At the Atlantic, after a lengthy reminiscence, Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton gives her views on Hamas:

For me, Israel and Gaza are not just names on a map. I have grieved with Israeli families whose loved ones were abducted or killed in terrorist attacks. I have held the hands of the wounded in their hospital beds. In Jerusalem, I visited a bombed-out pizzeria and will never forget it.

I have also been to Gaza. I have talked with Palestinians who have suffered greatly from the conflicts of the past decades and dream of peace and a state of their own. Before Hamas seized power, I met women using microloans from the United States to start new businesses and become breadwinners for their families, including a dressmaker who—because she was finally able to buy a sewing machine—could send her two daughters to school. My decades of experience in the region taught me that Palestinian and Israeli parents may say different prayers at worship but they share the same hopes for their kids—just like Americans, just like parents everywhere.

That is why I am convinced Hamas must go. On October 7, these terrorists killed babies, raped women, and kidnapped innocent civilians. They continue to hold more than 200 hostages. They have proved again and again that they will not abide by cease-fires, will sabotage any efforts to forge a lasting peace, and will never stop attacking Israel.

Hamas does not speak for the Palestinian people. Hamas deliberately places military installations in and below hospitals and refugee camps because it is trying to maximize, not minimize, the impact on Palestinian civilians for its own propaganda purposes. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is heartbreaking—and every death means more blood on Hamas’s hands.

So the Biden administration is correct not to seek a full cease-fire at this moment, which would give Hamas a chance to re-arm and perpetuate the cycle of violence. Hamas would claim that it had won and it would remain a key part of Iran’s so-called axis of resistance.

Note that what is being demanded is a hudna. In Islamist doctrine a hudna is treated as an opportunity for regrounping or refortifying. She concludes:

Going forward, Israel needs a new strategy and new leadership. Instead of the current ultra-right-wing government, it will need a government of national unity that’s rooted in the center of Israeli politics and can make the hard choices ahead. At home, it will have to reaffirm Israeli democracy after a tumultuous period. In Gaza, it should resist the urge to reoccupy the territory after the war, accept an internationally mandated interim administration for governing the Strip, and support regional efforts to reform and revive the Palestinian Authority so it has the credibility and the means to reassume control of Gaza. In the West Bank, it must clamp down on the violence perpetrated by extremist Israeli settlers and stop building new settlements that make it harder to imagine a future Palestinian state. Ultimately, the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a secure, democratic, Jewish state is by achieving two states for two peoples. And in the region, Israel should resume serious negotiations with Saudi Arabia and others to normalize relations and build a broad coalition to counter Iran.

For now, Israel should focus on freeing the hostages, increasing humanitarian aid, protecting civilians, and ensuring that Hamas terrorists can no longer murder families, abduct children, exploit civilians as human shields, or start new wars. But when the guns fall silent, the hard work of peace building must begin. There is no other choice.

If you do not will the means, you cannot will the ends. What means will be required for Hamas “to go”? Most sources claim that Hamas has between 30,000 and 40,000 fighters in Gaza and is supported by a substantial percentage of Gazans—45% or even 50% by some accounts. How many Palestinians must die to accomplish the objective of Hamas “going”? Make no mistake—Hamas sees dead Palestinians as an accomplishment, a means to their ends.

How will Americans feel about our support for Israel when the number of dead exceeds 50,000? 100,000?

An action that is presently going on in Israel’s war with Hamas is an excellent illustration of the Clausewitzian concept of the “fog of war” or uncertainty in war. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is presently assaulting the Al Shifa hospital in the north of Gaza. One portrayal of the events (Human Rights Watch, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Al Jazeera, etc.) is that the Israelis are committing war crimes by the attack. The other (Foundation for Defense of Democracies, U. S. intelligence, the Times of Israel, the Wall Street Journal, etc.) say that Hamas is using the hospital as a base of operations and weapons storage facility and, from some sources, that the IDF is taking fire from the hospital and actively preventing patients and staff from evacuating the hospital.

Which is true? Either? Neither? Both? I have no idea. The only observations I can make are:

• Hamas has a documented history of doing precisely what has been alleged of their use of the hospital
• The IDF does not appear to be leveling the hospital
• If, for example, Hamas’s main command and control facility is in or underneath the hospital, it is a completely legitimate target, especially if care is taken to avoid killing or injuring civilians
• You might not know that from reading many major media outlets

Reuters
Al Jazeera
Times of Israel
Wall Street Journal

Two concluding points. Hamas fighters are primarily irregulars. As such they are not protected under the laws of war. And Israel is fighting on two fronts. It is fighting a pragmatic war and an information war. It appears to be doing well on their pragmatic war but may be losing their information war. They may have decided that they don’t care. That would be on-brand.

