who is to blame?
I doubt that either Hamas or Hezbollah or any other Palestinian entity are any more interested in a two-state solution than Netanyahu or the Israeli right.
Such a scenario would rely on Just War Theory for some of those answers, which is what our military essentially does....and what the IDF under Bibi has not.
I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, Colleen [doesn't it come from Thomas Aquinas?], Colleen. Can you point to what the IDF under Bibi has done that violates that theory? Thanks.
In the Western tradition Aquinas was the first serious scholar to develop a theory, but it has it's roots in Augustine of Hippo. The Gaza war was imminently justifiable to engage in. The problems come from how it's been waged.
The two points I have issues with are: There must be serious prospects of success and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Bibi never had an exit strategy and his definition for success has changed more than once. Originally the hostages were a main focus but it quickly switched to the 'total destruction' of Hamas. That's an unattainable goal that has been used to justify a whole lot of carnage disproportionate to the initial attack on Israel. That's my opinion and I'm sure others would see it differently. I also don't think this is a genocidal campaign, but that certainly doesn't make it a completely moral campaign because it isn't.
Over the two decades during which Hamas has ruled Gaza, there have been dozens of attempts by the IDF to limit Hamas' will and/or capacity to terrorize Israel. October 7 was the result. As much as I dislike Bibi, I believe that he is 100% justified to destroy Hamas completely--and that any responsible leader would do the same.
Putting the West Bank aside, what evidence is there that the IDF has not acted according to the law of war? (Hamas propaganda doesn't count.)
It may not be contrary to the rules of war but their total lack of ROEs or desire to punish transgressions sure suck. See the way they handled the murder of the 3 escaped hostages.
The IDF's ROE are fundamentally the same as ours, in conformance with international law. Our military has expressed that they think the IDF does at least as well as we did in Iraq. Mistakes happen in war. Civilian casualties are only war crimes if they are deliberate, or the result of callousness. Hamas has charged the IDF with both of those, but Hamas lies. Civilian casualties are baked into their game plan. Again, I am asking for proof, not Hamas allegations.
Do you think they should have shot the 3 shirtless guys approaching them with a white flag?
Destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, indiscriminate use of dumb bombs, and an excessive civilian casualty rate which will get higher as famine takes hold.
1) It is permissible to damage or even destroy civilian infrastructure if it is being used to military advantage. It is not news that Hamas uses schools, mosques, and hospitals to military advantage. The case of Al Shifa hospital is instructive. Hamas has used it for military purposes for years, and in (I believe) 2014 even admitted as much. During this war, the IDF spent a month imploring medical staff to evacuate the hospital so that they could enter. Medical staff (Hamas) claimed there was no military presence there; and claimed that it was impossible to evacuate the hospital. (Interesting, since during a wildfire where I live the hospital that serves me was evacuated in a matter of hours.) Finally, the IDF entered the hospital, moving patients from area to area for their safety. And guess what? There was so much no Hamas presence there that a two-week long battle ensued. Hamas, which has steadfastly insisted on counting all casualties as civilian, claim that hundreds of civilians, patients, had been killed. The IDF said those were Hamas fighters, the people they had fought against. The IDF claimed that their operations met the gold standard for urban warfare. Hamas screamed war crimes. Everybody lies in war, but, again, you tell me what objective evidence is there of IDF war crimes?
2) No use of munitions is "indiscriminate." They cost a bundle and they are used deliberately. Whether their use amounts to murder or shows a callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure depends on the the law of war, specifically whether reasonable care has been taken and whether damage is proportional to military necessity.
3) Hamas lies about casualties. It is in their interest to cite high casualties. I has been their game plan for years to cite high casualties. The do not and will not distinguish civilians from combatants in their reports. Statisticians are dubious of the reports, stating that they do not reflect naturally occurring events.
There is no doubt that civilians have been harmed. That's why offensive war, using human shields, using infrastructure for military purpose are all war crimes--war crimes that Hamas has clearly committed.
