Israel/Gaza (And Some Additional Thoughts)

Heather Cox Richardson's (she's a historian) Letters from an American Substack is an excellent way to keep track of current events. 

(She usefully has a list of links at the end. In my email, you can have substacks emailed to you, I at first saw some internal links in the most reason entry. For whatever reason, I do not see them now. I don't know what happened there.)

Richardson's latest includes coverage of the Israeli-Gaza conflict. She quotes Hamas sources that declared the point of their attack was to make a major statement likely to change the current state of affairs. 

This is far from surprising. Israel's response, including under the current leadership, was very predictable. They used a strategy that sacrificed lives for their long-term goals. It is far from impossible they will not obtain some benefit if only a change of Israeli leadership. How much that is worth is another matter.   

The same can be said about the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship." I think we can say it is a mixture of ideological (including religious), the value of a regional power that is "safe," familiarity (including family connections), and some inertia. An argument for a "relationship" (not the negative view some hold) with a more balanced approach seems sensible. My member of Congress has a dubious "I'm 100% with Israel" sentiment.

Settlements continue to be a fundamental problem. The current leadership supported expanding this poisonous enterprise. It is especially impossible to imagine a two-state solution, which is in the official position of the Biden Administration, without seriously addressing the issue. It would require sacrifice on the Israeli side. It is offensive to parrot that as a mantra without underlining that it requires major changes.

A one-note approach does not help either side in the long run. We are going to (with a few noises about restraint) just supply Israel with arms? Any strong opposition is deemed worthy of censure and almost treasonous (to the United States). 

Let me be clear here that I hold this position generally. When some liberals got all upset when some progressives released a statement talking about some sort of negotiations (it was all hazy) in Ukraine, I thought it a tad ridiculous. So there was a bit of dissent from reasonable people. So what? 

My thoughts here are just that. I am not as familiar with the details here as I am with some issues. I do not want to closely debate the overall question. I do want a calm, reasonable debate, and addressing the issues. 

On that front, I recommend the Respecting Religion Podcast for its ability to calmly discuss things. They come off as so darn reasonable.

This does not mean they are just squishes. There are various issues they are quite passionate about, including Amanda Tyler's repeated efforts to promote the dangers of Christian nationalism. Nonetheless, there is a very strong need for places where the basic facts and issues are calmly established. A ton of information (sometimes in long narrative forms) can overwhelm. The use of basic soundbites can result in mostly hot air.

My goal over the years has not been merely to express my opinion on matters. On places like Twitter or Blue Sky, I might fall into that camp that just vents about the issues, tossing in some article or sports information. Some places focus too much on the negative when clarity and sometimes some good news (or just how things are going) would be helpful.  

I have done it all imperfectly. So it goes. I will continue to try.