Latest news with #BretStephens
Fox News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Anti-Trump NY Times columnist admits president is 'much more successful' than expected
New York Times columnist and longtime critic of President Donald Trump, Bret Stephens, admitted that the Trump administration is having more success than he expected. In a column published Tuesday, Stephens marveled at Trump's recent slew of successes, saying that the president's term has had a better turn since his first 100 days in office. "Egads! After a disastrous first 100 days, Donald Trump is starting to have a much more successful presidency. This is not what we, his foam-at-the-mouth critics, had planned or perhaps secretly hoped for," he wrote. Stephens, who's described himself as a "Never Trump conservative," listed Trump's accomplishments – and pointed out whether he's achieved them through good policy or sheer luck. Among Trump's positive policies, the columnist pointed to Trump getting NATO countries on board with increased defense spending. "Far from destroying the Atlantic alliance, as his critics feared, Trump may wind up being remembered for reviving and rebalancing it, to the advantage of both sides," he added. He even praised Trump for "courageous policy." Namely, the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities last month. "Joining Israel in its strikes on Iran, which Trump carried out in the teeth of political resistance from parts of his own base, did not lead us into a calamitous Middle East war, though Tehran may yet seek retaliation. Instead, it helped bring the war between Israel and Iran to a swift end," he said. The columnist went on to encourage Trump's adapted policy on the Russia-Ukraine war, stating, "Speeding the delivery of arms to Ukraine, after Trump's disastrous initial pressure campaign on Ukraine backfired by emboldening Vladimir Putin, is the only way to end the war." He also praised Trump's immigration policy, though he noted it is "good policy that's gone too far" in terms of its enforcement. Additionally, Stephens expressed some relief that trade deals Trump recently secured with the European Union and Japan did not lead to worse outcomes than they did. Despite noting there are "many unbeautiful parts" to Trump's $3.3 trillion spending package that was passed in early July, the columnist admitted it was a "needed" political victory for the president. He also noted that Trump's legal shakedown of Columbia University for antisemitism on its campus – while not the way to go about it – did yield results. Stephens, who wrote last year he no longer considers himself "Never Trump" because the movement was too dogmatic, said Trump's recent successes were a valuable lesson to his critics. "If Trump's opponents want to someday be effective — and let's face it, we haven't been — then we have to come to grips with realities that have so far eluded us. Such as: Not everything Trump does is bad," he wrote. The White House did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
New York Post
6 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Cheapening ‘genocide', strip the NEA of its charter and other commentary
Mideast beat: Cheapening 'Genocide' 'There is a glaring dissonance to the charge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza,' contends The New York Times' Bret Stephens. 'Why isn't the death count higher?' After all, 'it's not that Israel lacks the capacity to have meted vastly greater destruction.' The answer: 'Of course' Israel is 'manifestly not committing genocide,' and the deaths in Gaza are just a side effect of war. 'What is unusual,' though, 'is the cynical and criminal way Hamas has chosen to wage war': embedding itself in civilian areas and hoarding food aid. 'The war in Gaza should be brought to an end in a way that ensures it is never repeated. To call it a genocide does nothing to advance that aim, except to dilute the meaning of a word we cannot afford to cheapen.' Education beat: Strip the NEA of Its Charter The National Education Association is facing a move 'to revoke [its] national charter,' enthuse Daniel Buck & Anna Low at National Review. Though federal charters are 'largely symbolic,' they're not 'powerless.' Charter holders have a 'special national distinction' that helps them raise money. But today's NEA is 'a lobbying and funding juggernaut with almost 3 million members,' and though ostensibly an educational organization, 'its real purpose is political.' Over 97% of the 'millions' it spends on lobbying and donations goes to Democrats, and its 'calls to action' are always for liberal causes. If Congress chooses not to revoke the charter, it could still at least 'place limitations on the NEA's lobbying and political activity.' Foreign desk: Ukrainian Unity Is Unbreakable 'Russia wants to break the Ukrainian will as it seeks to dismantle Ukrainian identity,' thunders The Wall Street Journal's Jillian Kay Melchior, noting Vladimir Putin's relentless 'missile and drone attacks on the Ukrainian capital and other cities.' Yet instead of the attacks breaking their will, many 'enraged' civilians 'donate to support the military,' and 'the raids could boost voluntary enlistment.' Bottom line: Ukrainians are 'becoming more united.' There's little doubt that, 'Putin wants to erode the American and European will to arm Ukraine' by 'promoting the myth that Russian momentum is unstoppable and Russian victory is inevitable.' Zelensky adviser Mykhailo Podolyak admits, 'We're not winning right now' — but he also adds: 'Moscow isn't winning either.' Advertisement From the right: Dem Hypocrisy on ICE Agents' Masks Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her fellow Democrats are hypocrites for saying ICE agents 'spread fear in immigrant communities,' thunders the Washington Examiner. That's because Dems like them are the ones who 'amplify hoaxes and demonize law enforcement officers' — by saying that 'masked men in unmarked cars' are 'kidnapping people.' ICE agents who wear masks have genuine security concerns. Considering that 'activists in Portland have been posting ICE agents' addresses in officers' neighborhoods,' officers' 'desire for anonymity' is 'understandable.' If Bass is so concerned about calming people's nerves, she 'could start by not spreading illegal immigrant hoaxes.' Her labeling of federal law-enforcement officers as 'outrageous and un-American' puts them 'in danger and makes donning a mask a necessary precaution to protect their families.' Libertarian: Bleak Path to Fixing Social Security 'With neither Democrats nor Republicans appearing willing to reduce benefits or increase the retirement age, the only way to make Social Security solvent is to increase revenue,' reports Reason's Jack Nicastro. 'While this can be done, it will come at the great financial detriment of young people entering the work force.' Calculations show that 'to eliminate Social Security's projected $25 trillion deficit over the next 75 years while maintaining planned benefits,' payroll taxes would need to be increased from 12.4% percent to 16.05%. Other options would be 'lifting the income ceiling on the payroll tax and borrowing to cover deficits.' The latter could 'precipitate a systemic debt crisis in the U.S.' and 'massive inflation . . . resulting in another situation in which working-age people are forced to subsidize the retirements of the elderly.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