The editors of the Chicago Tribune make a plea for reducing the federal deficit:

The yearly deficit has topped $1 trillion — once a nearly unimaginable figure — now for several years running. It was $1.7 trillion in the fiscal year just concluded, and the financial world barely cocked an eyebrow. The federal government has no problem floating debt; the dollar remains strong.

This won’t last. Even America, as economically powerful as it is, can’t run on a credit card forever.

and

Many won’t remember, but the 1980s featured several deficit-reduction efforts involving budget hawks from both parties. There was 1985′s Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, which sought to tamp down the large deficits during the Reagan era. That didn’t work, but Clinton-era tax increases combined with the economic boom of the 1990s produced budget surpluses.

Since the dawn of the 21st century, however, a combination of ill-advised tax cuts, wars and economic crises and pandering to big-spending progressive agendas have brought deficit spending back with a vengeance. The bipartisan rump groups of the ‘80s weren’t particularly successful, but that doesn’t mean such an effort couldn’t be now.

As was the case nearly four decades ago, lawmakers from both parties have to buy into the project in order for it to have any chance to succeed. Likewise, the president has to provide vocal support, spending political capital to give it momentum.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, federal insurance programs whose spending is on autopilot, will have to be part of any cuts, since together they account for 45% of federal outlays. Those safety-net programs have proven to be political “third rails,” so any trims to them likely would have to be needs-based.

Remarks like these always remind me of Augustine of Hippo’s prayer: “Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet.”

I opposed the Bush tax cuts. I opposed the Trump tax cuts (except for the cut in the corporate income tax which was a necessity). I support decreases in federal spending including the Department of Defense but I also support reducing its mission commensurately.

I do not think we’re going to reduce the deficit while Republicans still believe that all tax cuts pay for themselves and Democrats believe that deficit spending always stimulates the economy. I do not think we’re going to reduce the deficit in an election year.

I think we should reduce the deficit and this graphic from the Federal Reserve illustrates why:

The higher the debt grows the more difficult it will be for growth to offset it..

I just don’t think we’ll do it yet.

At RealPolitics they excerpt a snippet from an interview of David Sacks in The Hill’s podcast, that may deserve some consideration:

So what you see now is there is no agreement within even the Ukrainian senior leadership, between Zelnsky and his advisors, and between Zelensky and his top general, about what is happening in the war.

I think now the truth has broken out, which is that Ukraine is not winning this war, the counteroffensive has been a failure, and if they don’t start doing something different, they’re headed for disaster.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY: Why do you think we’re getting this news now, that we’re getting the Time Magazine piece now? Certainly, circumstances on the ground haven’t been tony for Ukraine for a very long time, if ever. Do you think this is really about the United States making a choice about which of two ongoing wars it wants to throw its resources behind, and this is all being provoked by the fighting in Gaza? Or do you think it is being driven by the frustration with people inside his own regime, like this general who has been speaking out? To what do you attribute the change in tenor?

DAVID SACKS: I think that if Zelensky continues with this strategy of insisting on advances, there is a great fear on the part of the administration and within his own general corps that Ukraine will collapse.

Is he right? Is Ukraine on the verge of collapse?

Frankly, I doubt it and I suspect Mr. Sacks is misreading Ukrainian politics.

In his most recent New York Times column Tom Friedman says that it’s time for President Biden to promote a peace plan in the Israel-Hamas conflict and that it should be the plan that his predecessor called for in 2020:

Biden needs to say: “Israel, we are covering your flank militarily with our two aircraft carriers, financially with $14 billion in aid, and diplomatically at the U.N. The price for that is your acceptance of a peace framework based on two states for two indigenous peoples in Gaza, the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel. This plan is based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, which was also the cornerstone for negotiations in the peace plan put forward by President Trump in 2020.

“Bibi, do you remember what you said about that Trump plan that gave Palestinians about 70 percent of the West Bank for a state, plus an expanded Gaza Strip and a capital in the area of Jerusalem?” Biden could add. “Here’s the Associated Press story of Jan. 28, 2020, to remind you: ‘Netanyahu called it a ‘‘historic breakthrough’’ equal in significance to the country’s declaration of independence in 1948.’”

The Palestinian Authority foolishly rejected the Trump plan outright, instead of asking to use it as a starting point. This is a chance to make up for that mistake — or be exposed as unserious.

