Israel: what’s next for the remaining hostages and for the war?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an extremely touching and difficult interview with a recently released hostage. This man looks haunted, like a man come back from the dead. The first group of hostages never looked or sounded like this.

He also discovered, after his return, that his wife and two teenage daughters were murdered by Gazans on October 7. What a homecoming.

You probably are also aware that Israel is now saying that the second part of the deal is off, or postponed, because Hamas rejected the US’s Witkoff plan. Also, Israel has stopped aid to Gaza. However, the latter hardly matters for now, because Gaza has gotten tons of aid recently and has enough supplies to last for months.

Your guess is as good as mine – or anyone’s, really, on what will happen next. So sorry – I can’t answer the question I posed in the title of this post.

Video and the shaping of the propaganda narrative, on Trump and Ukraine and otherwise

The New Neo Posted on by

What could be more real and more true than video as a record of what happened? And now that video is so ubiquitous, shouldn’t it mean that we get closer to the truth?

Well, yes and no. Obviously, if AI fakes get so prevalent and so good that we can’t tell the difference, the answer will be “no.” And there’s also Pallywood, which stages events with fake characters to push, often very successfully, the angle that Palestinians favor. The latter is all the more convincing because it has the appearance of being a truthful account of real events and is shown on cooperative news stations.

But even with real video of real events that happen to real people, the answer is often “no” because truncated video can be used to shape whatever narrative the press (or other dispenser of information) wishes to highlight. In fact, for the most part, truncated video must be used because the vast majority of people will not be willing to watch the whole thing, unedited. So what story gets out about an incident depends, for the majority of watchers or listeners, on what the media or the commentators decide to show and how they decide to describe it.

Needless to say, the recent meeting among Zelensky, Trump, and Vance is a case in point, and a rather powerful one. By the time the proceedings fell apart in anger and cross-talk – which they did – it was the last ten minutes or so of a much longer event. And that event was only the most recent episode in a much longer series of events. This was supposed to be a meeting around the signing of an agreement that had been a while in the ironing-out, with quite a few back-and-forth reversals by Zelensky along the way. Obviously, no such signing ended up happening around this meeting, and the press has run with the story ever since, in hopes of conveying and deepening two perceptions of both Trump and Vance: they are clumsy bullies, and they are pro-Putin.

Here’s a pretty good – and fairly short – discussion of some of the backstory about the meeting:

And you would also do well to watch or read what Rubio has to say on the subject; I already wrote a post about that. For example, he said the following:

[Y]ou guys only saw the end. You saw what happened today. You don’t see all the things that led up to this, so let me explain. The President’s been very clear; he campaigned on this. He thinks this war should have never started. He believes – and I agree – that had he been president it never would have happened. Now here we are. He’s trying to bring an end to this conflict. We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to a negotiating table. We want to explore whether peace is possible. They understand this. They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests.

That was all explained. That was all understood. And nonetheless, for the last 10 days in every engagement we’ve had with the Ukrainians there’s been complications in getting that point across, including the public statements that President Zelenskyy has made. But they insisted on coming to D.C. This agreement could have been signed five days ago, but they insisted on coming to Washington and there was a very – and should have been a very clear understanding: Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work. President Zelenskyy took it in that direction and it ended in a predictable outcome as a result. It’s unfortunate. That wasn’t supposed to be this way, but that’s the path he chose, and I think, frankly, sends his country backwards in regards to achieving peace, which is what President Trump wants at the end of the day – is for this war to end. He’s been as consistent as anyone can be about what his objective is here. …

. But again, when you have comments that deliberately – appear to be deliberately – I mean, after having discussed this repeatedly, deliberately appear to be geared towards making the argument that peace is not possible.

What percentage of people know any of that? Rubio has gone on several news programs to explain, but I very much doubt most people who will see the videos of the arguments at the meeting will hear Rubio’s background information. Those who already hate Trump and believe he’s been “Putin’s puppet” from the start will see the video as more evidence and Rubio’s efforts just an attempt at coverup and damage control. And even many people who are willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt may conclude something similar. This was also a golden opportunity for the press and the Democrats to tar Vance with the same brush.