New York Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Strong Views on Israel and Genocide
To the Editor: Re 'No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza,' by Bret Stephens (column, July 23): Mr. Stephens's leniency toward Israel's actions in Gaza gives rhetorical cover to policies causing immense human suffering and a huge number of civilian deaths. Whitewashing the genocidal nature of Israel's war is a serious moral failure — especially when urgent public clarity is needed to push for change. Mr. Stephens argues that if Israel intended genocide, its military could have caused far more deaths. But genocide is about intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group. Dismissing genocide because a powerful state didn't maximize killing reduces it to a numbers game and ignores reality. Israel's imperfect judicial processes and institutional constraints, along with the Netanyahu government's awareness of legal consequences, have forced limits on its actions. But the result — nearly 60,000 deaths reported, when Israel was capable of killing many more — doesn't mean intent was missing. To the contrary, the disciplined destruction of entire towns and civil infrastructure, the tactic of pushing civilians into designated zones and killing those who do not 'move' are all indications of an intent to kill as many Palestinians as needed to make life for them in Gaza unattainable. Intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza is obvious. That's a genocide by definition. Tamir Aldema TshuvaRamat Hasharon, Israel To the Editor: Bret Stephens argues that casually invoking the term 'genocide' merely dilutes its meaning. However, the repercussions extend far beyond semantic erosion. Such inflammatory language ignites intense emotional reactions on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, potentially prolonging the violence and exacerbating human suffering. For Hamas and its supporters, accusations of genocide against Palestinians can bolster recruitment efforts and justify continued resistance, framing the struggle as an existential battle. Conversely, for Israelis, who carry the historical scars of the Holocaust, these claims may heighten fears for their survival, prompting a more resolute defense and diminishing prospects for compromise. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Al Jazeera
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Yes, The New York Times is committing genocidal journalism
The Israelis certainly owe Bret Stephens a favour. Yesterday, The New York Times opinion columnist took to the pages of the United States newspaper of record to promote his latest deranged argument, headlined: 'No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza'. Never mind that numerous global institutions, ranging from various United Nations bodies to Amnesty International, have determined that Israel is committing just that. These are organisations that hardly throw the G-word around lightly, but Stephens knows better. And he will tell us why. In the very first paragraph of his Times intervention – which should perhaps come accompanied by a trigger warning for readers prone to aneurysms – Stephens demands defiantly: 'If the Israeli government's intentions and actions are truly genocidal – if it is so malevolent that it is committed to the annihilation of Gazans – why hasn't it been more methodical and vastly more deadly?' It would seem, of course, that the Israeli military's near-comprehensive conversion of much of the Gaza Strip into rubble – via the bombardment of homes, hospitals, schools, and everything else that can be bombed – would be rather 'methodical'. As for the perceived insufficient deadliness of Israel's ongoing 'actions', Stephens cites the official Palestinian death count of 'nearly 60,000' in less than two years, and wonders why there are 'not, say, hundreds of thousands of deaths'. He goes on to proclaim that 'the first question the anti-Israel genocide chorus needs to answer is: Why isn't the death count higher?' Among the many questions that Stephens himself needs to answer, meanwhile, is why he thinks slaughtering 60,000 people is no big deal. As of November 2024, Israel had killed at least 17,400 children in Gaza – but even this is apparently not 'malevolent' enough. Furthermore, according to a study published in the Lancet medical journal more than one year ago, the true death toll in Gaza was already potentially set to exceed 186,000. How's that for 'hundreds of thousands'? In lieu of waiting for an answer from the 'anti-Israel genocide chorus', Stephens presents his own, which is that 'Israel is manifestly not committing genocide.' Citing the UN genocide convention's definition of the term as the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such', Stephens proceeds to announce that 'I am aware of no evidence of an Israeli plan to deliberately target and kill Gazan civilians.' Objectively speaking, this is the equivalent in terms of ludicrousness of claiming that there is no evidence of a plan by the operators of a chicken slaughterhouse to deliberately end the lives of the poultry therein. You don't kill 17,400 children in 13 months by accident; nor do you repeatedly bomb hospitals and ambulances if you aren't, you know, deliberately aiming to kill civilians. But it's not just about bombs. Forced starvation is genocide, too. And on that note, another question Stephens might answer is how intentionally depriving a population of two million people of the food and water that is necessary for human survival does not constitute an 'intent to destroy' that group. Yesterday alone, Gaza health officials reported that at least 15 Palestinians had starved to death, including four children. Since the end of