I’m surprised that no one has mentioned that Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel and its aftermath are a textbook example of “fourth generation warfare” (4GW), quite cynically so. Hamas has gotten into Israel’s OODA loop and the Gazan people are being sacrificed to put Israel on the political disadvantage.

Bret Stephens suggests a different way of looking at the pro-Palestinian protests going on in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe in his New York Times column—it’s dooming any prospects the two-state solution may have had. He opens by distinguishing between 1967 opposition and 1948 opposition:

For decades, the question of a Palestinian state has come down to two dates: 1948 and 1967. Most Western supporters of Palestinian statehood have argued that the key date is the Six-Day War of June 1967, when Israel, faced with open threats of annihilation, took possession of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula.

According to this line of thinking, the way to peace rested on Arab diplomatic recognition of Israel in exchange for the return of these so-called occupied territories. That’s what happened between Egypt and Israel at Camp David in 1978, and what might have happened at Camp David in 2000 if Yasir Arafat had only accepted the offer of full statehood made to him by Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel.

Yet there has always been a second narrative, which dates “the occupation” not to 1967 but to 1948, when Israel came into being as a sovereign state. By this argument, it isn’t just East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights that are occupied by Israel: It’s Haifa, Tel Aviv, Eilat and West Jerusalem, too. For Palestine to be “liberated,” Israel itself must end.

The slogan “from the river to the sea, etc.” is an endorsement of the 1948 “rejectionist” front. Mr. Stephens continues:

For one, they put a growing fraction of the progressive left objectively on the side of some of the worst people on earth — and in radical contradiction with their professed values.

“A left that, rightly, demands absolute condemnation of white-nationalist supremacy refuses to disassociate itself from Islamist supremacy,” Susie Linfield, a professor of journalism at N.Y.U., wrote in an important recent essay in the online journal Quillette. “A left that lauds intersectionality hasn’t noticed that Hamas’s axis of support consists of Iran, famous most recently for killing hundreds of protesters demanding women’s freedom.”

For another, they reinforce the central convictions and deepest fears of the Israeli right: that Palestinians have never reconciled themselves to the existence of Israel in any borders, that every Israeli territorial or diplomatic concession is seen by Palestinians as evidence of weakness, that a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank would only serve as a launchpad for an intensified assault on Israel, that every criticism of Israeli policies in the occupied territories veils a deep-seated hatred of the Jewish state.

When the left embraces the zero-sum politics of Palestinian resistance, it merely encourages the zero-sum politics of hard-core Israeli settlers and their supporters.

A third consequence is that it abandons the Palestinian people to their worst leaders. It’s bad enough that the West has long accepted, and funded, Mahmoud Abbas’s repressive kleptocracy based in Ramallah. But what Hamas has given the people over whom it rules is infinitely worse: theocratic despotism, soaked in the blood of Palestinian “martyrs,” most of whom never signed themselves or their families up to serve as human shields in an endless — and, in the long run, hopeless — battle with Israel.

Said another way it’s a variant of Conquest’s Third Law: the behavior of the Palestinians’ supporters in the West can best be understood by assuming that they’re controlled by a cabal of their worst enemies. I don’t think that they are but they’re sure acting like it.

Whatever else you may think of Henry Kissinger, who died yesterday, he certainly left his mark on the world. The editors of the Washington Post declaim:

Henry A. Kissinger, who died on Wednesday at 100, was one of the most consequential statesmen in U.S. history. Though his greatest triumphs occurred a half-century ago, his legacy is complex, contested and contains lessons that should inform Americans facing complicated foreign policy challenges now.

In less than four years during the early 1970s, Mr. Kissinger brokered the opening of relations between the United States and China, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam, major arms-control agreements with the Soviet Union, and Israeli-Arab accords that made the United States the dominant power in the Middle East.