There are times when I wonder what opinion writers are smoking and this may be one of them. Several questions come to mind:

1. Does Mr. Friedman remember Harry Truman’s remark from back in 1952? “If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat.” In that light does he really think that Mr. Biden would advocate a plan proposed by Donald Trump?
2. Doesn’t that fly in the face of what President Biden has been saying since the beginning of the conflict?
3. Is this really the time to promote a peace plan? Specifically, is calling for a peace plan when the fate of the hostages Hamas seized on October 7 is still up in the air?
4. Would either the Israelis or the Palestinians support such a plan? There’s reason to believe that both groups see a two state solution as unworkable.
5. What good would a two state solution do if significant minorities in both camps are willing to oppose the other violently?

and that’s just off the top of my head.

The editors of the Washington Post exhort Senate Democrats to accept House Speaker Johnson’s proposal for preventing a federal government partial shutdown:

There’s much to dislike about Mr. Johnson’s plan for navigating the House Republicans’ internal divisions while preventing a shutdown, including its ungainly nickname, “a laddered continuing resolution.” As the moniker suggests, the plan would pass one short-term package to fund the military and veterans programs, agriculture and food agencies, and the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development until Jan. 19 and another to fund everything else until Feb. 2.

This sets up an ugly spending fight early next year, and it offers no additional aid for Israel and Ukraine — which the Biden administration urgently wants. Gimmicky as it is, though, Mr. Johnson’s proposed two-step increasingly looks like the best of many terrible options. Passing something like it averts a crisis and keeps the government funded at current levels through the holidays. It would also give the new speaker a very small victory as he gears up for tougher fights ahead. Getting the big funding bill done (for now) would let Congress use the rest of the year to focus on Israel and Ukraine. In short, it buys time for veteran lawmakers to try to find a way forward between two groups: far-right House Republicans, who say they will vote only for budget bills that slash domestic programs by at least 8 percent, and pretty much everyone else, who prefer to stick with the deal President Biden and Mr. McCarthy made in May. That agreement would keep spending essentially unchanged in 2024.

Senate Democrats are wise to express “openness” to this House GOP idea. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he supports it. House Democrats and the White House, at least behind closed doors, should do the same.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues and the war between Israel and Hamas intensifies, the world needs U.S. leadership. Shutting down the government, even briefly, would create a distraction for the Biden administration and undercut this nation’s credibility. On top of that, the U.S. creditworthiness is at stake. All three of the top credit rating agencies have now cited U.S. political dysfunction — including repeated shutdowns or near-shutdowns — as a reason to think twice about the nation’s future ability to manage its debts. The last near-shutdown, in September, triggered higher borrowing costs for weeks. If Republicans truly want to cut costs, they could start by avoiding these crises.

The passage I would like to focus on is the one I’ve highlighted. Is that actually true? Can you provide an example since 1995 in which U. S. leadership was a critical factor in preserving justice or maintaining the peace? I can’t come up with one. I would like to think of the United States as a force for good in the world but, frankly, I don’t think that’s been the case for a while.

That’s not a rhetorical question. I would really like to be proved wrong.

I recommend you read Yulia Latynina’s take on the war in Ukraine at The Hill. If you’re not familiar with her work she is a libertarian and is opposed to Russia’s war in Ukraine. She’s been declared a foreign agent by the regime. Here’s the conclusion of her piece:

Still, in Ukraine, the political reckoning for the failed summer offensive is coming. Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny, just admitted that the war is at a stalemate, and Oleksiy Arestovich — formerly an advisor to the president, brilliant and eccentric, who had an almost magic sway on the crowds in the first months of war — has just launched his presidential campaign with a hitherto taboo suggestion that Ukraine can forgo occupied territories in exchange for joining NATO. It was this breaking of ranks that prompted Zelenskyy’s desperate speech about “divisive manipulations.”

While Ukrainian democracy, wounded and traumatized, is slowly waking to the unpalatable truth, the Russian dictator lives in an alternate reality in which he is fighting a world war against America — and winning.

In the piece she comments on a number of developments of which I was unaware. Very imformative.

On Friday my wife and I went to see Donizetti’s 1840 comic opera at Lyric Opera. It was enormous fun. Neither my wife nor I had ever seen the work staged before and we both enjoyed it. The music—principals, chorus, and orchestra were uniformly excellent.

I don’t have words of praise strong enough for our Marie, sung by Lisette Oropesa. She was exceptional in every way from her singing through her acting to her physicality. She was simply brilliant and I hope we hear her again in something soon. Lawrence Brownlee did a fine job of singing the grueling role of Tonio (ten high Cs in a single aria!).

Hannah Edgar declaims:

Oropesa has sung Marie before — opposite Brownlee, no less, including a 2016 Washington National Opera production now famous for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cameo appearance as the Duchess of Crakentorp. Gawky and tomboyish, Oropesa’s Marie owns “Régiment’s” most hilarious and most vocally sublime moments. Oropesa’s coloratura stylings have a sturdy backbone, easily carrying over the orchestra and through the hall. Her upper register is tenacious, too — twice in this staging, Oropesa has to hit high notes while being hoisted in the air by castmates. Hearing her, one would never guess she was being tossed around like a Raggedy Ann doll while slugging out Ds above the staff.

