More reflections on Vance – and also on Rubio
I already wrote a post on Vance’s Joe Rogan appearance, but it turns out I have more to say. The more I think about Vance, the more uneasy I become.
It’s been cumulative, but the Rogan interview is somewhat of a turning point for me. Initially, I was – if not a Vance fan, exactly – of the opinion that he might gain the sort of experience as VP that would make him a good presidential candidate in 2028. He’s clearly a smart guy, and he’s had a way with words when talking to the regular press and pointing out their illogic and lies. In his debate against Tim Walz he was excellent, and he used a delicate and deft touch. Among his other assets, he has a wife who seems as though she would make a wonderful First Lady.
But in recent months, Vance’s refusal to say something about Tucker Carlson’s horrendous viewpoints has been very disquieting. Carlson isn’t just anti-Israel and a spreader of classic lies about Jews, but he’s a historical revisionist, a Qatar and Putin shill, and has become a platform for some of the worst ideas around these days. For a while, Carlson’s son worked for Vance (although he’s quit now), and it’s long been known that it was Carlson who promoted to Trump the idea of Vance as VP. So in a very real way Vance owes his present job to Carlson.
That meant that there was a simple explanation for Vance not speaking out against Carlson as Trump had. That reason was loyalty. Blind and unwavering loyalty is not necessarily a good thing, but as long as Vance kept neutral on the subject of Carlson, I was willing to give him a pass and to wait and see. And then Vance decided to go on Rogan’s podcast, and he began to sound somewhat like Tucker himself. Not just that, but the interview was an exercise in buck-passing, which is not a good look.
This article by Lee Smith describes it quite well:
During his grievance-fueled performance on Rogan’s podcast, Vance lashed out once again at the Jews, alleging, among other things, that there’s an Israeli-funded plot to undermine his negotiations with Iran; some Israelis want war indefinitely for the sake of endless war; and the U.S. government has probably destroyed evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad operative. …
Now that the Iran deal that Vance favored has blown up and he’s taking heat for it, he’s showing that no one puts baby in a corner. So, he resurrects Epsteingate, predictably inspiring the dumbest people in America, and around the world, to flood social media with details from an information operation targeting Trump.
Epsteingate is a reboot of Russiagate, a conspiracy-theory template holding that Trump is controlled by a foreign power. During Trump’s first term, that power was Russia. Now, in the second term, it’s Israel. Epstein became crucial to the narrative because his supposed role in running a pedophile blackmail ring at the behest of the Mossad provided a mechanism by which Israel could extort Trump and other high American officials into doing its bidding.
Smith goes on to explain why this is preposterous, but I think it’s of great interest that Vance was willing to hint at this route despite – as he himself admitted – having zero evidence of it. Vance even explicitly said that there was no evidence Trump was involved in sex with minors. But Vance has to know – unless he’s stupid, which I submit he is not – that Vance’s wink and nod about Epstein and the Mossad, and Israeli influence on the US, not only appeals mightily to the Jew-hating Tucker wing but is an indirect way of saying Trump is controlled by Israel.
I very much doubt Trump is happy about that.
More from Smith, on the origins of the story Vance is pushing or at least nodding along when Rogan mentions it:
The rumor that Epstein was a high-level global intelligence asset—as opposed to a rich pervert and con man—seems to have started with Steve Bannon, who left the first Trump White House in disgrace after leaking to the press. Bannon has ignored calls to release the 15 hours of interviews he reportedly taped with Epstein, presumably because they show Epstein was not a spy—or, at the very least, because Bannon failed to press the late sex offender to address a rumor he continues to popularize. The idea the Jewish financier pimped out underage American girls to compromise liberal elites for the purpose of advancing Israeli interests was most ardently promoted by Vance’s political patron, Tucker Carlson.
This is the Jew-hating Tucker wing. They have their own agenda, and I believe it is somewhat parallel to the DSA agenda for the Democrat Party. The goal is to take over the Republican Party. I don’t think they’ll succeed, but it won’t be for lack of trying. And now I strongly believe that Vance has hitched his wagon to him.
Vance is pragmatic, and may back off from this. It’s a long way to 2028 and a lot can happen. But he has shown, at the very least, that he’s willing to go very low in his own pursuit of power and need to excuse himself from responsibility for the failure of the negotiations with Iran.
