Mostly it's not. I favour going to war against the Russians in Ukraine. If it was necessary to kill 20 times as many Palestinian civilians as Israeli and other civilians were killed on Oct 7 AND it would eliminate Hamas, then I'd have an open mind. Doing so without having any idea of what you're up to, is the height of stupidity. But let's rule it out because I calls for some political leadership — as I imagine it was called for in the example Friedman cited.
Still it worked for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and made the world a lot safer even despite the innocent deaths, so perhaps you're right. We've hardly had any trouble since US vengeance fixed the world up twenty years ago.
You're not offering a counter proposal. October 7 happens. Israel is humiliated, 1200 people are killed, ~250 kidnapped, all videoed and put out on social media. The Arab world erupts in happiness because for the first time in nearly 50 years the Israelis have been given, in the words of one activist "a punch on the nose".
Going to war may not seem intelligible for you but what tangible benefits does Israel get from not going to war? They get to parade as victims to Western governments which will then turn around and still ask the Israelis to accept a Palestinian State so no benefit comes from there. Sunni Arab governments cooperating with Israel will falter thinking if Israel is not going to stand up to Hamas then how on earth do they expect the Israelis to help them stand up to Iran. Hamas and other terrorist groups now realise that all they need to do is commit a big enough attack and Israel will be shocked into submission.
Net-net it is a loss for Israel. Other than well-meaning tweets from westerners what tangible gains do they get? It's not like the people of the region are suddenly going to embrace the Israelis. Hamas committed horrible crimes against Fatah to take over Gaza and Arab people didn't stop considering them as a legitimate resistance against Israel. Indeed, Hamas can claim to be successful against the Israelis and garner even more support showing up moderate Arab governments.
Again there is no one pointing out any tangible benefits for Israel not going to war other than well-meaning tweets.
My main point was that Israel would do itself immense harm. Like America did after 9/11. Like Germany did after 1919. Immense harm. In each case it took a few years for the harm it did to the initiator of revenge to see how much harm they had inflicted on themselves and others, to see how utterly useless and destructive their actions had been.
Here it's been instant. I don’t think Israel will be recognisable in fifty years. Small countries among large and diverse enemies have to be disciplined in acting in their own interests.
It had a narrow path to national flourishing and it's gradually succumbing to the logic of apartheid. If it had more power it would have more leeway. These kinds of decisions need to be decided by self-interest. That's how good international relations and military strategy work.
But I do know that people like revenge. That it can feel good for a while — not that I think many Israelis are feeling good about Gaza.
Again you are criticising an action without suggesting an appropriate response. You also forget that the State of Israel was created specifically to prevent acts like October 7 from ever occurring. Indeed the precursors of the IDF were the Jewish self-defence units created to stop Arab riots like what occurred in 1929 in Hebron and then in Jaffa. If the very purpose of the Israeli state - protection and security - is not provided (even after the fact), then there is no logical purpose for the Israeli State to exist.
So if you were Netanyahu and this is October 8, what would you do? I’m genuinely curious.
I'd choose what was in the interests of Israel, not Netanyahu
What's hard to understand about this?
I'd do what the New Zealanders did when the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior, what Australia did when a proportion of Australia's population were killed which was of the same order of magnitude as the proportion of Americans killed in 9/11. I wouldn't kill anyone. I'd talk a lot. I'd act in a way that was commensurate with how much power I had, not with how much power I fantasised I had.
Your solution is, it seems to kill 25,000 Palestinians and counting and to slip Israel's head further into the apartheid noose. Perhaps it won't do that — neither of us knows, but that's what I fear.
But there's no doubt about it, killing lots of people and talking about 'incentives' as if you're in charge of the whole situation sure seems more satisfying. At least for a while.
"I'd choose what was in the interests of Israel, not Netanyahu"
Firstly you do not define what is in the interests of Israel. Every single opinion poll in Israel supports the military invasion. Israeli politicians who despise Netanyahu have joined the government to broaden it out: Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot are two former IDF commanders who are now in the war cabinet. Gideon Sa'ar quit Likud because of Netanyahu has joined the cabinet . Yair Lapid offered to join the war cabinet and government on the proviso that two far-right wing parties leave.
