5 Comments

My take on the ongoing drama/crisis is based on the idea Biden Knows What He's Doing. He's not being snowed by Netenyahu's silver-tongued lies, he's not secretly lusting for mass slaughter, he's not blindly supporting Israel for old time's sake, and so on. My other problem is none of the calls for stopping arms shipments to Israel (a de facto severing of diplomatic relations) even nod toward the "what happens next" question. Who knows, stopping might be the right thing to do, in addition to being the "good" thing to do, but I'd appreciate advocates taking ownership of the consequences. You break it you bought it.

I'd be suprised if Biden doean't pull out some big moves after the election. It might depend on just how much of a mess the Republican party makes contesting a losing vote, as well as dealing with ratfucking violence I still expect to see on Election day to cast doubt on vote counts. Hope I'm wrong.

Expand full comment

Your “other problem” is mine as well. When I game things out, I don’t like where it goes. Now, maybe I’m just too cynical and, as you say, it turns out to be the right move. But I sure would not want to be the one making the call.

Expand full comment

I haven't read remotely deeply about this, bit if there is an argument beyond "no bombs, no war, Q.E.D." I'd be all ears. Everything is about moral culpabilitiy, as if we were in the kitchen, balancing the national checkbook, when we looked out the window and saw our neighbor Israel beating up his girlfriend and her kids with the rake we loaned him. Its a terrible analogy, but 8ts a terrible situation.

Expand full comment

The more accurate analogy would be “when we saw our neighbor Israel beating up his girlfriend and his kids with the bat we *gave* him *fully knowing what he intended to use it for* since we’ve been hearing the sounds of heated exchanges next door for the last 76 years…

A rake can be used for innocent things like clearing leaves. When you give someone 2,000 pound bombs in the middle of a “military campaign” in which they’ve already indiscriminately leveled hospitals and schools and neighborhoods and killed journalists and humanitarian aid workers in violation of multiple international laws, you aren’t under any illusions about what they are going to do with them.

Expand full comment

“Who knows, stopping might be the right thing to do, in addition to being the "good" thing to do, but I'd appreciate advocates taking ownership of the consequences.”

I know actually. The “good” thing to do is *always* the right thing to do. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. Consequences should not figure in to straightforward ethical questions of “what ought I to do?” when you already know the answer to “what is good?”

This is something that seems to trip people up for some reason. But if you know what the good thing is, you ought to do it and let the chips fall where they may. You have a moral obligation to do the right thing. If negative consequences arise from that based on other people’s inability to know or do the right thing, that should be no concern of yours. I think a great many historical (and personal) blunders are caused by a failure to understand this.

Expand full comment