Category: Uncategorized

Trump thinks the Israelis are doing badly in Gaza, but not because they’re killing too many Palestinians or avoiding the important political issues; no, his problem with the war is that Israel is losing the public relations battle. In his opinion, the Israelis should unleash shock and awe on the Palestinians as a whole–not just Hamas– and get out of Gaza as quickly as possible. That will stop the bleeding.

What Trump doesn’t understand, of course, is that Gaza is not Afghanistan. The Israelis don’t have the option of just withdrawing and washing their hands of the war, because the enemy is next door. Furthermore, the way they fight the war should be dictated by their ultimate political objectives, which have yet to be defined. Bouncing the rubble is not a viable approach to a complex problem with vast implications for Israel’s future.

Life in the time of Trump.

Mike Cohen’s on the stand.

The Daniels payment was exposed

And things got out of hand.

Trump demanded loyalty

But gave none in return.

Now he’s the one who’s in the dock.

I guess he’ll never learn.

As I’ve noted many times before, the Trump 1.0 foreign policy contained two tracks; the man on golf cart offended allies, embraced dictators, and changed positions on a dime, while the State Department conducted business as usual and pretended there was no conflict. A column written by a conservative Trump fanboy in the NYT predicts more of the same for Trump 2.0, with terrific results; after all, Nixon used the madman tactic, and it worked well for him. Is the writer correct?

No, for multiple reasons. First of all, we cannot effectively contain Russia and China without allies; being capricious and offensive to them will drive them away instead of bending them to our will. Second, it is quite clear that some of the establishment victories in the first Trump term were due, not to the deliberate workings of a good cop, bad cop system, but to obstruction on the part of the bureaucracy. That is unlikely to occur the next time around. Finally, unpredictability can lead to misunderstanding, which can lead to disaster. Just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand about that.

It sounds like a broken record; even when faced with the partial withdrawal of American support, the Israeli government has neither provided a viable plan for the protection of civilians nor linked the upcoming campaign to any reasonable long-term political objectives. That repeated failure defies common sense. What is going on here?

Two things. Bibi doesn’t want to talk about the future because it divides the cabinet; better to just fight an endless war than to risk losing power. The lack of interest in protecting civilians reflects the state of Israeli public opinion. The Israelis are traumatized. They only feel their own pain and vulnerability. They want Hamas finished, and they have little interest in protecting Palestinian women and children if they are in the way.

I’m guessing the state of public opinion is probably due in part to the images the Israelis are seeing on TV, which most likely do not include any of the pictures of wretchedness that appear on our screens every night. The lack of interest in the future and the fate of civilians is understandable, but it is a mistake. At the present rate, Gaza will be nothing but a rubble pile six months from now, the Israeli public will be tired of paying for the war, Hamas will still be there, and the rest of the world will be appalled.

Imagine that Native Americans have developed a weapon that can be used to kill millions of the descendants of those who stole their land. They demand the return of Manhattan in exchange for the promise not to use the weapon. The Great Spirit, they say, commanded them to take this action to revive their culture. All of the current residents of Manhattan are given just a few hours to grab their things and evacuate. How do you think they would feel about that?

Alternatively, imagine that Pope Francis has announced that he is expanding his rule to include all of the property that was within the boundaries of the Papal States in 1500. This land will now serve as a refuge for conservative Catholics all over the world who feel endangered by secular culture in their home countries. Anyone within the expanded Papal States who doesn’t agree with theocratic rule will lose his land to the refugees. How well do you think that would go over?

The point, obviously, is that the Arabs who lost their land after 1948 have a perfectly valid case, too. The objective should be to try to balance the legitimate claims of both sides to the dispute. The two-state solution is the best way to do that, if it is still possible to create a viable Palestinian state at this time. If it isn’t, most of the blame for that falls on Bibi and the settlers for deliberately creating irreversible facts on the ground without the approval of the Palestinians or the rest of the world.

Mark Penn, who has argued that Democrats need to move to the center to win swing votes about as long as I have been alive, says that Biden has made the mistake of falling in with the radical left. Their threats to stay home or vote for a third party are a bluff, he says; fear of Trump will ultimately fire them up, and they have nowhere else to go. Change course immediately, appeal to the Haley voters, or face defeat in November!