It gets worse [emphasis in original]:
And to explain why his memorandum of understanding failed, Vance sourced the reading at a supermarket checkout counter. “There’s a literal foreign influence campaign being funded to tank the very deal that I was pursuing,” said Vance, pointing to a recent article in Time magazine. In fact, the story is about a former Trump deputy paid by Israel to pay pro-Israel influencers to post pro-Israel content, to combat the rising tide of campaigners on the right targeting Israel and paid for by Qatar.
Tom Cotton, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the media he is “not aware of any intelligence about a secret information operation to try to change American public opinion on negotiating under the memorandum of understanding.” Also, no one prevented Vance from negotiating the MOU, because it got signed. Yes, there was plenty of criticism on social media, but as Cotton said, it was the Iranians who blew up Vance’s deal by continuing to blow up ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which they declared to be their own private waterway—contrary to long-standing treaties that guarantee freedom of the seas.
But Vance insists it’s on Israel. “There are some people within their system, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, who are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely,” he told Rogan. “Not toward any objective, but just indefinitely.”
Vance challenges anyone to show how he’s antisemitic. But claiming that Israelis want war for the sake of war, indefinitely, toward no specific objective, is a pretty good place to start. Vance’s denials are part of the act: I didn’t say something recognizably antisemitic; it’s on you to prove that the classic antisemitic conceit I used is antisemitic, you paranoid freak. My point is clearly just that Israelis simply kill people for no reason or purpose because they enjoy spilling blood, and they will continue doing so forever, to satisfy their perverted, inhuman lusts.
That is the part that seems to me to be the most revealing of Vance’s actual position.
Rubio, on the other hand, seems to actually have some integrity, and to have thought more deeply on these sorts of issues. Not only that, but he has a great deal of experience in government and in particular in foreign policy. He’s the child of Cuban refugees, and knows a lot about Communism and its effects. Plus, he’s quite expert on Latin America and has been active in dealing with that part of the world.
Rubio recently gave a much-praised speech on left-wing violence (you can find the text here). And he also gave a speech in Germany against 3rd-world migration that got a standing ovation [ADDENDUM: The video at that link, of the ovation, might be of an earlier speech; hard to say, but I’ve seen some statements to that effect].
The contrast between the two men is stark.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson recently said this about J. D. Vance [emphasis mine]:
I think if JD Vance were president, of course he would not be at war with Iran.
It’s impossible for me to imagine JD Vance standing up and saying we need to have two wars to defeat a phantom nuclear program.
It’s too insane. I think he has too much self-respect to say something like that.
I wish he had been elected president in 2024, but that didn’t happen. I love JD.
I don’t agree with him on everything, of course, but I think he’s an honest, very smart, decent person. That puts him above almost all politicians I’ve ever met.
That’s an endorsement.
I followed him early on. He seemed to be Al Gore but with a different back story, an inauthentic person.
In contrast Marco Rubio isn’t a hustler on the make. He is extremely well spoken and knowledgeable and doesn’t give off the hustler’s vibe.
Truly disappointing
The more I learn of Vance, the more convinced I am that Vance is simply another Pence. Glenn Beck speculates that Trump is covertly testing both Vance & Rubio through a variation of Trump’s show, the Apprentice. Testing both men with difficult jobs with the evaluating metric being getting the job done successfully. If so, Vance failed (understandably) with Iran.
Regardless and despite that predictable outcome, Vance trying to shift blame on to Israel is an attempt to scapegoat an ally to avoid accountability. That speaks volumes and yes, it is disappointing.
Though such a politically clumsy, transparent effort to shift responsibility, calls into question both Vance’s political savvy and his character.
A far more politically astute response would have been to say something like “I felt that we had to give peace a chance’. Pres. Trump agreed to let me try. I was confident that sincerity and generosity would carry the day. I was wrong.
Negotiating directly with the Iranians opened my eyes to their fanaticism. We have to finish the job and eliminate this national security threat.”
Rubio has matured into a Statesmen. I like him a lot. He would be a much better choice to be the next President. Only problem is that a fight between Rubio and Vance would tear the party apart, leaving the Dem to cakewalk into the office.
I doubt that the DSA/Democrats can skate or cakewalk anywhere without fraud. J D Vance has passed his “sell by” date. Jew hate only gets you so far.
Um, Mr. Vance, Iran blew up the MOU. All by itself.
From my point of view at this moment, how about Rubio/DeSantis? Although DeSantis is an executive and should be put in charge of something important.
Vance is a huge disappointment and he can’t be the nominee. But stopping him will be a problem. Tucker may like him but Vance is despised by much of the Jew-hating woke right because of his marriage to an Indian and his ties to big tech. They would like to use Vance to tear apart the GOP coalition and then replace him with somebody more to their liking.