While forging and defending this policy of “detente” — the easing of tensions with the Soviet Union — Mr. Kissinger also pursued what he regarded as a zero-sum contest for global influence with the Soviets, spurring him to what he once privately described, late in life, as his proudest achievement: the negotiation of disengagement agreements between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Syria following their 1973 war. Rather than rely on multilateral forums, the then-secretary of state invented “shuttle diplomacy” and personally brokered the deals, which had the benefit of excluding Moscow. In the aftermath, a once-formidable Soviet presence in the Middle East withered, and the United States became the region’s arbitrating power — a state of affairs that has endured into the 21st century.

He is castigated for his role in the bombing of Cambodia and IMO insufficiently praised for crafting what has been very nearly the only actual foreign policy in American history. Like it or loathe it, it was a foreign policy rather than the emergent style more typical of the United States, in which competing domestic interests contend with one another. I also wonder if he would be receiving so much posthumous lambasting if he had not served the only American president to resign from office under a cloud.

Update

Here’s an excerpt from the editors’ of the Wall Street Journal’s encomium:

Kissinger was a target of both the right and left in those perilous Cold War years, often unfairly. His 1973 peace agreement with North Vietnam that ended the U.S. participation in the war is often mocked because the North overran the South two years later.

But Kissinger and Nixon inherited the unpopular war from Lyndon Johnson and had little choice other than to manage U.S. withdrawal. Kissinger’s strategy was to negotiate a settlement that allowed the South to take over its own defenses without half a million U.S. troops. He achieved his peace settlement and won a controversial Nobel Peace Prize for it. But the strategy collapsed when the U.S. Congress slashed aid to the South in 1975. Saigon fell within weeks. A Senator named Joe Biden was among those voting to abandon the South.

Kissinger has long argued, rightly we think, that the South would have survived if Congress hadn’t abandoned support. And Lee Kuan Yew, the late leader of Singapore, often said that U.S. support for South Vietnam gave the countries of Southeast Asia the time to build resistance to Communists in their countries. They are freer today because of it.

The left also blames Kissinger for supporting dictators. But the alternatives then, as now, weren’t usually democrats of the left’s imagining. They were often Communists who would have aligned themselves with the Soviets, as Fidel Castro did in Cuba.

In Chile, for example, Salvador Allende won a presidential election with 37% of the vote and took the country sharply to the left with Cuban and Soviet intelligence and other aid. The U.S. provided covert aid to Allende’s political opponents, but declassified briefings from the time show the U.S. was unaware of the military coup that deposed him.

Kissinger wasn’t responsible for Augusto Pinochet’s coup or its bloody excesses. Chile eventually became a democracy and free-market success. Cuba remains a dictatorship.

My own criticism of Dr. Kissinger is that he was objectively wrong too frequently. He was wrong on our handling of the Soviets (he overestimated them) and wrong about the Chinese. Much good has come from opening ties between the U. S. and China. Millions of Chinese people have benefited at substantial costs to Americans and the political benefits envisioned never materialized.

In his latest Wall Street Journal column Walter Russell Mead is flailing around, seeking a plan to secure victory for Ukraine in its war against Russian aggression:

Having failed to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine in the first place, the Biden administration badly overestimated the effect of Western sanctions on Russia. Once it was clear that sanctions wouldn’t force Russia to end the war, and after several failed efforts to tempt Russia with “off ramps,” Team Biden cooked up Plan Stalemate. The West would dribble out enough aid to help Ukraine survive, but not enough to help it win. Ultimately, the Ukrainians would lose hope of victory and offer Mr. Putin a compromise peace. The White House would spin this as a glorious triumph for democracy and the rule of law.

Some will criticize this as a cynical strategy, but the real problem is that it is naive. Mr. Biden seems to be clinging to the idea that Mr. Putin can be appeased—parked, if you prefer—by reasonable concessions. And so, the White House thinks, if Ukraine offers reasonable terms, Russia will gladly accept them.

