17 Comments

I agree with the other commentators #3 is ridiculous. The Palestinians are not fighting for their survival they are fighting to end Jewish survival. There is plenty of moral clear headedness in this war. The Palestinians started a war of genocide. Now they are losing. Too bad. But Israel isn't trying to genocide them. They simply want them to leave Israel alone. To accept that Israel has a right to be there and that Jews are indigenous to the land. NONE of which any Palestinian leader or average civilian according to polling is willing to do.

Expand full comment

Hmmm, on #3 - "... was a rare alignment of moral clarity. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by contrast, lives in the realm of moral ambiguity, with legitimate grievances and aspirations on both sides. There are no neat lines between good and evil here, no singular aggressor or victim. Both peoples see themselves as fighting for their survival,... "

I don't see it that way. I see it as the opposite of what you've written.

On the other hand if I put on my Edward de Bono hat, say "The Kumbayah Hat" that I burned straight after learning of the total horror of Simcha Torah (Oct 7, 2023) and the map created by the employees who lodged all the details of their employers homes, rooms, properties, family members etc. to make the assault a 'walk in the park'... I think there are more clear demarcations of good vs evil.

Further there is a long, thick, sick history of equally evil intent and acts much more by one party than the other. True it is not purely black & white. None the less, one side is 100% deeply embedded and living a commitment to continued atrocities and even repeatedly has said so.

Expand full comment

I agree. I do see Israel as fighting mainly for good, and Hamas & Iran's other proxies as fighting mainly for evil. I have heard no reasonable arguments that persuade me otherwise. Israel must win this fight.

Expand full comment

Ooooh, a rare moment; I disagree with something you wrote: "The trouble is that the Second World War was a rare alignment of moral clarity. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by contrast, lives in the realm of moral ambiguity, with legitimate grievances and aspirations on both sides.

. . . Both peoples see themselves as fighting for their survival . . . "

Most likely, in every conflict both sides see themselves as fighting for their survival. I don't find the Palestinian argument persuasive at all In the end it comes down to wester Enlightenment values versus barbaric radical Islamic values. There's no doubt in my mind which is good and which is evil.

Expand full comment

« Both people fighting for their survival ? ".......one (Israel) is, the other (Hamas)with their horrific, evil attack on October 7, just wants the annihilation of Israel ......And has been the truth. Since the very creation of our beloved state of Israel......Am Israel Chai.....

Expand full comment

There is one issue that warrants discussion namely the absolutely poor strategic view of the IDF brass pre 10/7 in relying on a supposedly smaller smarter army with less grunts on the ground and high tech This rivals the debacles of Pearl Harbor and the fall of the Maginot Line in poor military thinking and self delusion

Expand full comment

Excellent post! Sharing !

Expand full comment

Do NOT agree with #3.

Expand full comment

Totally wrong and absurd comment and shocking you would say this.

......................................................................................................................................................................................

"There are no neat lines between good and evil here, no singular aggressor or victim. Both peoples see themselves as fighting for their survival, and neither fits comfortably into the well-worn uniforms of WWII archetypes".

Expand full comment

You are way off base on number 3. There is a clear distinction between good and evil, with hamas and most of the "palestinians" being akin to the nazis in their genocidal aspirations against the Jews. Sure, the "palestinians" see themselves as oppressed victims with legitimate grievances, but then again so did the nazis. That doesn't make it true. Frankly, I'm shocked you would make this argument.

I don't know what's going on with Future of Jewish today. Andrew FOX made the argument that Israel should end its military attacks on Gaza and essentially implied that Israel lost the war since hamas won the public relations part of the war and that they continue to recruit by the thousands. By that logic, Israel's fight has been in vain.

Expand full comment
Jan 6Edited

so I can't be the only one here who was an anti Vietnam war protestor....that's what one did....I haven't changed my opinion of that war. I haven't changed my views of the war that Israel is fighting now....why? I read is Israel still bombarding poor Gaza....from some segments of Israelis...they've done all they can in Gaza...after the war, Hamas will remain there....you can't eradicate an idea, my paraphrase ......we did a good job on Imperial Japan and the nazi regime in Germany/austria. ...no relationship between protesting on behalf of the poor "Palestinains" the brown indigenous" so called vs someone like me.... the jvpifnotnow crowd are so misguided ...the kindest word I can summon. The other kids who think they found "their Vietnam" First you got to read a book or see a few documentaries from that era about that war...then put down al Jazeera and Guardian ....just attending a "teach in" that's a good one from my era....on "Palestine" isn't cutting it.