I think Trump realizes that Vance can’t be trusted and regrets his pick. Trump seems to have more faith in Rubio judging by the assignments he’s been given. I’m not sure what Vance told Trump about his disastrous negotiations with Iran but Trump can’t be happy with the results. That Vance takes no responsibility and tries to shift the blame to Israel should be the last straw.
I hope everyone has read/heard Rubio’s speech by now? It is amazing!
https://youtu.be/lA2HS41via0
Related (Rubio):
“…Marco is CRUSHING it and the whole world sees it!”—
https://instapundit.com/810993/
I have wondered who would have the stamina that Pres. Trump has. Rubio, that’s who.
I’ll agree that Rubio is, and would be, better than Vance as a front runner choice, and as President; hands down, slam dunk, shoulders above, etc.
It could be that Vance may – may – recognize that; as to whether he accepts it, or would, come nomination time, is another thing. (Rubio has certainly demonstrated mastery of task, and one of those tasks could, or would, be the offering of a sufficiently imposing position, one more strongly suited to Vance’s skills as to mollify the ego damage. There’s also Usha to consider – a fourth child is due soon, changing the family dynamic a bit more, and there’s evidence she is a great deal more than a mere spectator insofar as her husband, and his life and progress, is concerned.)
Which raises the question: who would complement Rubio as VP? I doubt it’s Vance, even if he were to accept the idea of “semi-permanent VP;” always bridesmaid but never the bride doesn’t hold much attraction for anyone, much less a sitting VP, and the primary duty of a VP is “be ready to serve should the need arise” which, since it would require a very strong committment nearly identical to Trump’s, increasingly does not look like it’s his strong suit.
Presuming Vance’s position(s) and future position(s) as other issues come along is/are accurately represented by his current talk, two questions arise. He’s an educated man and thus knows better. So…. why? And he can see with his own eyes where the US’ interests lie and they don’t lie with dissing/dumping Israel. Where the freaking freak did this come from?
I saw in interview–didn’t get the names–between two guys who were, with fake sympathy trying to make the case that the Israelis with an immense time frame to the past and to the future might, reluctantly, think that sacrificing a few young women in the now was the lesser of a bunch of evils, so Epstein did his thing and got the arm on a bunch of influential types. Hence official Israeliphilia.
Wasn’t his girlfriend’s father Israeli intel? Died while falling off his yacht or something, which would be too bad, and a start to a perfectly anonymous retirement. Depending on who thought he was no longer useful, I guess.
Intel is a stinky business at the best of times so…..Epstein fits the story.
As to “official” and “secret” efforts to influence the US public; doesn’t need to be either. Anybody can get a website going on one platform or another and fund it, to the extent it needs funding, out of personal funds and say whatever they want. And Israeli sympathizers might just do that. Questions are like….does this look official? Secret? A bad thing? Anything anybody can or should do about it?
Godwin/NYPost agreeing with Neo: https://nypost.com/2026/07/18/opinion/michael-goodwin-vances-statements-on-israel-consipiracy-theories-should-bar-him-from-being-gop-nominee-in-2028/
My oh my, how things have changed. Whereas we once had “Little Marco” to lambaste and ridicule and Vance as the heir apparent to the MAGA movement, we now have statesman Rubio and conspiracy theorist/Jew hater Vance. What has happened? In some cases the passage of time improves the product, as with a fine wine, but in others, it spoils it, as with fish left out too long in the sun. Is this the phenomenon affecting Rubio and Vance? Or is it a case of bad company (Carlson) corrupting good morals? In any case, it’s good to know what a man thinks before coming to any conclusions about his fitness for leadership. For my part, although I wish it had not become necessary to confront and defeat the islamic jihadis/twelvers ruling in Iran (something that would have better done fifty-seven years ago by declaring war on and cashiering that regime when it took hostage our embassy staff), the time to do so was drawing to a close, hastened by traitor Obama’s gifting of money and sympathy to the mullahs. The ramifications of Iran with deliverable nukes is too horrible to contemplate, so eliminating that possibility is a good thing. Any expressions of sympathy for that regime, such as coming from quisling Carlson, and weakly echoed by Vance is a disqualifier from consideration as a serious thinker and much more so as a candidate for American leadership. Perhaps we should be grateful that the exposure came soon enough to guide future decisions about electoral candidates
“Um, Mr. Vance, Iran blew up the MOU. All by itself.”
This.