Oropesa has sung Marie before — opposite Brownlee, no less, including a 2016 Washington National Opera production now famous for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cameo appearance as the Duchess of Crakentorp. Gawky and tomboyish, Oropesa’s Marie owns “Régiment’s” most hilarious and most vocally sublime moments. Oropesa’s coloratura stylings have a sturdy backbone, easily carrying over the orchestra and through the hall. Her upper register is tenacious, too — twice in this staging, Oropesa has to hit high notes while being hoisted in the air by castmates. Hearing her, one would never guess she was being tossed around like a Raggedy Ann doll while slugging out Ds above the staff.

It’s been 50 years since Lyric has produced Daughter of the Regiment.

Kyle MacMillan reports:

This presentation is a revival (directed by Christian Räth) of a co-production of the Royal Opera in London, Vienna State Opera and Metropolitan Opera in New York that was overseen by one the most talented and successful directors of our time, Laurent Pelly.

Rather than try to impose some kind of unnecessary, burdensome theatrical construct or concept onto this opera, Pelly has done what he always does so well, connect with the essence of this opera in an original, down-to-earth and delightfully entertaining way.

Nothing is ever static here. This production bustles with energy and movement (credit is also due to the original choreographer, Laura Scozzi), with, for example, the soldiers shuffling, clambering and marching to and fro and recoiling en masse and offering group double-takes to all that is happening.

and

A Lyric regular and understandably so, Corbelli is a superbly gifted comic actor who lights up the role of the lovable and grandiosely mustachioed Sulpice with his flawless French, boundless verve and burnished baritone voice.

Brownlee is particularly acclaimed as a bel canto interpreter, and it’s not hard to understand why. He shows an innate affinity for Donizetti’s vocal lines, investing his arias with compelling expressiveness and displaying dazzling technique as he hit every high note and garnered sustained ovations along the way Saturday evening.

The ultimate star of the show, though, is Oropesa, an American soprano who is making her Lyric debut. An innate physical comedian with a comfortable, compelling stage presence, she is a complete natural as Marie.

Oropesa has a supple, agile soprano voice, with a winningly honest and direct style. Seemingly unfazed by the vocal or physical demands of this role, this indefatigable singer handles its legendary coloratura with eye-opening ease and aplomb. Expect to see Oropesa back as soon as Lyric can re-sign her.

It’s been a while since we’ve had a star of Ms. Oropesa’s caliber at Lyric.

The Daughter of the Regiment is stunning and joyful, hilarious and fabulous, gorgeous and exquisite, clever and poignant. The music is beautiful. The arias soar. The performances are unforgettable. The orchestra’s terrific. It sounds fantastic and looks amazing. And above all, it is just pure fun. Undeniable, absolute fun. If you’re looking for an opera you can love, this is it.

Every review I’ve found recommended the production very highly.

Is it my imagination or are people energetically pursuing solutions to the problems they wish they had rather than the problems they actually face? Consider this characterization Sec. Blinken’s remarks last week by the editors of the Wall Street Journal:

Speaking in Tokyo last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken laid out five “Nos”: “No forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. . . . No use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or other violent attacks. No reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. No reduction in the territory of Gaza.”

Assuming that’s a fair characterization, it certainly appears to me that all parties are solving the problems they want to solve rather than the ones they have. Sec. Blinken is trying to achieve amity between an Israel different than the one that exists and a Hamas different from the on that exists, Israel is attacking a Gaza that does not exist while Hamas attacks an Israel that does not exist. The editors are criticizing a Biden Administration that does not exist:

While Biden Administration pessimism led it to withdraw from Afghanistan and surrender the territory, 6,000 miles away, to the Taliban, Israel doesn’t have that option. Gaza is next door. Ensuring “no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism” will require a decisive Israeli victory and more flexibility than “Nos” and “Musts” allow.

What exists? The agenda in Israel is controlled by a minority that believes that not only do they have a right to all of the land of Palestine (including present Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and more) but a religious obligation to those lands. Hamas believes that they have a right to all of the land of Palestine and a religious obligation to kill Jews and expel them from Palestine as “colonizers”. And the Biden Administration, rather than being pessimistic or soft on Iran, thinks in terms of nostrums and platitudes with an eye focused unswervingly on the next election.

I wish I saw a benign realworld solution to all of the problems but I don’t. I suspect that either the problems won’t get solved or the solutions won’t be benign.