May, more than 1,000 Palestinians have also been killed while trying to procure food from the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). This diabolical outfit, backed by Israel and the US, not only concentrates large numbers of starving Palestinians in a single location for easier mowing down by the Israeli army, but also furthers Israel's US-backed vision of forcibly expelling the surviving Palestinian population. While Stephens does deign to mention the 'chaotic food distribution system' in Gaza, he insists that 'bungled humanitarian schemes or trigger-happy soldiers or strikes that hit the wrong target or [Israeli] politicians reaching for vengeful sound bites do not come close to adding up to a genocide.' And yet in his war on the use of the G-word in the Gaza context, Stephens refuses to acknowledge that Israel itself has been a genocidal endeavour from the get-go. Zionists were well aware of the need to dispense with the majority of the Indigenous population of Palestine even before the formal creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian land in 1948, a process that entailed mass killing and the destruction of hundreds of villages. Some three-quarters of a million people were made refugees. Since then, Israel has continued on what is fundamentally genocidal footing, working to disappear the Palestinians both physically and conceptually – as exemplified in the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir's famous assertion that the Palestinians 'did not exist'. Indeed, Israel's existence as a Jewish settler-colonial state is predicated on the very 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such'. Anyway, forget history and reality. Stephens warns us that, if the word genocide 'is to retain its status as a uniquely horrific crime, then the term can't be promiscuously applied to any military situation we don't like'. Speaking of promiscuity, the Israeli military has long been in bed with The New York Times and a host of other US corporate media outlets, which do their best to sanitise Israeli atrocities as self-defence. But as Israel now continues to carry out a uniquely horrific crime in Gaza with the firm backing of the global superpower, Stephens's genocidal journalism is also uniquely horrific. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
New York Times
10-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Israel's Moral Balance Beam
transcript Israel's Moral Balance Beam If people hate Donald Trump, by all means hate Donald Trump. But that doesn't make you anti-American. It doesn't make you want to destroy the United States. Is the war in Gaza justified? When does criticism of Israel turn into anti-semitism? How has the war in Gaza changed American politics? This week, a conversation with my fellow columnist Bret Stephens. So, Bret Stephens, welcome to Interesting Times. It's good to be here, Ross. It's really great to have you. Thanks so much for doing this. So we're having this conversation on the afternoon of the day when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is scheduled to be at the White House meeting with President Donald Trump, presumably talking about Iran talking about the prospects for a ceasefire in Gaza. And ultimately, I want this to be a conversation not just about the Middle East, but about America and the effect of wars in the Middle East on American culture and politics. But let's start with the war in Gaza. I think it's been hard for a while, for me at least, to see what the actual endgame is in Gaza. It's been hard in certain ways since the first days of the war, and I want to talk about that endgame. But first, I just want your overall assessment of whether the Gaza war at this moment seems to have been worth it to Israel in terms of how it's been conducted, not just at a security level, but at a long term political level and at a moral level. I assume you think it has been worth it. I do. I don't think I don't think any Israeli government of virtually any political, plausible political stripe could have responded in a significantly different way than what this government, the way this government did. You can argue about tactics, but you have to appreciate that Israel is such a small country that the death of the - not the death is the wrong word - The wanton murder of 1,200 Israelis affects Israel in the same way that say 12 or 15, 9/11s would have affected the United States. This is what I mean: There isn't an Israeli who does not know either at one remove one degree of separation, or at most two. Someone who was murdered kidnapped, barely survived the attack. Most Americans, as shocking as 9/11 was, the vast majority of Americans never met even a relative of someone who died in the towers, or a relative of someone who died on Flight 93 or the Pentagon. So the scale of October 7 in Israel was massive, and it is absolutely reasonable for Israel to say, after five previous four or five previous wars against Hamas, that they needed to put an end to Hamas's reign in Gaza once and for all. OK, so I agree with that. But I think part of what the part of the argument that you made is about necessity, which is different from, in the end, wisdom, and morality to some degree. Maybe they're not completely separable. But it was absolutely necessary for the United States to respond to 9/11 on an aggressive and substantial scale. I think that's true. I also think it's true that the way we ended up responding led us into various debacles and disasters and moral calamities, right? So it could be the case that everything Israel has done is completely understandable and still fails certain tests. And so I want to ask about that test. So Israel - the pursuit of the removal of Hamas from power. I also agree. Completely legitimate, absolutely morally legitimate. But Israel has killed a lot of people in the course of this war. Tens of thousands of people are dead. Some substantial number of women and children are dead. Entire urban areas have been leveled and raised. And I guess I'm curious, as a supporter of the effort, how do you assess the point at which that kind of response becomes disproportionate? Two issues here: One is the question of moral culpability. Let's agree, obviously, that the death of a single innocent child is a death to many. All of the civilians who have been killed, displaced in Gaza, the misery that they've endured over the last nearly two years is horrific and heartbreaking. The question, then is who actually Bears moral responsibility for that death and displacement. And my argument is it's clearly Hamas. Hamas, first of