Expand full comment

Just adding a few points to your broad comment(s). Historical notes only - a) it is likely that the USA (FDR and/or his team or his controllers as it is now called) wanted a confrontation with the arming Japanese? - and - radar was new at the time of Pearl Harbor. A radar operation saw incoming planes on his radar screen and reported that but the Officers receiving the report were not mentally ready for radar and thus cast the report aside (likely within an hour or less before the attack began). Note: there was a crew of Women IDF based in The Envelope outside of the Gaza fence. Their work was I.T. and Intelligence gathering. Looking particularly for any suspicious movements or incursion near the fence - 24/7. ALL who were on the base were slaughtered in the attack. 1 of the crew who was on a few days leave to visit family, is the one who survived. Her testimony is on youtube. The Women were providing information for days, weeks or more. The receiving office of IDF or personnel or Officers negated all their reports. b) At the end of WWII ... THOUSANDS of German scientists were immediately transported, hired, housed etc to USA and Russia. Russia's was called Operation Osoaviakhim and USA's was Operation Paperclip.

Expand full comment

You call it a "conflict" why not just a "disagreement"?

Too many words used and reasoning does cover reality and placate the victim into subjction and perhaps ultimately subduction.

Expand full comment

Guibo. Jv

Expand full comment

Okay, most of what you say I don't disagree with.

In 1. you say it's clear who the aggressor is, but fail to mention NATO.

Russia will never allow NATO to have a 2000km border with which to install missile systems aimed at their civilian population.

Especially considering how corrupt Ukraine is.

Putin made reference to this numerous times before he initiated the invasion.

5. The troubles were not about sectarianism from the republicans.

I've a friend who's connected who told me one of the commanders of the IRA was a Protestant.

You will struggle to find any Catholics who were with the Loyalist terrorists.

There is a stark difference between the two elements.

The loyalists would just go out and kill Catholics.

The Republicans would kill security forces.

Expand full comment

Occasionally of late I've begun to warn when commenting or replying that each of my friends (i.e. proper real face to face in the past friends) have areas where we do not agree and are not about to. Often of course if one were willing to zoom out one could see the interrelation of the opposing viewpoints. But usually one is not willing. Especially the more valuable the topic seems. I'm not sure I agree with what you've written. That is not to say you are wrong, it is to say I don't share your viewpoint on everything you wrote. Mind you that is only on what you chose to write about and not on the '1 thru 5' which you may know others may not readily share your viewpoints on the 'unwritten'. But I liked your writing. So often I look up people and things and ideas even if it is something I don't agree with I sometimes want to process my own holding points. On my own. In private. So I took a peek-a-boo at your Substack/Newsletter. Scanned the titles. Went back to the first one titled "Queen Pela...". Fine writing style!!! You wrote

"...It didn't really matter. If a sword is swung at your head, it doesn't matter who was wielding it. You fought back.

The enemy fell back again after taking heavy losses... "

If that was a slice of your own personal philosophy, I found it appropriate to some of the subject matters in the essay in discussion "5 Stupid Comparisons...".

Expand full comment

I really love a good debate, whether I’m right or wrong.

I’m Irish, and I know people who were involved in the struggles; they are not church-going.

The war was about people of the Catholic faith being oppressed.

They had fewer voting rights; Protestants had a vote in their workplace and a vote at home.

Then there was gerrymandering going on to ensure Catholic politicians never rose beyond a certain power level.

When they dared to fight back, thousands of men were interned.

Interestingly, people think the murders were started by Republicans.

The first Catholic murdered was by the other side.

The first Protestant was murdered by the other side.

The first policeman was murdered by the other side.

Even the first soldier was murdered by the other side.

In recent years, I’ve found myself becoming more contrary about believing the official narrative by politicians or MSM.

The Ukraine/Russia war is a good example of this.

To fully grasp the situation you have to ask one important question.

As Commander Vimes of Terry Pratchett’s night watch would ask, “Where’s the money?”

NATO is a money hungry beast. A new frontier with a corrupt government is just ripe for harvesting.

Putin won’t allow it to be put right on his doorstep, any more than the USA would allow a Mexican/Russian partnership to install weapons systems on the border between USA and Mexico.

Expand full comment