Here’s the kernel of the piece:

But what if, when Mr. Putin senses weakness, he doubles down? What if a few thousand square miles of Ukrainian territory matter less to him than inflicting a humiliating defeat on the Biden administration and demonstrating the weakness of the West?

Mr. Putin has recovered from his early stumbles in Ukraine. Russia has more than doubled its forces there since the war began. Despite early setbacks, Russia has developed capabilities and tactics that have improved its troops’ effectiveness on the battlefield. The unconventional (if morally repugnant) decision to send released prisoners to fight in such places as Bakhmut and Avdiivka means that Russia was able to degrade some of Ukraine’s best combat units while preserving its own best units for battle elsewhere.

Russia has increased weapons production and is now manufacturing ammunition an estimated seven times faster than the West. It has mitigated the effect of Western sanctions. It is strengthening military and strategic links with Iran, and thanks to Iranian protégé Hamas, Western attention has shifted from Ukraine toward the Middle East.

We have more than one problem in ensuring a victory for Ukraine. The first is that we are unable to produce munitions as fast as Ukraine needs it. Here’s an illustration of why that might be:

The short version is that U. S. industrial production has been flat for the last 25 years. Given the time, investment, and commitment we could reserve that. It won’t happen overnight. A question for the interested student: can we dramatically increase industrial production and “go green” simultaneously?

The second problem is that Europe can’t supply Ukraine fast enough, either. From the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

Ukraine fires some 6,000 to 8,000 shells a day. Its soldiers need large quantities of the 155mm artillery shells that are a NATO standard and can be used in howitzers from the U.S., France, Poland, Germany and Slovakia. Yet foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell said on Nov. 14 that the EU had reached only “30% of the overall objective” for ammo deliveries.

As of mid-November the EU had provided Ukraine with some 300,000 rounds of ammunition, but that supply came from existing stocks, according to a recent brief by the European Parliamentary Research Service. The European Defense Agency has also signed at least eight contracts with defense firms to procure an additional 180,000 155mm rounds, but these haven’t yet been delivered.

Regardless of political will, Europe’s ammunition promise is “unlikely to be fulfilled” because of the “lamentable state of the defense industry,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said this month, according to the newspaper Ukrainska Pravda. European military spending declined sharply after the Cold War. Rebuilding capacity will require investment in new facilities, machines, and worker recruitment and training.

The third matter is even more grim. Our efforts to date have not brought Russia to its knees. If anything Russia is stronger than it was a year ago. That sounds like we’re going in the wrong direction to me.

Ukraine’s definition of victory, repeated frequently, is a return to the pre-2014 borders and security assurances against future Russian attacks. Is there any level of effort on our or the EU’s part that will produce that? I don’t believe so. IMO control of Crimea is a vital national interest for Russia which they won’t abandon as long as they are able.

The editors of the Washington Post have a plan for regulating the chaos at our southern border:

Republicans have one thing right about the border: The Biden administration’s strategy to keep asylum seekers from flocking to the United States is not working.

Many, including us, had high hopes. But last fiscal year’s 3.2 million “encounters” with migrants — occurring either at official entry points or, more often, when the Border Patrol nabbed migrants entering illegally elsewhere — were the highest on record, by a very long shot. Chances are this fiscal year, they will be higher.

Democrats might flinch at the proposition, but the Republican idea that it should be tougher for asylum seekers to enter the United States makes some sense. Hundreds of thousands of people who reach the southern border every year hope to leave a dismal existence behind, but most are not fleeing persecution, in fear for life or limb. They seek asylum because the U.S. asylum system is the only door available to knock on.