all, broke a ceasefire they obtained on October 6, 2023, in the cruelest way, Hamas hides behind, between and beneath their own civilian population. The very opposite of the way other countries fight wars where they protect civilians and put their armed soldiers forward. And Hamas could end this at any moment of its choosing. Hamas could easily release the remaining hostages and agree to relinquish political power to a Palestinian, umm, some other Palestinian group. Hamas refuses to do all of that. So it's a little bit frustrating for those of us who are supporters of Israel to hear people who simply just discount the idea that Hamas bears the lion's share of responsibility for the suffering that they have inflicted on their own people by starting a war they should never have started. And by pursuing that war in the cruelest way possible. But a second point I think is worth mentioning. You just talked about death and destruction of civilian life that even in pursuit of a righteous cause at some point causes, causes people to wonder whether it's worth the price. What you described is June 6, 1944. People think about D-Day as probably the most heroic and most righteous - with no irony intended in that word - moment in American history when our boys stormed the beaches in the attack. But we killed thousands of French civilians in Normandy through indiscriminate bombing of targets, because that was the price that we thought was worth paying in the service of the reconquest of France and the liberation of the rest of Europe. And I wonder what we would say if we applied a kind of retroactive moral judgment to the position of the United States on June 5, 1944. I'm sure someone could say, well, look, the United States is no longer in danger. We won the Battle of the Atlantic. The Nazi regime terrorizes Europe. But that's not really a major concern of ours. And if we destroy the Nazi regime, the level of death and destruction that we're going to inflict on European civilian life is just not worth the cost. That's exactly the analysis that I hear when it comes to Gaza. So we should at least ask ourselves, when we were pursuing our own existential struggle against an enemy. We thought was the apotheosis of evil. What was the moral calculus that we pursued. Do you think that the U.S. was right to firebomb Dresden. I mean, is it possible to look back on World War II and say the U.S. pursued a righteous cause and we were right to do it. But in hindsight, we made some strategic choices that were immoral? Is that OK? Yeah I think that's an argument worth having. I was very persuaded by a book that appeared close to 30 years ago, Richard Overy, 'Why the Allies Won' about the merits and demerits of what's called the strategic bombing of Germany. And I'm personally torn on this subject because my in-laws are German. My late, now late father-in-law was a 10-year-old child or nine-year-old child in Hamburg when Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill authorized the firebombing of Hamburg, which inflicted devastation on a similar scale. And I think it's an open moral question, but I don't think it is entirely clear cut to me that the devastation that we inflicted on Germany wasn't necessary to finally end the devastating effects of German militarism on global security. Remember, that was not the first war the Allies were fighting against Germany. They just fought a previous war against Germany when they'd been much more sparing of German lives by agreeing to an earlier armistice. I mean, I think it's fair to say, it's fair to ask, was every single Israeli military action in this war necessary. Did they have to use 200 0 pounds bombs as opposed to 500 pounds bombs or whatever. And there's no doubt in my mind that at many junctures, Israel used excessive force. I would just ask that when we think about our judgment of Israeli military action. We think about it in comparison to instances where the Allies used military force in pursuit of a goal they thought was essential to their security and survival. Yeah I mean, I guess I'm trying to come at this from the point of view again, of someone who agrees some kind of campaign like this is morally defensible and that accepting some level of civilian casualties a war like this is just necessary. But still as we try and assess, not just the campaign itself, but also and I want to talk more about this, the reaction to the campaign, its cultural impact on the United States, on American politics. I feel like it would be helpful to have a kind of moral baseline, the point at which a campaign that yields civilian casualties crosses a moral line. And I know we can't assess that definitively. I know know, let's take another example. I was rereading last year Ron Chernow's great biography of Ulysses Grant. We're, I'm sure, in complete agreement here that the cause of the North, the cause of the Union, was a righteous cause. And at Vicksburg, which was the pivotal campaign next to Gettysburg in the summer of 1863, Grant starved Vicksburg, starved the Confederate Garrison at Vicksburg. So let's just ask ourselves, how do we draw the line here. Should we go back and say, as righteous as the North was in wanting to eradicate slavery and save the Union, starving the Confederates at Vicksburg so that they were eating rats at the end of that campaign, or Sherman's Marsh to the sea, or other instances of what the union cavalry did throughout the South was such a moral abomination that we really have to rethink how that war was fought. Well, it's a form of Monday morning quarterback, but it's a little different, right. Very that's very easy for us to indulge in, but very difficult for people who are actually waging the war to measure at the time in which decisions are being made. And I wish there were a method by which you could do it more carefully and more judiciously. But I'm always mindful of Sherman's line war is cruelty. And that's an important reality that we have to accept when we're talking about war under any circumstances. But we aren't just playing Monday morning quarterbacking with a war that is far in the past, whose outcome. We know the war isn't finished. So to me, a lot of the without being consequentialist like part of the morality of war is figuring out what your endgame is, right. Like if you're going to ask a lot of people to die and you have a clear endgame in mind, it's more justifiable than if you don't. So there are two end games that I think are important to specify. And I have no doubt that President Biden made absolutely the right call in October of 23 and then for the rest of