And if Vance really believed Iran would ever negotiate in good faith, he is a moron, too stupid to be president.
There’s an idea circulating (saw it on YouTube I think) that sending Vance to the talks was Trump’s way of proving something either about Vance or to Vance. Plausible?
Mrs X
The idea that one’s opponent is a rational character dies hard. And when it begins to look that way, it means we don’t understand their legitimate position.
Can’t stand either party (‘Two Peas in the same Pod’), but mainly vote against Democratic party…will vote against Republican party if they run Vance in 2028.
Rubio Wikipedia:
Gaining the Presidency again—in 2028 could slow down all these far left @&!*% <?:{[$# that Neo posts about recently…including the moronic urge for Socialism.
Haven’t looked into it deeply enough yet; however, it seems Rubio could pull or peel away a lot of Latino votes from the Dems.
Everyone is focused on Vance vs Rubio, but I wonder if DeSantis may try again. Certainly a better option at this point than Vance, but even being in Florida, I think I would still prefer Rubio.
And speaking of FL, I’m getting a bit nervous about Donalds for governor, but there’s really no alternative at this point. I can’t see many people filling DeSantis’ shoes.
” . . . nervous about Donalds for governor”
How now? He’s my representative, and so far has been a decent sort, with a steady vision.
Old Town, Florida – am big supporter of DeSantis; however, he got bad advice (IMHO) when he tried to change his image (?!?!?!? – what happened to ‘just be yourself‘ – ?!?!?!?!). “DeSantis lifters” were probably the last nails in his Presidential coffin. Senate? He could win if he wanted to try it at some point.
I would’ve voted for Byron Donalds over Trump in 2024, and might have said so here in 2024. Was humble me here in 2024?!?! Geez…looks like I was…according to comments in my saved comments Folder. Must’ve been banned for longer than I thought…
Anyway, Byron Donalds has been setting himself up for a Presidential run at some point, and winning the Governor slot will set him up perfectly, IMHO. Will the GOP allow a black American to be their Presidential candidate? I’ve seen him on news and news shows and he is great at kicking their buttocks. He takes no crap and doesn’t need to fill anyone’s shoes but his own…
Think: Rubio pulls some Latino votes from Dems in 2028 and 2032. Donalds pulls some black votes from Dems in 2036 and 2040. \o/ ‘Hippity hip Hoorah‘ \o/
I will insist that people are reading things into what Vance said, rather than simply paying attention to his words. He said nothing anti-Israel in the interview. He compared them to our other allies. And is there any reason to think that those financing his opposition are not Rubio supporters? Why wouldn’t they? (Not that I suspect Marco is behind it; though some here will assume that.)
And the notion that Epstein was an asset to intelligence makes sense. Why wouldn’t intelligence agencies contact him, and use him? Remember, Mossad today has the rep that MI5 & 6 had when I was young – that of the consummate professionals.
I wish this dog-whistle type analysis would stop. (For what it’s worth, I’d prefer DeSantis to either Vance or Rubio.)
Epstein fatigue x 11. He is a dead shiny object. But highly useful for some.
Which other of our allies have said anything comparable:
Eeyore: And the notion that Epstein was an asset to intelligence makes sense. Why wouldn’t intelligence agencies contact him, and use him?
Because he was very, very “shiny.”
From the Epstein files, it seems that the DOJ intensely monitored his communications. And, short of living like Bin Laden, you can’t evade monitoring when the US intensely wants to do it.
He was anything but clandestine.
An unpopular opinion in some places is the observation that JD converted to Catholicism in 2019, but can’t convince his wife to do the same. They say they are raising their children to be Christian (or Catholic lite?). Which is as political an answer to any of the man’s faith. There are a whole lot of American’s who wouldn’t vote for the man due to his wife’s religion, just as they wouldn’t get behind Romney. JD will have a tough job winning the 2028 primary, his Tucker interviews will be the least of them.
As others note above, Rubio is turning into a statesman. A far more capable man than when he started. I’m pleasantly surprised by that turn of events.
Fredrick:
Long time gone, wandering son ( 🙂 ).
Catholicism was an issue with JFK in 1960. As to Usha’s faith, well JDV isn’t Moslem, so gentle persuasion or acceptance and respect are his likely options.
Mittens’ problems may have been a reflection of his LDS culture and faith; too nice to be tough on the “Lightbringer.”
“ A far more capable man than when he started.”