The problem with this line of recycled reasoning is that Biden is already doing precisely what he asks. Consider the following:

1. GAZA: Penn says Biden should give the Israelis the weapons to finish the job, while insisting that civilians be protected to the maximum extent possible. That is exactly what he is doing.
2. INFLATION: Penn says Biden should be doing more to reduce inflation. Most of that is beyond Biden’s power, but the campaign is doing its best to emphasize efforts to combat shrinkflation and bring down drug prices.
3. THE BORDER: Penn wants a legislative effort to secure the border. Biden supported bipartisan legislation to do exactly that which was torpedoed by Trump and House Republicans.
4. CRIME: Biden isn’t Batman, and crime is going down.

What else, exactly, is the man supposed to do?

Trump is apparently arguing on the stump that our inflation rates are comparable to those of the Weimar Republic in 1923. That’s laughably stupid, of course, but let’s take the analogy to Weimar a step further.

If Trump wins the election and puts an end to Weimar America, what does that make him? What was that guy’s name again? Didn’t he have a funny little mustache?

Two observations are pertinent before I respond to the question. First, the Zionist movement only really started in the late 19th century, so it is difficult to make a plausible argument that Zionism is an integral part of the Jewish religious identity. Second, it is inherent in the idea of a Jewish state that Christians and Muslims are second class citizens. That makes Zionism a sort of inverted form of antisemitism, which has created a problem for the leaders of Israel from the country’s inception.

That aside, based on my definition of antisemitism, the answer to the question depends, not on what the anti-Zionist is against, but on what he is for. Here are the possibilities:

1. If you think all Jews should be driven out of Israel, you are an antisemite. Period. That is the ultimate form of discrimination.
2. If you think that Jews should be allowed to remain in the new Palestinian state, but would be subject to Muslim theocratic rule, you are either an antisemite or a complete fool. There is nothing in the history of Hamas or the surrounding Arab states which suggests that the Jews would be treated with fairness and compassion in a Muslim theocratic nation.
3. If you think the solution is a secular, liberal democratic Palestine in which both Jews and Arabs are given equal rights, you are not an antisemite, because you have avoided advocating for discrimination. Your task, if you are a student demonstrator, is to explain to us how an immediate ceasefire and a consequent Hamas victory in the Gaza war somehow gets us to that Point B. Nobody has explained that to me as of this date.

The American government’s position is that the solution to the problem is the creation of a viable, but militarily weak, Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza. This concept maintains Israel as both a Jewish and a democratic state and solves the problem of discrimination. As such, it is the best possible approach to the problem–that is, if the facts on the ground have not already made it impossible, thanks to the efforts of extremists on both sides.

The meaning of the loaded term “antisemitism” is ambiguous and hotly disputed. Republicans who love Jews in Israel, but not elsewhere, and who know a wedge issue when they see one want to legally impose a definition which includes opposition to Zionism. Progressives strongly disagree. Who is right here?

“Antisemitism” is, simply put, discrimination against Jewish people on the basis of their religion. It can be attributed to individuals, groups, or governments. It can manifest itself in a variety of ways–social, economic, political, and even public safety. The bottom line, however, is clear; Jewish people, according to antisemites, are not entitled to the same rights as other people.

How does this relate to Zionism? For that, see my next post.

To American reactionaries, Viktor Orban is a hero, and Budapest is the new Jerusalem. Hungary was the first place wokeness went to die. It is a role model.

The problem is that those same reactionaries insist that China is an existential threat to America, and Orban is China’s best friend in Europe. Xi was there a few days ago. He received an extremely warm welcome.

You would think the closeness of the China-Hungary relationship would cause the reactionaries to rethink their position on Orban, or, at least, create some embarrassment. Not at all! They just ignore anything that conflicts with their narrative and change the subject.

The Israeli government insists that there is no way to fight the war effectively that avoids such large numbers of casualties, and that it is doing everything it can to facilitate the provision of aid to innocent civilians. Are those statements true?