(Under #2, I tried to change "military damage" to just damage, but the edit didn't take.)
That last point is almost blanket permission to attack Iran, which promotes hate and kills civilians through proxy forces.
Unfortunately, defense is often the justification for offensive war. Hitler claimed that Poland had attacked Germany. GW Bush, perhaps deceived by others, claimed that attacking Iraq was defending against WMD's.
I consider the actions of the Netanyahu government in Gaza to be war crimes of the first degree. What Israel is doing in Gaza, however reprehensible and counter productive, is not genocide and it is morally inexcusable to abase the term genocide by suggesting that it is.
It's not like any of the other Arab countries have been lining up to open their borders to Palestinian refugees. One could make a moral case they are complicit in Bibi's war crimes. It's not like the countries surrounding Ukraine didn't demonstrate how to handle a massive flow of war refugees.
I agree not genocide, but what war crimes in the first degree? While it's possible war crimes have been committed, I have not seen that proven, either in court or in the court of rational discourse. ( And Hamas propaganda is not proof; neither is the fact that civilian Gazans have been injured or killed proof. Sadly, civilians are injured and killed in war.)
I agree with you, for now is just mass displacement and apartheid.
Apartheid is a tricky term: I, and I think most people, view it as dejure discrimination within a country. I've never seen the term used in the context of occupied territory. Unless you are contending that Israel proper practices apartheid. Which is a big stretch. If Israel incorporates Gaza and the West Bank into itself, then yes, it would be apartheid. Which is why so many Israelis want a two-state solution.
Agree about the term. However, here is an update on Israelis and a two-state solution: "Prior to the attack, many Israelis supported this path to peace with the Palestinians. Now, 65% oppose it, with nearly half of this shift occurring directly as a result of October 7, reflecting a deepening skepticism about the feasibility of such a plan amid ongoing terrorism and violence emanating from Gaza" [https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/08/02/polling_shows_shift_in_israeli_opinions_of_gaza_and_two-state_solution_1048994.html].
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/world-court-finds-israel-responsible-apartheid It's a court fact.
In what occupation would there NOT be apartheid? Occupation, by its nature, previleges those who are occupying. In any case, the Court did not rule in its advisory opinion that Israel itself is an apartheid state. But half the student protesters will think it is. I'd also be interested to know what percentage of protesters think ALL of Israel is 'occupied'.
Thx. I was unaware of that decision.
I don’t agree with the “genocide” label. If anything, it probably makes a rational analysis of an intractable foreign conflict more difficult.
The problem for Kamala to comment on Gaza while a ceasefire is being negotiated, is that it could prove counterproductive.
We’ve seen how Bibi reacted when Biden threatened to withhold some offensive weapons being used to bomb civilians in Gaza. He and his messianic Jewish cohorts in the Knesset, annexed another 2,000 acres of land in The West Bank for settler development.
Make no mistake, Bibi is a friend to no one, least of all Israel and America. His religious wing-nuts are even worse. They don’t care about the hostages, civilian casualties in Gaza, or the treatment of Palestinian prisoners.
Additionally, they will not agree to a two state solution, or Palestinian governance in Gaza. They even ruled out international occupation. In short, Bibi has no solution to the problem once an ultimate ceasefire is reached, which is a recipe for disaster.
Furthermore, Bibi continues to have delusions of grandeur; believing Hamas can be defeated. News flash: an ideology cannot be defeated. If we learned anything from 9/11, it’s when you defeat one terror group, several more emerge from the shadows.
Case in point. Al Qaeda, which never existed before we invaded Iraq, eventually splinted into two groups: one being ISIS, the other, Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Today, after the US spent over $6 trillion fighting the war on terror, we actually created more terrorist groups, currently operating in countries where Muslim extremism never existed before. Bottom line: we created more terrorists than we killed and suffered more casualties than during 9/11, and we’ve been playing whac-a-mole ever since.