I suspect that Rubio was already very capable, but he had the cleverness to leverage the media’s antipathy to Trump to let his own light shine through! The media has accidentally allowed its TDS mania to draw their fire away from Rubio, and allow us to see him for the skilled man he is! Now, he had better be careful, because the leading minds at the NYT have to figure out how to correct the incidental good deed they have done for America.
sdferr on July 19, 2026 at 12:22 pm said:
” . . . nervous about Donalds for governor”
“How now? He’s my representative, and so far has been a decent sort, with a steady vision.”
Glad to have a neophile’s endorsement of Donalds, as the usual public exposure is often wrong or incomplete. Perhaps your endorsement even trumps Trump’s?
Wish I could be so confident of my Dist. 7 rep, Cory Mills, going forward.
Ray Van Dune on July 19, 2026 at 9:37 pm said:
“ A far more capable man than when he started.”
“I suspect that Rubio was already very capable …”
I agree. Witness his early rise throught the Florida legislature and into the Senate.
But seeing both him and Cruz jump into a presidential race in their forties further supported (in my mind) the need to amend the constitution for a modern day president’s minimum age to 50 to 55. Someone rising into the congress or a governor ship in their forties might be a flash in the pan situation, in a smaller political pond, etc. But 50+ today corresponds more closely with the experience and talents that could be viewed at age 35+ in the 1780’s. [Remembert, the talented youngsters entered college at age 16 and had state roles or law practices in their 20’s. A smaller population and selected mentoring probably helped, too. ]
Eeyore (Is, Eum):
I discussed quotes from Vance in this post and my other post on the subject, and I described what is both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic about them. He mentions Israel a great deal, and he says there are people in the Israeli government who want war for no reason and want it to go on interminably.
There is no one like that. There are people who are more hawkish and people who are less hawkish, but no one fits that description, nor does he name anyone. He keeps it quite shadowy.
In fact, that would be a good characterization of Hamas and the vast majority of the Gazan people – they want to destroy and eradicate Israel and they are willing to wage war forever to do it. October 7 was an example of that, an unprovoked attack that was hoped not just to terrorize Israel but the original hope was to destroy it (one goal was to spark the Israeli Arabs to be inspired to attack from within, and for Hezbollah to join as well). And yet Vance characterizes the desire for this interminable war for war’s sake as being people on the Israeli side. Nor does he say who they are – if you can find a quote from Vance saying they specifically are Netanyahu’s opponents, please indicate what it is. I have not seen such a quote, and I’ve read the parts of the transcript that are related to Israel. Now, it’s possible I missed the part you’re talking about, but I don’t see it (the transcript can be found here).
Also, at present Israel is far more of an ally than present-day France or the UK. Vance also compares Israel to Qatar and Russia in his interview.
You are commenting on this thread, and have also commented similarly on my other post on Vance’s Rogan interview. I don’t see how you could have read the Vance quotes here and not seen what is so wrong with what he said. I have linked to and quoted the Lee Smith piece that explains, and I’ll quote that again here:
War forever or war until the other side is totally defeated? If the other side keeps coming at you, is defending yourself trying to keep the war going forever? Or just because war’s fun? Difference. I’d like to know the context.
Is there someone in Israel who wants to take it easy on their enemies so as to always have an enemy?
Is it possible to defeat the anti-israel efforts in the Middle East? If not, if they’ll always keep coming at Israel, what does war not forever mean? Surrender? Is there some force in Israel which wants to surrender? If so, then those who differ want war to go on indefinitely. Not seeing the issue here.
AOC channels Obama’s “Hope and Change” message:
Seems it was soon after Trump won in 2024 that humble me gave an early prediction that AOC would be Dems pres candidate in 2028 and I’m still holding that prediction. GOP runs J.D. “Bootlicker” Vance in 2028 and I will vote against him…
UPDATE: “a moratorium on building the data centers powering AI” — too late for that, i.e., AI is here to stay tho it seems even some GOPers want a “moratorium”!?!
Lee Smith extrapolates from “some people within their [Israel’s] system” to all Israelis and thence to all Jews.
In other words any criticism of Israel is antisemitism, and any critic of Israel must be demonized. I’m not buying it.
— Paul in Boston
He also cosponsored the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill, and only backed off on it after he got caught by surprise in coming in #8 out of 8 choices in a New Hampshire straw poll. That bill haunted up him right up until Trump made him Secretary of State. I’ve commented before that all through the 2016 GOP primaries, whenever Rubio was on the screen base voters saw an imaginary chyron flashing ‘GANG OF EIGHT’ above his head.