Their plan consists of the following bullet points:

• Raise the standard of proof required for asylum
• Increase the number of immigration court judges significantly
• Increase the number of slots available for legal immigration

which you might recognize as having some resemblance to what I’ve been advocating around here for most of the last decade. I would add the following:

• Anyone who has fled their home country, entering a country in between their home country and the United States is definitionally not seeking asylum
• Anyone not seeking asylum who wishes to enter the U. S., presumably to work, must speak, read, and write English
• Anyone not seeking asylum must have an actual job offer in the United States or some documentable skill to confirm the likelihood of their securing a job
• There should be some absolute ceiling on the number of migrants we accept in a year.

It should be noted that in addition to those with appointments and those apprehended (3.2 million) last year there were at least 300,000 “got-aways”, individuals who were observed but not apprehended.

As to my last bullet point consider the following:

More than 900 million people want to migrate permanently to another country and the U. S. is a top destination although not the only destination. At least in the United States most migrants who will never rise above an entry level income due to limited English will always be an economic liability. Someone has got to pay for their safety, health, and educating their children. That “someone” is you and me.

With the criticism and attendant declining stock value the company has been receiving, I want to speak in defense of the Disney Co. Sort of.

As its most recent animated cartoon, Wish becomes its fifth bona fide flop this year and its losses mount into the billions, you may well wonder what’s going on. I think that what Disney has been trying to do is expand its audience beyond its core audience but is has failed to do that.

Disney’s animated material and related merchandise have long had a target audience of little girls. For each new feature there is a “princess”, dolls, etc. Marvel, on the other hand, has largely had a target audience of teenage and pre-teenage boys. Features with lots of action, fights, explosions, and handsome men and beautiful women largely clad in spandex (in the case of Marvel). The same is true of Lucasfilms (with the exception of the spandex).

Although I stood in line to watch the original three George Lucas Star Wars movies and the first two Indiana Jones pictures on the days they opened, I don’t think I’ve seen any Marvel or Lucasfilms movie in the theater since. But I’m not the target audience for them.

I think Disney is trying to expand the audience for its own products by appealing more to little girls who aren’t primarily of European descent and to expand the audiences for Marvel and Lucasfilms products by appealing more to girls and women. It can’t seem to accomplish any of those objectives and hold onto to its original target audience at the same time.

Contrast that with Warner Bros. astonishing success with the Barbie movie. Its audience was women and girls under the age of 75 and it knew it. Clearly, it provided the content that audience wanted.

When you combine Disney’s inability to expand its audience while retaining its previous fanbase with the cost-cutting and price increases that have been the companies preferred strategies for staunching the losses it has been seeing from all of its segments, it has been a formula for disaster. I don’t think they’ll make more money by making the parks so expensive no one can visit them or producing fewer live action or animated productions or cheapening those it does produce.

It’s created a vicious cycle for itself from which I don’t see a clear way to recover.

In his brief Washington Post column David Ignatius characterizes the imminent return of hostilities following the end of the ceasefire as “fraught”:

Israel faces an agonizing and probably controversial dilemma ahead: After pausing the Gaza war for humanitarian reasons, how will the Israel Defense Forces start it up again to complete its objective of destroying Hamas’s political power?

Friday’s celebrations of the release of 13 Israeli women and children didn’t mask the concern among senior Israeli officials about what’s ahead in this stop-start war as Israel seeks to recover all 240 hostages and also crush the Hamas forces that hold most of them. “It’s bittersweet,” said one senior Israeli official in an interview on the eve of the hostage release. “I’m thinking of those who will not come out tomorrow.”

“Fraught” is an understatement. Agonizing, more like it.

Israel has the choice of either accepting a return to the status quo ante which unquestionably would mean a return of October 7-style attacks or, effectively, leveling Gaza. That appears to be what they’ve done in the north part of the territory and are preparing to do in the south Either way is a distaster: a humanitarian disaster for the Gazans and a public relations disaster for the Israelis.

Over the weekend I watched an interview with the head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in which he hemmed and hawed about what why so many UN employees had been killed in the conflict so far. Eventually, it came out that UNRWA facilities were being used as ammo dumps by Hamas. Left unanswered is how that could happen without UNRWA being aware of it. Is there an explanation other than recklessness or indifference?