No. If the Israeli government treated the war, as it should, as a guerrilla conflict against a group of fighters, not against the population as a whole, it would make every possible effort to protect and feed civilians in order to separate them from the fighters. That would both reduce casualties and permit vastly more aid without detracting from the objective of destroying Hamas. That has been my position for many months; I am quite certain the US government is telling the Israelis the same thing. Mostly for domestic political reasons, however, Bibi and his cabinet have decided to fight the war in a way that offends world opinion, kills tens of thousands of civilians, and results in a long war and an expensive occupation purely at Israeli expense. Why should America be a partner in that endeavor?

It shouldn’t. The cutoff of weapons that are likely to kill massive numbers of civilians in Gaza without any large offsetting benefits is a good first step.

It appears to me that the defense has succeeded in showing that Stormy Daniels was largely motivated by money. Her recollections of the sexual encounter over the years may also have been slightly inconsistent. She also clearly hates Trump but behaves just like him in some respects. That’s all the defense got out of her. I don’t think it is nearly enough to keep Trump off the stand, if he wants to rebut the allegations; you can’t beat something with nothing.

The one person, other than Trump, who has some personal knowledge of the 2006 events is a former bodyguard named Keith Schiller. Schiller has also been identified as someone who transported check to Cohen from Trump for signature. He doesn’t work for Trump at this point. Is he going to be a witness, and if so, for whom? That’s something I’ll be looking for in the days to come.

“I don’t want to hear it is what it is/It was what it was.”—Haim

It can hardly be denied that women were second-class citizens throughout most of our country’s history. This was due largely to an economy that placed great value on the physical strength and skills of men. With the advent of the knowledge-based economy, however, things have started to change dramatically. Men whose skills are no longer much valued are feeling left behind and are angry about it. Both sexes argue that the glass is half empty–women due to the remaining vestiges of the past, and men for the present and an apparently dismal future. Who is right here?

Women are right in wanting the remaining barriers to disappear, but probably a bit too inclined to use the language of victimhood and to deny men a fair hearing in the process (right, Mr. Franken?). As for the men, the obstacles to their success are purely psychological, not legal or social, so they need to suck it up and find roles that work in the new economy instead of retreating to the gym and whining on social media. Their claims to be victims don’t warrant your sympathy.

Even the most rabid American reactionary has to admit that people of color have been oppressed by the white majority throughout most of the country’s past. Blacks were enslaved, and then subjected to varying forms of both de jure and de facto discrimination; Native Americans were deprived of their land and their identity; Asians were excluded; and so on. It’s not a pretty picture.

But the predominant reactionary view is that these actions are ancient history. They have no relevance in contemporary America; people of color should stop whining and just get over it. In fact, the federal government openly favors racial minorities over white people by imposing affirmative action, which is pervasive in today’s society. As a result, it is white people, not minorities, who are the true victims in America in 2024.

The reactionaries have no case on this issue. Affirmative action has never been nearly as ingrained in our society as they would imagine, while the impacts of past discrimination are still being felt, particularly with regard to inherited household wealth. In addition, plenty of surveys still show evidence of contemporary discrimination. As a result, while there is lots of room for legitimate debate about the wisdom of providing compensation for past sins, the notion of white victimhood is complete rubbish.

Naturally, the prosecution ignored my advice and put Daniels on the stand in their case-in-chief. If I were a juror, here is how I would respond to her testimony:

1. She proved the existence of the sexual encounter beyond a reasonable doubt. That is based on the detail of her testimony and the behavior of the parties for a few years after the event.
2. Whether the encounter took place precisely in the manner she described is an open question. I would have to hear Trump’s version before I draw any conclusions. Of course, Trump is likely to deny the whole thing, which would be unhelpful to both him and me.
3. Daniels says she just wanted the story to get out; she wasn’t much interested in money. The defense says she was blackmailing Trump. Neither narrative is correct. Daniels was in it for the money, not the impact on Trump; as it happened, the National Enquirer wouldn’t pay her, so the Trump Organization did.

Why did the prosecution put her on? I have to think they are trying to bait Trump into testifying. For a variety of reasons, they really want to destroy him on cross.

I can’t think of a more plausible explanation.