Rubio has been a very pleasant surprise as SoS. He should be deeply grateful that Trump offered him a chance of political redemption, because that’s exactly what his SoS gig has been. Without it, his higher political ambitions would still be toast because of the Gang of Eight.
But would he be SoS Rubio as President, or Gang of Eight Rubio as President? We simply don’t know. As far as I’m concerned the jury is still out on Rubio, but the trend is in his direction.
— SHIREHOME
I heard exactly the same thing about deSantis and Trump in 2023. “If deSantis runs against Trump in the primaries it’ll split MAGA and the GOP and hand it to the Dems!”
Yeah, about that.
Rubio vs. Vance might or might not tear the GOP apart. It would depend heavily on what happens between now and 2028, and how it played out in practice.
— Geoffrey Brittain
😆
Vance has little in common with Pence. Pence is an Establishment Republican who talks a good game as a SoCon, but who votes/acts as the Chamber of Commerce directs when the chips are down. Vance is a serious proponent of mostly sound policies and who has a clear perception of political realities that the GOPe are in deep denial/resentment of.
One of the most important things Vance ever said is a comment in an interview that ‘most Republicans are former Democrats’. That is esp. true of the older ones. Another way to express it would be that most MAGA voters would have voted for Harry Truman or JFK in 1948 or 1960. Either way it’s a critical insight to understand how elections play out. Vance also understands that ‘the West’ is a shorthand for ‘Western Christendom’, regardless of his level of personal belief.
But his comments about Israel and Epstein are worrisome. It sounds Paleoconish.
The Paleocons are right about several things, but they often share the anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli prejudice, too. Also, it sometimes sounds as if Vance might buy into the ‘we could have peace if we just came home’ viewpoint, which is suicidal for America.
He has two and half years to recover and make a better case, but he needs to get started.
Richard, you describe the problem well.
All a person has to do is look at the map so they can see with their own eyes the size of that incorrigible, murderous, satanic, blood-sucking hegemon.
At the very least, they well know that if they truly want peace with their neighbors—TRULY—all they have to do is surrender…and agree ti disappear from same said map.
Easy.
BUT THEY DON’T WANT TO!
MFers…
Ah yes, The Gang if Eight and immigration. Until President Trump became Chief Executive the concept of actually enforcing existing immigration laws and going beyond that; to physically close the border to illegal entry, those were beyond conception.
And of course President Trump has had to fight the DSA/Democrat/NGO bureaucracy every step of the way. Not just go along to get along.
Neo, how can you be so certain that there “is no one” in the Israeli government who fits Vance’s description? Are you that intimately acquainted with all of them?
What he says about Israel are very much like things said about many countries throughout history. Including Britain and France, and for that matter, us. There is nothing unusual about that. And where does he say there is no desire for continued war on the part of the Mahometans? You are reading that in. As you are with the claim he says it is Israel alone who is undercutting us. He never said that.
“Vance challenges anyone to show how he’s antisemitic. But claiming that Israelis want war for the sake of war, indefinitely, toward no specific objective, is a pretty good place to start.” Smith made that up. That’s not what Vance said.
Again, ‘“There’s a literal foreign influence campaign being funded to tank the very deal that I was pursuing,” said Vance, pointing to a recent article in Time magazine. In fact, the story is about a former Trump deputy paid by Israel to pay pro-Israel influencers to post pro-Israel content, to combat the rising tide of campaigners on the right targeting Israel and paid for by Qatar.’ There is no contradiction there. The former Trump deputy could well want to undercut the deal.
Look, I realize that you have an emotional tie to Israel. That is natural and human. We all do. But we should try to counter that. I try to when I encounter the very common attacks on France. It is something that makes us less than impartial. Again, only human, especially in a culture like ours where taking offense is a way of life. In fact, the only country I would say we have even more of a reason to defend is Taiwan, since we put them there.
But putting together a picture because it suits how we feel is no argument.
@Eeyore (Is, Eum): Everyone here agrees in theory that antisemitism is not to be conflated with criticism of Israel. Almost everyone here would say that they themselves never ever do it.
On the other hand, you have actual antisemites doing their best to elide the distinction, and trying get their skunk stench all over everyone else, including those just trying to be fair.
I think it was good of you not to accept someone else’s characterization of Vance’s views, but instead you went to the source and tried to make full allowance for context. Even if it turns out later, with less ambiguous information, you were not right, it was good of you to try to be fair.