his presidency, in fundamentally putting the United States behind Israel's efforts to defeat Hamas for two principal reasons. Number one, the endgame for Israel and the Palestinians should be two states an Israeli, a Jewish Israeli state and a Palestinian state living peacefully side by side like neighbors anywhere else in the world. But that endgame is absolutely impossible to conceive if Hamas remains an undefeated Power in Gaza. But I also think that there's an American interest here, which is that we not only want to support our allies throughout the world, small allies endangered by totalitarian enemies. But Hamas was one finger among many fingers of an Iranian power, and Iran was one arm of what is increasingly coalescing into a United, revanchist, revisionist, anti-western, anti-American front, which is Russia or Moscow, Tehran, Beijing. And I think you could add Pyongyang to that list. So a strategic defeat for Hamas, for Iran and its proxies is, in fact, a victory for American interests globally. So let's talk about America, then. Oh, right. Well, no, I think because they're there now. You want to become really depressing. No I mean, I think that part of we're accustomed to debates about us Middle Eastern policy and Israeli policy. But I would say I'm curious if you agree that I haven't seen anything that's happened in the Holy Land change American politics. As much as the israel-gaza conflict has changed US politics in the last few years, the Democratic Party was trending in a less Zionist direction, less supportive of Israel. But it seems like that trend has just been absolutely turbocharged. And the Republican Party is still very pro-Israel. But you can see that also shifting in some polling, especially among younger Republicans. And you don't have to look very far on the internet to find right wing factions that are of frankly, anti-zionist with the Tucker wing of the party. which is a real, there's and again, there's been a Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican Party for a long time, but it just seems like the current environment has shifted things on both right and left. Do you agree. Like, do you think the change. How big do you think that change is. These were trends that you can date back over a decade, right. Even at the beginning of the Second Intifada, at the turn of this century, you started to see the left, at least the hard left in America, take an increasingly anti-Israel turn. And that left has expanded on the wings of the Sanders Bernie Sanders campaign and other left wing populists. So I see it more as an evolution rather than a kind of a sudden shift on account of the last 20 or so months of war. And it's the same thing with the Republican Party. Before there was Tucker, there was Pat Buchanan. Whether the anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party becomes the dominant wing. I think that's quite possible. I'm more skeptical that it would happen on the Republican side. I mean, I think on the Republican side, you have, a core constituency in evangelical Christians that is supportive of Israel for not just one specific theological reason, but a whole host of reasons going back culturally, arguably, to the 18th century. There's a lot of interesting threads in terms of American attitudes towards Israel that long predate the actual refounding of the state of Israel. At the same time, I feel like I'm fairly well aware of trends among young, right leaning voters. I was around for Pat Buchanan. It feels more substantial than the Buchanan moment. It feels like there's a skepticism of the American relationship to Israel that has taken root on the right in a stronger way than I can remember in my lifetime, I think, and I'm speculating that this is simply a function of the Republican turn to a kind of broader skepticism about foreign alliances of any stripe. The same people who I think would tell you that they're opposed to American supplies, military supplies to Ukraine aren't very happy about our alliance with Israel. The same people who are trade protectionists would also be kind of if not hostile, at least skeptical of our support for the Israelis, by the way. It's a good argument at some point soon for the Israelis simply to wean themselves completely from American military aid. Israel is a half trillion dollar economy with an incredibly robust domestic military set of military industries. The Israelis do not need to be getting $3 billion of American taxpayer money, even though most of that money goes to Boeing and Lockheed Martin and a few other defense contractors. So I guess Yeah, that gets to one of my questions here. Which that is this a reality that Israeli policymakers should consider as a factor in their own decision making. If I were the defense minister or prime minister of Israel, I would set the goal that by, say, 2030, all of the munitions that Israel uses are produced in Israel, or at least mostly produced in Israel, that Israel should be able to defend itself. I mean, the Israelis like to say we want to defend ourselves by ourselves, but the Israelis should have the confidence of knowing that they do not have to rely on the goodwill of any American president, whether it's Lara Trump or Hunter Biden, when he becomes president. That's a joke. But you never know. He's sticking with painting. No, but. But not Hunter Biden, but Alexandria ocasio-cortez. Let's say, some figure associated with the current American left. Well, I do think that when we get out of the Democratic corridor of AOC's district or maybe the People's Republic of Mamdani in a few months time, that you'll find most Democrats that I meet take a much more level headed view of our relationship with Israel. The potential frontrunners for the next Democratic presidential candidate. I don't see any of them coming from the anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party. What I do see is a Democratic Party that is elevating voices that have many views, among them strident anti-Israeli views that are going to harm the party's chances in the next electoral cycle. I mean, I guess it depends on how you define anti-Israel. But from what I can see from polling, when it comes specifically at least to the war in Gaza and but also support for bombing of Iran and so on. I would say, a reflexive hostility to Israeli policy is a dominant view in the Democratic coalition right now. Is that Josh Shapiro's view, Andy Beshear's view, Wes Moore's view. I think what you're seeing is a Democratic Party that has a progressive insurgency within it. But rank and file Democrats are very ambivalent about