Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Talk Is Cheap
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is one of the most unimaginative and naive men on the planet. I realize that he is only espousing the line of the Biden Administration, but first he advocates one strategy and then explains why it is impractical to implement it.
On his latest visit to Israel today, he gave a speech trying to put his discussions with the president and prime minister of Israel in the best possible light. That’s just good politics. But I continue to be exasperated at his insistence that a “humanitarian pause” must be implemented, when that strategy will only work to the detriment of Israel. First, I’m not convinced that we can know which Palestinians should be entitled to humanitarian aid. Do they have special identification cards? Do they have to take an oath on the Koran that they don’t support Hamas? How do we know that they aren’t at least sympathetic to Hamas and will transfer supplies, either voluntarily or with the threat of force, to Hamas? How will Israel prevent Hamas from re-arming?
Then, there is the question of how long a “pause” should be. Will there be several small ones? How long will they be? Hours? Days? Weeks? Who gets to make that decision? What if Hamas violates the agreement? What will they do when Hamas, subtly or obviously, steals supplies, including fuel? Will the humanitarian pause involve the release of hostages? How will that be assured and implemented? What if they extend the release of hostages in the middle of the process? Who has the authority to insist that they follow through? What if hostage corpses, not living people, are returned?
My biggest question is why the US believes it is entitled to “help” Israel negotiate any of these terms. How much power over Israel can they demand because of the arms they are supplying? What if the US and Israel reach a roadblock about any of these efforts? Who will be forced to cave in?
Two of the most foolish proposals presented by Biden are not a surprise, but extremely impractical. The first one is that the only solution after the war is over is a two-state solution. I believe that died on October 7. Besides, driving the Jews into the sea is not just a Hamas mission; it is shared by many Palestinians. When a reporter asked Blinken about the extremist ideology that could remain, even after Hamas is defeated, Blinken replied, “We’ll just need to come up with a better idea.”
I assume that Israel is going along with the U.S. interference for a couple of reasons. First, they might actually learn something in these discussions. Talking together also builds relationships and at least creates the illusion of cooperation. But ultimately, I expect them to keep talking for quite a long time.
Talk is cheap.
Published in Foreign Policy
Naive? More like unprincipled. Machiavellian.
I think you give him far too much credit…
I read somewhere last month that even members of his staff consider him to be completely incompetent.
Yup.
Yup. Substitute any Republican for Biden in your next thought experiment on media bias.
FIFY
I heard Ruth Wisse (I think that’s how her name is spelled) talking about the more recent anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. She was asked about the reason for the elites overwhelmingly protesting. Her explanation was that the elites at the universities in Germany backed Hitler. Isn’t that interesting?
Foggy Bottom has been wrong for decades.
Jewish student confronts woman ripping down hostage posters | Fox News Video
Elites in Ivies also welcomed in the “Frankfurt School.”
I can think of 3 reasons why the U.S is pressing for a
ceasefirepause.1. Weak incompetent leadership as noted in many of the comments above . From 2021 the policy has been one of “quieting things down” (aka: appeasement) and so far has been a failure as Russia, China and Iran have all become more agressive.
2. An inexplicable but genuine hostility to Israel (esp. Netanyahu) and pro Iranian, pro palastinian bias among the agencies involved. Rhetorically, would Blinken dare to cross the “inter agency consensus” of how to proceed? Some would say that’s almost impeachable.
3. Domestic political concerns. Among the most disturbing things about the Afghanistan debacle was the number of citizens, legal residents and green card holders that were stuck there. The Admin treated it primarily as a P.R problem to manage. So they minimized it, obfuscated the numbers and failed to take any real action as that would just draw attention to the failure. It kind of worked (except for the victims) as the issue just faded out. In this case, I suspect Joe and company are again looking at the politics of it. While some have argued here its about the Muslim population in Michigan. I think it is more about not crossing the far more numerous young progressives in the country. From day one Biden has prioritized them over all others.
Of the 3, I think the third is most likely though the first is undeniable too.
I’d say it’s each of them at 100%. That’s right, 300%.
Good for him. That kind of confrontation takes guts.
They had a lot of Stalin fans too.
You can always tell a Harvard man, and what you should always tell him is “Siddown and shut up.”
I wouldn’t say that of all of academia, but it is more of a problem in academia than in the general population. My theory is that when you’re the smartest person around, it’s tempting to think you’re smart enough to run the world, or worse, to remake it.
Another problem is that there can be a gulf between being the smartest person at the university and being the smartest person in the political science department.
“Secretary of State [Fill in the Blanks] is one of the most unimaginative and naive [wo]men on the planet”
It has nothing to do with Blinken and everything to do with the role he fills. The State Department almost always gets it wrong, but never in interesting ways.
People in academia have spent their entire lives there, all the while being told how smart they are. As a result, they tend to suffer from several related failings:
First, they have no deep understanding of the wide world outside academia and no realization of how narrow is their knowledge and experience. Worse, they often do not realize this.
Second, they overvalue their own (extremely narrow) knowledge and expertise, and come to think this qualifies them to make definitive pronouncements upon all sorts of matters. Worse, they tend to believe that anyone without an academic degree is unqualified to have an opinion and should shut up.*
Third, the academic culture encourages an attitude of snobbery and arrogant disdain for ordinary folks, a belief that university professors are the most important people in the world and a feeling of resentment that not everyone holds them in the high regard to which they feel entitled, and that lowly people like carpenters and plumbers can make more money than them: This clearly shows that The System is unjust and must be radically reformed to put them at the top.
* Western academics almost universally dismissed the views of Ayaan Hirsi Ali because she did not have a degree in Islamic Studies. The fact that she had lived in that culture and had experienced its problems first-hand meant nothing to these academic charlatans.
They all have the experience of being the smartest person in the room (even if they aren’t) and all the temptations that come with it.
It’s a kind of arrogance that is very difficult to get past.
To paraphrase Clint Eastwood: The smartest person in the room should know his limitations.
Yup. Some have a greater tendency than others to forget.
You also don’t have to be the smartest in the room to know your limitations. Trust me, I know mine!
Know what you mean. I start worrying when I am the smartest person in the room.
If you are worrying, you are the smartest person in the room.
I have never been the smartest person in the room, even when dining alone.
And many never learned in the first place. Would that professors taught humility to their students and especially to their grad students…but I might as well wish for a Moon made of Wensleydale.
Man, oh, man is this right! And I think this is a good example of what lies at the heart of Trump Derangement Syndrome: The elites’ fear that some schmoe like DJT could come along, bring a “common sense” approach to domestic and foreign policy, get great outcomes, and thereby prove them to be a class of parasitic, time-serving careerists.
This.
Many do. But in many (not all, of course) it’s also compensated for by the idea that they know what’s best in politics. It’s possible to be humble among your peers, family, and friends, and not so humble in other respects.