If he’s really as bad the people describing him to us make out, that will get clearer and clearer over time, because what I’ve observed about genuine antisemites is that they are dying to tell you what they really think and are convinced there is a large audience that secretly agrees but wishes they were brave enough to say so.
But to me it looks like the tide of open and unabashed antisemitism is rising quickly enough that this will, in the next few years, all seem trivial in comparison.
A summary of the Time article at issue, by Jerusalem Post, can be found here. Do read the whole thing, it’s too long to quote entirely.
Salem Media is of course where a lot of us get a lot of our online news: Instapundit and PJMedia, Townhall, RedState, Hot Air, Twitchy, etc.
There’s any number of foreign countries that pay American media under these kinds of arrangements, and there’s nothing nefarious about Israel doing so, they have every right. If there’s any wrongdoing here it’s Parscale’s and Salem Media’s.
It’s worth remembering that a lot of the blogs we follow, our gracious hostess excepted, are getting paid to bring things to our attention and influence us to see things a certain way. Certainly not limited to topics around Israel.
If there are people in the Israeli government who want continuous war, then there should be some who don’t. What is the picture the latter group have that makes peace nearly guaranteed? What do they have to do to get peace?
Niketas:
Exactly. Vance is disingenuous in suggesting there is something clandestine and nefarious going on. That is a tell about Vance, IMHO.
Why would anyone but the UN want continuous war? That’s what we have now. They won’t let the bad guys lose. War after war after war. Spit.
Here’s one of the problems Vance is going to have to come to grips with. There was no deal there. If the Vice President thought he could negotiate to anything that the US or Israel could accept as a future Iran, he is showing more shades of Obama– a bad deal for “peace”. How much peace was there in the years following the Obama deal? The Houthis went to war with the Saudis. Israel was constantly bombarded with rockets from the north, and Gaza erupted into a 9/11 tragedy. Those were the peace years. And by the way, the IAEA was warning the world that Iran had enriched uranium to 60% in 2022 and the amount continued to grow to the potential of 11 nuclear bombs.
The when the attack came Iran through it’s proxies bombarded Israel with projectiles, from crude rockets to more sophisticated missiles/drone.
There was never a deal to be worked out. It looks to me like Trump said give them whatever they want in the MOU to get them to a cease fire/negotiations. At that point, oil started to flow and we walked about an oil shortage that was close to being very serious. Everyone took the MOU seriously and it spelled disaster for the middle east.
I’m sorry Vance invested so much into the deal– because if he thought it was going to get to a deal that we could live with, he has no business being considered for the Presidency.
And I say this as someone that supported Vance for the VP slot, and have been waiting for him to distance himself from the anti-Israel crowd on the right. His recent comments indicate his isolationism doesn’t account for the level of threat Israel faces.
Remember back to 2006.
Hamas and Hezbollah have continued to get stronger, and the world has told Israel to show restraint. Oct. 7 changed that. So Vance was negotiating an agreement that would have just continued Iran on its trajectory of the final solution and he fails to understand why most Israelis opposed the terms that were being negotiated.
I don’t think the President ever expected the MOU to produce anything meaningful– but if it had, so much the better. But Iran, in its hatred of the West couldn’t restrain itself– even for a few months.
I don’t want any President preventing Israel from acting against it’s own survival, but that’s the point Israel is facing. And if Vance can’t see that, he certainly shouldn’t be President.
Eeyore (Is, Eum):
Your write:
There are reasons I am virtually certain. Anyone can make assertions like Vance did without naming or even describing the perpetrators of these heinous positions they supposedly hold. Of course no one can disprove such a shadowy accusation. You had said earlier that Vance had said they were Netanyahu’s opponents and I asked you to look at the transcript and say where he said that. I notice you haven’t done so. I found nothing of the sort in the Vance transcript when I looked. He keeps it completely shadowy and doesn’t describe who these people are except that they want the war to go on forever but have no goal other than being bloodthirsty killers. In other words, that they are evil. I have never seen any public utterance of any Israeli politician who indicates that sort of sentiment. They have very clear goals, although those goals sometimes differ, but the goals are to protect Israel from destruction by its enemies.
Extraordinary claims such as Vance’s require evidence, or at least that they make sense. His have no evidence and make no sense.
You write;
“People have said that about other countries” is no defense at all. People have said any number of things about just about everything under the sun. The question is whether it’s correct. Also, another question is who is saying it. Vance is saying it about our ally, and about the only Jewish nation on the face of the earth. Plus, you are creating a strawman – I never said that Vance SAID the Iranians were not at fault. But in a 3-hour interview his ire and his BLAME were reserved for the Jews and his words about Iran were relatively neutral in comparison.
