Hertzel witnessed the Dreyfus affair during the big French behavioral sink, Kahan witnessed what happened on the West Coast during the 60s and started Kahanism. Jews should certainly adjust their policies based on feedback from the current moment. Feedback and growth and change are important for any institution to survive, Judaism included.
small correction, Israel is fighting more than two - three fronts. Israel is fighting seven fronts, all support by iran: gaza, lebanon, syria, iraq, yaman, and iran itself
The answer given, or not given to the question of NYT’s problematic coverage of Israel was itself problematic. The NYT’s has a decades old history of hostility not only to Israel, but to Jews and authentic Judaism. His answer demonstrates that he is more concerned about his well paying, comfortable position and the accompanying prestige than he is speaking truth to power and confronting Times management. If he had real integrity he would follow in the footsteps of Bari Weiss and walk away from what has clearly become an antisemitic rag.
Or, he wants to stay to be sure his viewpoint has a place at their table. Given how I feel when I read the NYT, I can't imagine the grief he goes through every day, having to coexist with many of the egregious byline-denizens there. I don't think for a minute that his position there is a sinecure. Bari is great. Bret is great. Botg can be true.
Thank you for a brilliant interview. I've gained great insights from it, especially the part that "Zionism in 1948 was about Jews wanting to govern themselves, and not to be governed by others, but by the same token, not to govern over others who did not want to be governed by them, that is the Jews..." Just brilliant! 👌🏼💪🏼✌🏼
Making an analogy between the Israel/Hamas war and the Russia/Ukraine war is seriously sloppy thinking. The only similarity is state sovereignty was violated by an aggressor. The nature of the aggressor and the attacked are different as well as the surrounding geostrategic environment.
Very interesting interview, however I do think that prof. Stephens confuses some of his own positions with the position of an Israeli and a Gazan citizen. For example, the so called hated of the Gazans towards Hamas, isn’t bared by the polls. If anything, according to the latest reports, the support for Hamas among the Palestinians has risen quite notably. Also, most of Israelis I talked to, do understand that returning the hostages and eliminating Hamas, most likely are contradictory aims. However, almost everyone I hod this discussion with, had a clear priority among the two. In my limited field of reference, most regarded the elimination of Hamas, as the more strategically important goal.
Stephens right on formulation: "yes to pln state like UAE; no to pln state like yemen." Stephens wrong on likelihood that egypt can be induced by debt relief to a more salutary modus vivendi w Israel; egypt has calculated the econ & other benefits of its recently revealed support for hamas. Stephens horribly wrong in supporting biden's 2020 presidential bid.
I have always admired Bret Stephens, but this conversation is a huge disappointment. It’s reasonable and nice, but not more than that. No new insights or analysis, maybe a concern about a penumbra of not vocal anti-Israel faculty and students surrounding protests has not been emphasized enough. Bret has a mild case of Trump derangement syndrome and Netanyahu derangememt syndrome, plus what appears like strict, possibly legal, constrains about contradicting the party line of NYT, which made it a colorless and boring conversation. Absence of interesting questions and follow-up from the host didn’t help either. Again, just an intellectually meek and timid conversation. Compare with Niall Ferguson recent talks
@taleiran I don’t agree. For many people, perhaps even most people who don’t follow antisemitism, college encampments, Israel-Palestinian conflict, et al… this interview may give them a perspective of what’s really going on. Just because you seem to be on top of all this, doesn’t negate the value of this conversation, for, I would argue, most of the “silent majority”, of the non engaged.
I appreciated Harvard Hillel inviting and presenting Bret Stephens views on the current political climate as concerns Israel, Jews, and the world at large. Having said as as much - and I maybe nitpicking here - I would have appreciated this Jewish representative representing a Jewish organization (Hillel) to offer greetings of, “wishing all (presumably Jewish) Hillel students, and former Hillel students, a meaningful Shavuot holiday”, in addition to his closing well wishes to all. This major Jewish holiday right around the corner is a significant one for many Hillel folks.
Pan Arab police force is a terrible idea- 1. Do you expect this force to maintain control using physically against extremist Palestinians? That’s a big ask that’s likely cause more problems that help. I don’t see any sensible Arab country agreeing to this. 2. When security threats are identified and the Arab forces don’t want to immediately act on them, how will isreal respond ? I don’t see them risking another Oct 7th. This will do far more damage to diplomatic and security relationships with these countries than anything positive that could come from it.
There is so much here that indeed gives language to what many of us are feeling. Excellent interview. Thanks for your voice at this challenging time Bret. I was in Israel and the West Bank last month and came away inspired by the peoples who still want to heal into something better. As to potential Palestinian leaders: check out the people who are involved with Roots/Shorashim. Several true Mandelas there.
17:01 Brett should manage Israeli PR. He is 100% correct on this. It seems to be a universal truth that authoritarian regimes are better at messaging. Is it a necessary truth?