that insurgency and its views on many subjects, of which Israel is one of them. Now, who knows what the future will bring. I was so spectacularly wrong about the direction of the Republican Party, say, in 2014, 2015. So I need to I need to be a little mindful of the mistakes that I've made, I've made in the past, but I don't see a Democratic Party being effectively taken over by this progressive wing because it's not progressive at some level. It's hostile to the views of middle class Americans. What about the part of this that isn't about Israeli strategy and Uc policy towards Israel, but it's about American culture. So again, you and I would both agree there's been a surge in anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitic. Well, right. I assume that you think that anti-zionism, anti-Semitic critiques of Israel's policies shade really easily into anti-Semitism. Yes I mean, one is the entry drug into the other. Can you criticize Israel without becoming anti-semitic? Of course, you can. And, this is one of the points that I tear my hair out. Look, you want to see the most acerbic critic of criticism of Israel go to the Haaretz website. Leading Israeli paper. Israelis criticize Israeli politics all the time when it comes to every issue imaginable. There are no sacred cows. There are no red lines. In fact, some of the most strident anti-zionist voices will often refer to Israelis writing in Haaretz to wash themselves of accusations of anti-Semitism. Let me just make this baseline point, because, again, criticism of Israeli policy can be mistaken, but it's always legitimate. But anti-zionism is not criticism solely of Israeli policy. Anti-zionism is criticism of the existence of the state of Israel as a state that has the right to the right to exist. So it's a little bit different. I mean, if people hate Donald Trump, by all means hate Donald Trump. But that doesn't make you anti-American. It doesn't make you want to destroy the United States. Because you can't stand the policies of the Trump administration. Anti-zionism is the belief that a Jewish state does not have a right to exist. Now, I would accept that argument isn't anti-Semitic. If people said a Japanese state doesn't have the right to exist, or a Icelandic state doesn't have the right to exist. I mean, in fairness in our own time, I would say that argument has often come bundled with progressive views that generally ethnostates are illegitimate. I do think that there's a kind of I've yet to see a protest outside of the Icelandic mission to the UN saying down with Iceland, an ethnically homogeneous state, or down with Japan, which has a tends to treat minorities in a discriminatory way, or down with Denmark, because the Danish Lutheran Church enjoys certain tax advantages against other faiths in Denmark. I would say that uniquely, uniquely aimed at one ethno state that happens to be the Jewish state. And if you are a Jew whose life story is about a mother in hiding in the Holocaust and a grandfather who fled the pogrom in Kishinev, you have the right cock a skeptical eyebrow and say, why us. So one I agree, I think that there is what you might call just a persistent excess in the way the case against Israel is prosecuted, especially on the left, sometimes on the right. That is hard to explain without talking about anti-Semitism as this kind of constant temptation. If you watch internet culture play itself out, it is kind of fascinating in a morbid way, that the pull of you've gone through four levels of disillusionment and the fifth level of disillusionment. You're going to blame the Jews. There is some eternal recurrence of that tendency. All I'm saying is that there is also a tendency where arguments about Israel and Palestine are connected to arguments about American history and American identity. I agree, nobody's protesting the existence of Iceland, but plenty of people are invested in the idea that, France, or the UK or Europe broadly should become a kind of multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. And they again, I'm describing people on the left. They see their view of some kind of binational future for Israel as part of that, I think there is a continuum here that runs from anti-Semitism in excess, through other arguments in left wing politics. That's fair and true, which is why and which is why I worry in an age when the left is a very important part of Western culture and American culture, right about the darker pole. The extent to which there is this inherent pull towards overt or tacit anti-Semitism in these debates, and I just feel like that pull has just clearly gotten stronger because of the Gaza war. No, it happened before the Gaza war. And the best evidence of this was that the protests, the accusations that Israel is committing genocide happened on October 8, and the Israelis had barely were still clearing out Hamas from their own territory. It's not as if suddenly this terrible Gaza war happened and the left said Oh, geez these people are terrible. Look at what they're doing. All of the feelings, the entire architecture of opprobrium and hatred was in place on October 6, so that these people would celebrate on October 8. And one of the most shocking experiences to me as a Jew, was going on the eight of October to a protest that had been hastily arranged in which people were looked. The expression on people's faces in the wake of this unbelievable massacre was euphoria. So when people say, well, this is the result of the war in Gaza, I'm sorry, but that's just that doesn't explain the letter from however many Harvard organizations that putting the blame entirely on the Israelis. It doesn't explain the protests in Sydney calling on them to F the Jews. This hatred was there. And it is true that people are against ethnostates in theory. But you have to ask, why is Israel the object of an obsessive hatred. And it's not because it's American taxpayers, because you're seeing the same kind of protests and the same kind of hatred in Melbourne and Sydney and any number of other places I've visited that contribute nothing to Israel's defense. Yeah I mean, I think it's partially. And I want to say again that I agree with you, but I'm looking for points of tension here that. Yes, I think that what you saw in the immediate October 8, ninth and 10th reaction to Hamas's attacks on American College campuses can really only be explained in terms of a left that has marinated so deeply in critiques of Israel as to be functionally anti-Semitic, and is unable to see Jews as human beings. But I also think, as someone who has watched left