"I'd talk a lot. I'd act in a way that was commensurate with how much power I had, not with how much power I fantasised I had."
So you would... talk. Ok. Ummm to whom, for what end?
"I wouldn't kill anyone."
Ok but your enemies have a vote and they vote to kill you. You cannot act as though the other side doesn't have a say in all of this. If the other side is prepared to kill 1200 in a single day and would have continued to kill people had they not been stopped, do you turn the other cheek?
And who is your counterparty? Yahya Sinwar? You do know that this man literally strangled to death two Palestinians he thought were Israeli informants? When he was in an Israeli jail, the Israelis even operated on him to save his life from cancer. And despite that life-saving experience, he still went ahead and planned and executed October 7.
The idea that Israel should do nothing and use October 7 as a way to isolate Hamas and Iran is laughable. Had they done nothing, it would send a signal that Hamas had won a victory against Israel and would create the incentive for more violence to be inflicted against Israeli and Jewish targets. There is a certain level of intellectualism that is so far removed from basic human behaviour that it becomes almost moronic. People respond to incentives. So by thinking that "doing nothing" is a clever ploy is just projecting your own desire *not* to make a moral judgement that sometimes war is the only advisable option.
I've not read that much of him. He seems rather glib and running with various bandwagons — as with "The earth is flat" or whatever it was called. As for what he said in the podcast, as I recall he had quite a few proposals which seemed a bit cute to me. But generally I was impressed. Most of my impression of TF is not based on reading much of him — which is a kind of self-reinforcing process. I'll read a bit more of him for a while and see if the generally positive impression he made in the podcast is reinforced.
I’m remembering him spending a fraction of a sentence on the addition of right of return to a proposed plan of his. Seems like that totally changes things, so to gloss over it feels self-serving.
But there was for sure enough there to compel me to dive deeper into his writing also.
Indeed
Sometimes war is the only advisable option
Mostly it's not. I favour going to war against the Russians in Ukraine. If it was necessary to kill 20 times as many Palestinian civilians as Israeli and other civilians were killed on Oct 7 AND it would eliminate Hamas, then I'd have an open mind. Doing so without having any idea of what you're up to, is the height of stupidity. But let's rule it out because I calls for some political leadership — as I imagine it was called for in the example Friedman cited.
Still it worked for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and made the world a lot safer even despite the innocent deaths, so perhaps you're right. We've hardly had any trouble since US vengeance fixed the world up twenty years ago.
You're not offering a counter proposal. October 7 happens. Israel is humiliated, 1200 people are killed, ~250 kidnapped, all videoed and put out on social media. The Arab world erupts in happiness because for the first time in nearly 50 years the Israelis have been given, in the words of one activist "a punch on the nose".
Going to war may not seem intelligible for you but what tangible benefits does Israel get from not going to war? They get to parade as victims to Western governments which will then turn around and still ask the Israelis to accept a Palestinian State so no benefit comes from there. Sunni Arab governments cooperating with Israel will falter thinking if Israel is not going to stand up to Hamas then how on earth do they expect the Israelis to help them stand up to Iran. Hamas and other terrorist groups now realise that all they need to do is commit a big enough attack and Israel will be shocked into submission.
Net-net it is a loss for Israel. Other than well-meaning tweets from westerners what tangible gains do they get? It's not like the people of the region are suddenly going to embrace the Israelis. Hamas committed horrible crimes against Fatah to take over Gaza and Arab people didn't stop considering them as a legitimate resistance against Israel. Indeed, Hamas can claim to be successful against the Israelis and garner even more support showing up moderate Arab governments.
Again there is no one pointing out any tangible benefits for Israel not going to war other than well-meaning tweets.
My main point was that Israel would do itself immense harm. Like America did after 9/11. Like Germany did after 1919. Immense harm. In each case it took a few years for the harm it did to the initiator of revenge to see how much harm they had inflicted on themselves and others, to see how utterly useless and destructive their actions had been.