You write:
He absolutely said it about the Israelis he’s criticizing and blaming. I put the quote in my post (it’s in a quote from the Lee Smith article), and it goes like this:
If you think Smith made that up, go to the transcript which you can find here. This is the quote:
You write:
See this comment of Niketas’ for a response. There is nothing nefarious there, so why would Vance even mention it? The implication is that it is nefarious and secret (he calls it “discreet” at one point): “But I definitely think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and try to derail the deal.” In other words, his wonderful deal was somehow semi-secretly undermined by these Israelis funding (with tons of money) this campaign, and he later describes these Israelis as wanting interminable war rather than merely disagreeing with Vance’s approach and thinking it is doomed.
You write:
Please stop assuming you know what motivates me, and please stop accusing me of bias. I have until very recently been a Vance supporter, and I still like many things about him. Until my political change, I was also a long-time subscriber to the “cycle of violence” theory and the “2-state solution” theory about Israel and Palestine, basically buying the idea that there was a pretty equal amount of wrongdoing on both sides. It was learning more FACTS that have convinced me otherwise.
It’s a striking contrast, how much softer the Jerusalem Post’s reporting of Vance’s appearance on Rogan is from how I’m seeing it described elsewhere, and it’s headlined thus:
A good illustration of the value of going to the source, and not just accepting someone else’s framing. If all I’d read was the Jerusalem Post article I’d be pretty surprised at the negative commentary.
1.
There seems to be some grotesque form of confusion between a) wanting to win a war AS QUICKLY AND DECISIVELY AS POSSIBLE against those who would destroy you IF THEY COULD yet when they are prevented from doing so continue to prepare for the next round of fighting, “ad infinitum”, and b) wanting to promote and precipitate so-called “forever wars” against these enemies.
There is a logical short-circuit here (as well as a bizarre deficit in reading comprehension, where one is tempted to insist, “Read that—entire— quote again”…until it becomes obvious that such a plea would be useless).
Keeping in mind that Israel has ALWAYS BEEN ADMONISHED that its response to aggression must always be “PROPORTIONAL”, which means essentially, that it is NOT PERMITTED to defeat its enemies, especially since the latter’s method of warfare—i.e., waging war from behind, or in this from case UNDER, its own civilian population—is intended to ensure the hoped-for result of maximizing its own civilian casualties.
October 7, 2023, which was not supposed to have happened—and wouldn’t have happened had Trump been president…but DID, of course, happen—CHANGED the calculus WRT Israel’s defense doctrine…or, more precisely, REVERTED THAT DOCTRINE BACK to the pre-emptive, preventative doctrine that governed Israel’s defense policies from 1948 until 1967, perhaps even until pre-October 1973, though continuing intermittently even later than that. (More accurately, one could claim that this defensive doctrine, conceived and instituted with the help of Orde Wingate, began during the mid-1930s in the pre-State Yishuv when the Great Arab Revolt erupted in British-Mandate Palestine from the mid-to-late 1930s.)
In short, what does—what CAN—PROPORTIONALITY even mean against an enemy that not only claims that its goal is your extermination but acts with some success to achieve that goal while insisting it will NEVER stop attacking until it DOES, FINALLY, achieve it?
2.
How does one reconcile the size of Israel, its reservist-based armed forces, its significantly tourism-based economy, its efforts towards improving quality of life for its citizens, the number of casualties (killed, wounded, maimed, psychologically wounded) it has taken because of this last series of wars, and all the civil, economic and diplomatic damage that that war has caused—and continues to cause.
In fact to claim that Israel—any part of it—desires “forever wars” is grossly counter-intuitive and perversely illogical.
It is, in fact, a grotesque lie.
If one were intellectually honest, one would claim that Israel’s goal is to defeat its enemies’ lust (and the assiduous planning and huge resources they are expending) for Israel’s destruction, but the goal is taking longer—much longer—than Israel would like.
Israel’s goal is to prevent its destruction.
Its enemies’ goal is to continue fighting—either via hot war or via cease-fires and diplomatic means—until Israel is destroyed.
So who, in fact, is it that’s fomenting and promoting forever wars?
@ Barry Meislin > “Israel’s goal is to prevent its destruction.
Its enemies’ goal is to continue fighting—either via hot war or via cease-fires and diplomatic means—until Israel is destroyed.
So who, in fact, is it that’s fomenting and promoting forever wars?”
Excellent summation of the situation.