left wing politics and progressive debates play out in the context of other issues, that there is a way in which that is connected to again, critiques of American history. The idea is that would be, for instance, that Israel is a settler colonialist state and so is America. But the American settler colonialism is unfortunately settled. You can't have a viable left wing politics that undoes the American project. And so Israel becomes this kind of displaced zone of anti-americanism. I think that's part of the story to all of this goes to a kind of a naivete and ignorance that bleeds into functional anti-Semitism. I was in Australia about a year ago, and I gave a talk at a public library there where some young person stood up and asked me about the suggestion that Israel was a settler colonialist state and how awful that is. Of course, Australia, with the exception of the Aboriginal peoples, are entirely a settler colonial state. Canada is basically a settler colonial state. Most many states in the world. Yes Mexico, where I grew up, is largely a settler colonial state, speaking a language that was not native or Indigenous to the area up until 1519. So the entire ideology, which sounds has a kind of surface plausibility as my old colleague Holman Jenkins says vanishes in the presence of thought. But the second problem, but surely some of the people in that Australian audience would have nodded along and said Oh, it is terrible that Australia is a settler colonialist state, but they will not. They will not nod along to the follow on suggestion, which is go back to Blimey. They won't say Oh my name is McDougall from the clan Duggal. I think I'm going to move my family in penance for generations of settler colonialism out. Whereas what the suggestion to Israelis is go move somewhere. Well, where. Poland, where you were massacred. Russia where you were oppressed. Iraq from which you were expelled. Those thoughts don't really trouble trouble these people. The other issue, and I mentioned this to this person who asked the question. I said what's Hanukkah. Hanukkah and any number of Jewish religious commemorations or occasions are memories of the Jewish fight against colonial oppressors of antiquity Babylonians, Romans, Greeks. And then following them, Byzantine solutions, mamelukes Ottomans and finally the British. The British are still upset about the Jewish revolt and uprising, some of which involved terrorism against British colonialism. Zionism is, in fact, the oldest continuous anti-colonial struggle in history, and Israel is probably the single most successful post-colonial state in the world. So even if you accept the terms of settler colonialism, the people making that argument have it exactly backwards. Don't you think, though, that there is a way in which the American affinity for Israel is an affinity of Americans who in the past saw themselves as settlers, and that was a good thing, right that the idea of making the desert bloom, building a new society and so on that is part of the American commonality with Israel that if Israel is and of course, America can say we're anti-colonialist, too. We had the Boston Tea Party. We kicked out the British. But these things are very complicated. I think Americans relate at the end of the day in 1955, being a settler, being a settler society was, in American rhetoric, considered a good thing. That's part of the truth. I don't think it's the whole truth. Look, the earliest pilgrims came to America seeing themselves as establishing a kind of New Jerusalem, the echoes in early American religious history to the idea of constructing a new society based on. Kind of radically ethical precepts also explains the kind of long history of philo-semitism. And then there's a third factor beyond the two that we've mentioned, which is that America saw in Israel a reliable ally against mutual enemies who were calling for death to the great Satan, death to the little Satan, whether they're in Tehran or Gaza City or Beirut, the same people who are blowing up American barracks or are blowing up Jewish cultural centers. So all of this explains why the relationship between America and Israel is a fairly profound one that isn't going to be washed away because some wing of Park Slope decided to vote for Zoran Mamdani. You mentioned a couple of times Zoran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York. In his campaign, I think there was an effort to use some of his anti-Israel positions against him. It didn't succeed. But what does he represent to you. A combination of unseriousness and a kind of underlying ugliness of his flat out refusal to condemn the expression globalize the Intifada. I think it was extremely telling that he wouldn't do so, and that he does so under the alleged banner of free speech. Progressives are never shy about condemning speech they view as racist or hateful. But an exception is carved out in the case of globalize the Intifada, which worries me and I think worries a huge number of New York Jews who don't want a mayor who irrespective of his foreign policy views, can't see the implicit hatefulness of an expression that is in practice, a call for violence and terrorism. But most of the people who voted for Mamdani are presumably not motivated by, and I hope, globalize the Intifada perspective. And the worrying aspect of it is that mamdani's views on this issue weren't deal breakers for those voters. But it should have been a deal breaker for most morally sensible voters that Mamdani takes this particular position. Just as for me, when people ask me, do I regret voting for Kamala Harris last November, my answer is no, because January 6 was a deal breaker for me. So even if I agree with Trump on, I don't tax policy or even on what he did with respect to Iran, that stopped me. And that's why I voted the way I did. It wasn't something that was going to stop other New York Mamdani voters that he effectively sanctions a phrase or doesn't object to a phrase, which in practice involves the murder of Jews. I guess, though, that is, in a way, an example of the kind of shift that I worry about being encouraged by the unpopularity of the Gaza war. The civilian toll. And so on. Again, it's not the people who vote for Mamdani for cost of living reasons and forgive or ignore things like globalize the Intifada are not embracing anti-Semitism, but they are in a context of increasing unpopularity of Israel, downgrading the issue. I guess I'm just interested in what you might call concentric circles, that there is a circle of critique of Israel shading into the anti-zionism, shading into