Furthermore, Israel is heading down the same rabbit hole we did, and they aren’t America. They can’t just print money like we do, and their military isn’t built for long wars of attrition. Their military is 80% reservists, and their economy is currently the third largest in all of Western Asia and the Middle East; behind Turkey and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
A long war on several fronts will eventually destroy their robust economy which is one of the riches per capita in the world. It is a country of 9 million (not including the Palestinian territories), with a GDP just under $600 billion.
Bibi and his incompetent and demonic allies are willing to throw this all away for what? And the US would be stupid supporting a suicide pact with a morally bankrupt, narcissistic sociopath like Bibi; yet here we are.
I’m Jewish and love Israel, but revenge isn’t the same as defense. We should have learned that emotional reactions are never the best way to solve a conflict or deal with a terror attack. Actions need to be thought out and deliberate. Bibi has shown he has no idea what he is doing, and we should not follow this man into the abyss.
IMHO!…:)
Not sure I can agree with #3. Please explain what Israel should have done in response to the Hamas attack that would have been morally right. As you yourself said, "war poses an unending stream of moral dilemmas." How can Reich be so sure about what is morally wrong?
As to #5, that statement is incomplete. Yes, Palestinians have been segregated based on religion and ethnicity. But why? Because the Israelis are just like white people everywhere [this is Ta-Nehasi Coates' view]? Or is it because their leaders don't accept Israel's right to exist and they therefore threaten Israeli security?
You should read the article, this is not what Reich thinks, but what came out of bringing together and facilitating a discussion between pro-israel and pro-palestine students. It just summarizes the common ground they found together.
Yes.
Bothsides-ism. Hamas painted themselves and Gazans into the corner by their tireless pursuit of terror over decades. Hamas began this war on October 7, shattering the peace. Hamas committed a half dozen clear war crimes. Israel's attack on Hamas in response been judged to be self-defense and therefore just. While it is possible that Israel has also committed war crimes, that remains to be seen--unless one mindlessly accepts the statements of Gaza health authorities (Hamas health authorities) at face value).
You left out that it is morally wrong for Hamas to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. While one can complain that Israel's response isn't targeted sufficiently narrow, if Hamas weren't using civilians as human shields, that wouldn't be near the problem that it is.
Harris is not an enigmatic “cypher” or an opportunist who supported any policy she thought was popular in 2019. She is continuing to establish her own positions without directly undermining the administration she still serves.
Excellent post Ben. Loved the second piece about the Ukrainian attack into Russia.
It has been a pleasure this week to hear more from the Bulwark's own "deep bench." Thanks guys!
Ukraine is much farther into Russia than 10 km. And why isn’t the US MSM talking about this???!!!??? All NATO countries who’ve donated kit to Ukraine have said “it’s theirs, they can do what they want with it”. Projections that they are aiming for the Kursk nuclear power plant are rampant in Ukraine media (and Twix and YouTube and Telegram). Seriously, this is the most interesting development for the Ukrainians in like 18 months. It’s fucking huge!
It's on the front page of the NYT and WaPo...how is that not talking?
I was referring more to the talking people vs the writing people. 😏The writing people have more space available to scribble while the video people are so entirely consumed with election drama that very little else seems to break through. Sorry for not being more precise.
PS. It’s not like people READ that much these days as is evidenced by the fact that the NYT is now a lifestyle brand” of games and cooking and the WaPo is itching to get onto that same bandwagon to stem their losses. The state of our MSM is not strong.
Exactly! This is yet another example of infinite deference and the unconditional benefit of the doubt offered to Russia, in spite of all the evidence pointing to this being absolutely devastating to them. I said in my own comment, but I'll say here too: this invasion has the potential of ending the war.
It sure does. Russia is flailing around trying to come up with a response.
Remind you of anybody else flailing around grasping for a solution to a problem of his own making? 🤔 🤣