Here it's been instant. I don’t think Israel will be recognisable in fifty years. Small countries among large and diverse enemies have to be disciplined in acting in their own interests.
It had a narrow path to national flourishing and it's gradually succumbing to the logic of apartheid. If it had more power it would have more leeway. These kinds of decisions need to be decided by self-interest. That's how good international relations and military strategy work.
But I do know that people like revenge. That it can feel good for a while — not that I think many Israelis are feeling good about Gaza.
Again you are criticising an action without suggesting an appropriate response. You also forget that the State of Israel was created specifically to prevent acts like October 7 from ever occurring. Indeed the precursors of the IDF were the Jewish self-defence units created to stop Arab riots like what occurred in 1929 in Hebron and then in Jaffa. If the very purpose of the Israeli state - protection and security - is not provided (even after the fact), then there is no logical purpose for the Israeli State to exist.
So if you were Netanyahu and this is October 8, what would you do? I’m genuinely curious.
I'd choose what was in the interests of Israel, not Netanyahu
What's hard to understand about this?
I'd do what the New Zealanders did when the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior, what Australia did when a proportion of Australia's population were killed which was of the same order of magnitude as the proportion of Americans killed in 9/11. I wouldn't kill anyone. I'd talk a lot. I'd act in a way that was commensurate with how much power I had, not with how much power I fantasised I had.
Your solution is, it seems to kill 25,000 Palestinians and counting and to slip Israel's head further into the apartheid noose. Perhaps it won't do that — neither of us knows, but that's what I fear.
But there's no doubt about it, killing lots of people and talking about 'incentives' as if you're in charge of the whole situation sure seems more satisfying. At least for a while.
"I'd choose what was in the interests of Israel, not Netanyahu"
Firstly you do not define what is in the interests of Israel. Every single opinion poll in Israel supports the military invasion. Israeli politicians who despise Netanyahu have joined the government to broaden it out: Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot are two former IDF commanders who are now in the war cabinet. Gideon Sa'ar quit Likud because of Netanyahu has joined the cabinet . Yair Lapid offered to join the war cabinet and government on the proviso that two far-right wing parties leave.
"I'd talk a lot. I'd act in a way that was commensurate with how much power I had, not with how much power I fantasised I had."
So you would... talk. Ok. Ummm to whom, for what end?
"I wouldn't kill anyone."
Ok but your enemies have a vote and they vote to kill you. You cannot act as though the other side doesn't have a say in all of this. If the other side is prepared to kill 1200 in a single day and would have continued to kill people had they not been stopped, do you turn the other cheek?
And who is your counterparty? Yahya Sinwar? You do know that this man literally strangled to death two Palestinians he thought were Israeli informants? When he was in an Israeli jail, the Israelis even operated on him to save his life from cancer. And despite that life-saving experience, he still went ahead and planned and executed October 7.
The idea that Israel should do nothing and use October 7 as a way to isolate Hamas and Iran is laughable. Had they done nothing, it would send a signal that Hamas had won a victory against Israel and would create the incentive for more violence to be inflicted against Israeli and Jewish targets. There is a certain level of intellectualism that is so far removed from basic human behaviour that it becomes almost moronic. People respond to incentives. So by thinking that "doing nothing" is a clever ploy is just projecting your own desire *not* to make a moral judgement that sometimes war is the only advisable option.
Re: The Klein <> Friedman podcast - Could you say what lines of Friedman's you found flip, and why you are not much of a fan of him generally?
I've not read that much of him. He seems rather glib and running with various bandwagons — as with "The earth is flat" or whatever it was called. As for what he said in the podcast, as I recall he had quite a few proposals which seemed a bit cute to me. But generally I was impressed. Most of my impression of TF is not based on reading much of him — which is a kind of self-reinforcing process. I'll read a bit more of him for a while and see if the generally positive impression he made in the podcast is reinforced.
Got it. Thanks.
I’m remembering him spending a fraction of a sentence on the addition of right of return to a proposed plan of his. Seems like that totally changes things, so to gloss over it feels self-serving.
But there was for sure enough there to compel me to dive deeper into his writing also.
Yes, right of return jarred with me also