anti-Semitism, and I feel like there is a wider circle of people who go back and forth who were on Israel's side immediately after the Hamas attacks, but who are also right now in opinion polls, not big fans of the war in Gaza. And I guess the question I'm getting around to here is, do you think this is maybe a strange way to put it, but do you think Israel has obligations to the Jewish diaspora. Yes, of course it does. In terms of thinking about how its policies and its public presentation affect Jewish life in the United States. Sure of course it does, by the way. Old Jewish saw the classic Jewish telegram is start worrying. More to follow. I mean, it's in our DNA that we're always concerned about implications of everything. It would be lovely if Israel had more effective spokespeople. If these exceptionally awful characters, ben-gvir and Smotrich, were not part of the cabinet, but the fundamental obligation that Israel has to the diaspora is to be a safe haven for Jews, because the long course of Jewish history is that even in the societies where we appear to be most at home, most integrated, most at ease will ultimately turn on us. I always think that in 1922, the greatest philosopher in Germany was Edmund Husserl. The greatest scientist in Germany was Albert Einstein, and the greatest statesman in Germany was Walter Rathenau, three Jews. And within 11 years, that was a regime run by the National socialists, by Adolf Adolf Hitler. And so Israel's fundamental obligation to the Jews is not to simply be a vanity project so that diaspora Jews can go around and say, look, Israel is making great strides in, I don't desalinization or water conservation. The point is to be a place where endangered Jewish communities know they can go and have a margin of safety behind a Jewish army that they simply don't have in France or present day South Africa or other communities. And what worries me, too, is that God forbid we may come to a place in 40 years. I don't think it's going to happen, but it might. Where Jewish communities in the United States feel the same sense of isolation, danger, hatred that, say, Jewish communities in France do today or have for the last 15 or 20 years. Again, it would be wonderful if Israel had better PR, but the PR is less important than being a state where Jewish life is going to be secure in a way that historically, we know it's never secure anywhere else. Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to this the scenario. I'm not Jewish. So I don't have that kind of historical consciousness I have. I do have an American Historical consciousness where though where I feel like we are in or walking through a scenario where the Israel that you describe Israel as refuge, Israel as powerful country that can defend its own interests and its own people, comes out of this period strong. I think that's a totally much more plausible endgame than anyone would have imagined two years ago. It's a testament to the success of the Israeli military, maybe diplomatic success soon as well. But that we also walk out in the United States with a Democratic Party that's more hostile to Israel than it's ever been a Republican Party that includes a vocal anti-Israel bloc and a culture in which anti-Semitism is more mainstream than before. Yeah and I feel like those things are connected. And so I just worry about the effect on the United States and my Jewish friends in the United States. And I'm worried that there is a trade off here where Israel if you're in the Israeli government, you're saying we're making ourselves more secure than ever before. And Meanwhile, without the best possible outcome in Gaza, you get a different climate here. So, I mean, obviously, I think about this and I think everything you're saying is fair and plausible. Let's imagine a scenario in which in November of 2023, after the first ceasefire, which led to the release of a bulk of hostages, Israel had then agreed to a full time, long term ceasefire. At that point, I think there were maybe 10,000 estimated dead in Gaza. Not the numbers that we have today, but Hezbollah would have remained in entrenched in Lebanon. Iran would have good reason to think that the massacre of Jews on October 7 was a strategic gamble that had paid off for them. The left would still be left here in the West, would still be accusing Israel of being a genocidal apartheid state that should be boycotted and divested from. On balance, if Israel had done what reasonable people think would have been kind of a moderate course. I think it would emerge not only Israel, but the Jews would emerge in a much worse place than they are now. I think you can bid for the world's love, but you can also bid for the world's respect and what Israel has won at very high cost to all parties. But what it is, one, I think, is a measure of respect that in the longer term serves the interests of Jews in Israel and the diaspora better than the alternative scenario I painted, which is some calibrated but ultimately kind of feckless response that would have left things pretty much as they had been before. On that note, Bret Stephens, Thank you so much for joining me. It's a pleasure. Below is an edited transcript of an episode of 'Interesting Times.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Ross Douthat: Since the attacks of Oct. 7, Israel has dealt serious blows to its enemies — to Hamas, to Hezbollah, and to Iran. It has pursued a war in Gaza, a war with a civilian death toll in the tens of thousands that has no certain end game. And Israel has also lost a lot of public support in the United States — in the Democratic Party especially, but also on the political right. All these unfinished stories matter, not just for Israel's future, but for American politics and culture. But which one matters most? Are Israel's strategic successes clearing the way for Middle Eastern peace? Is the Gaza war locking in anti-Israel sentiment, carrying antisemitism in its train? To argue through these questions, I'm joined by my colleague Bret Stephens, who writes eloquently about the Middle East and the threat of antisemitism. Bret Stephens, welcome to 'Interesting Times.' Bret Stephens: It's good to be here, Ross. Douthat: It's really great to have you. Thanks so much for doing this. So we're having this conversation on the afternoon of the day when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is scheduled to be at the White House, meeting with President Donald Trump, presumably talking about Iran, talking about the prospects for a cease-fire in Gaza. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