BTW in case you’re wondering who’s paying for Hamas’s attacks the short answer is we are. Since money is fungible and Hamas has been the legal government of Gaza for more than ten years, part of every dollar paid in humanitarian aid to Gaza ends up in Hamas’s hands. Since we’re the biggest contributor to UNRWA that means we’re paying to keep Hamas in operation. Next up is Qatar, also a major donor. And, of course, Iran is openly on the side of Hamas.

The editors of the Washington Post argue for banning smartphones in schools:

Social media, the U.S. surgeon general wrote in an advisory this year, might be linked to the growing mental health crisis among teens. And even if this link turns out to be weaker than some recent research suggests, smartphones are undoubtedly a classroom distraction.

Understandably, individual schools and school districts — in Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere — are trying to crack down on smartphones. Students are required to store the devices in backpacks or lockers during classes, or to place them in magnetic locking pouches. In 2024, these efforts should go even further: Impose an outright ban on bringing cellphones to school, which parents should welcome and support.

In educational settings, smartphones have an almost entirely negative impact: Educators and students alike note they can fuel cyberbullying and stifle meaningful in-person interaction. A 14-country study cited by UNESCO found that the mere presence of a mobile phone nearby was enough to distract students from learning. It can take up to 20 minutes for students to refocus.

Wouldn’t an easier and more complete solution be for schools to have cellphone jammers? I would add that unless you also advocate banning smartpads and laptops in educational settings banning smartphones would be futile—there is very little that can be done with a smartphone that cannot also be done with a laptop.

I would also add that IMO the real problem is one of attention span and banning devices in educational settings will do nothing about that. It’s a problem that has been predicted for more than 50 years.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal former British Prime Minister Liz Truss calls for American leadership:

For as long as most of us can recall, the U.S. has led the free world. During the Cold War, for example, it was American power that successfully held off the communist threat from the Soviet Union. Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan was unflinching, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”

The world would benefit from more of that kind of American leadership today. I hope that a Republican will be returned to the White House in 2024. There must be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is once again bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat.

Too many of us in the Western world became complacent about the defeat of our communist enemies and believed that victory was everlasting for freedom and democracy. In reality no such victories are permanent.

The West allowed China to join the World Trade Organization as a developing nation—on beneficial terms it enjoys to this day—as President Xi Jinping proceeded to make himself president for life, clamped down on democracy and freedom of speech in Hong Kong and presided over human-rights abuses in Xinjiang province.

Meantime Iran is backing terrorists such as Hamas and developing its own nuclear capability—all while the U.S. waits in vain for Tehran to sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal. And Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions are ever more hostile.

Is it any wonder these regimes have proceeded with impunity when their actions haven’t properly been called out by others? The failure to enforce, for example, the red line in Syria, and America’s withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, emboldened these regimes further.

IMO PM Truss is painfully confused. In many of the examples she cites American leadership was indispensable in making the mistakes she criticizes. The United States promoted the idea of WTO membership for China under the misapprehension that economic liberalization would naturally be followed by political liberalization. That has rather apparently proved incorrect. It was an American president who refused to cross the red line he had set in Syria.

In other cases American leadership was not followed by our alleged allies. Iran developed its nuclear program with the enthusiastic support of German companies, delighted to sell them dual-use materials they were unable to produce internally. That was important in China’s astonishing economic growth as well. Germany maintained a trade surplus with China long after many other countries were running deficits by selling China factories and modern industrial equipment.

And the Republican frontrunner at present is not a conservative. I’m not sure what Donald Trump’s political philosophy is if anything. I think he’s an egoist.

I think that Ms. Truss’s piece is a nostalgic plaint for American hegemony. I repeat what I have said before: American military might is downstream from American economic might. At this point China’s industrial economy is significantly larger than ours. What does she have in mind? Airlifting American MBAs to China to screw things up there?