How many people will watch the full video? Relatively few, I believe. Here’s an interesting take on the full video, by a guy who does body language analysis. However, here it’s not just body language being analyzed, although there’s that -but there’s also a lot more. I actually watched the whole thing even though it’s long. You can just watch just the parts that interest you, of course, but the whole thing is quite riveting IMHO:

I don’t think it’s clear what will come of this entire episode. It may end up being just a blip on the radar screen. Will Zelensky ultimately sign on the dotted line? Will Trump keep the offer open? What of Putin? Are Europe’s promises of backing empty, or meaningful? Just to take the example of Britain, two days ago Starmer warmly welcomed Zelensky and said he has “”full backing across the United Kingdom.” Today Starmer said:

In a statement to MPs, Sir Keir said ‘nobody wants to see’ the kind of clashes that happened between Volodymyr Zelensky and Mr Trump on Friday.

But he made clear that the US president’s desire for peace was ‘sincere’, saying it is now for Western allies to come up with a realistic plan and ‘win the peace’.

Asked about claims Mr Trump is discussing axing military aid for Ukraine, Sir Keir said: ‘As I understand that is not their position.’

What more, from Zelensky:

Mr Zelensky has … [moved] to cool the feud, heaping praise on the support the US has given up to now.

He also told reporters after the summit that Ukraine was still ‘ready to sign’ the minerals deal, and he is ready to return to the Oval Office for discussions.

But the original meeting occurred because he said, after much back-and-forth, that he was ready to sign. He obviously was not; he was ready to tell the world why he wouldn’t sign. One thing I assume is that, if such a deal were to be signed in the future, Trump would make sure to have it happen before any ceremonious celebration of the signing.

NOTE: I don’t believe Zelensky was especially influenced by some talk with people on the left shortly before the meeting that convinced him to do this. I think, if such talk did occur (and it might have), it was in line with what he had already wanted to do and planned to do.

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s going to be ending oof mine day, excpt before finhish I amm reading thjs fantastic paragraph too iimprove my knowledge.

Why do bots misspell things so often? I don’t think it’s just ignorance of the English language on the part of the people who write the programs, although there may be that, too. Is it an effort to evade detection? Seems to me that it’s actually a “tell” that it’s a bot.

By the way, I found a few bona fide comments trapped in the spam filter and just liberated a few of them. Please let me know in the future if your comments are failing to appear.

What Rubio has to say about the meeting with Zelensky

The New Neo Posted on by

I just saw this post at Legal Insurrection which features an interview with Rubio and a transcript. Well worth watching or reading.

Here’s an excerpt from Rubio’s remarks:

… [Y]ou guys only saw the end. You saw what happened today. You don’t see all the things that led up to this, so let me explain. The President’s been very clear; he campaigned on this. He thinks this war should have never started. He believes – and I agree – that had he been president it never would have happened. Now here we are. He’s trying to bring an end to this conflict. We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to a negotiating table. We want to explore whether peace is possible. They understand this. They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests.

That was all explained. That was all understood. And nonetheless, for the last 10 days in every engagement we’ve had with the Ukrainians there’s been complications in getting that point across, including the public statements that President Zelenskyy has made. But they insisted on coming to D.C. This agreement could have been signed five days ago, but they insisted on coming to Washington and there was a very – and should have been a very clear understanding: Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work. President Zelenskyy took it in that direction and it ended in a predictable outcome as a result. It’s unfortunate. That wasn’t supposed to be this way, but that’s the path he chose, and I think, frankly, sends his country backwards in regards to achieving peace, which is what President Trump wants at the end of the day – is for this war to end. He’s been as consistent as anyone can be about what his objective is here. …

. But again, when you have comments that deliberately – appear to be deliberately – I mean, after having discussed this repeatedly, deliberately appear to be geared towards making the argument that peace is not possible. Again, I turn to the – he turns to the Vice President: What kind of diplomacy are you talking about? Almost as if to say, these people, you can’t deal with them; we can’t – you can’t have any negotiations with Putin because he can’t be trusted and you’re just wasting your time on negotiations. Well, he’s directly, basically, undermining everything the President has told him he’s trying to do.

Look, there’s no need for that. You start to suspect, does he really want an end to this war? Does he just think that we have to do whatever he says and give him anything he wants without any end game? That was the Biden strategy. That was the Biden strategy. We were funding a stalemate. We were funding a meatgrinder. And unfortunately for the Ukrainians, the Russians have more meat to grind, and they don’t care about human life. …

What I have doubts about is whether he’s willing to say and do the things that we need in order to get a negotiation. Again, you – this has been going on for 10 days, and to see things in the press saying we’re not coordinating with the Ukrainians, that’s absolutely false. Over the last 10 days the Ukrainians have met with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, the Vice President of the United States, had a phone call with President Trump, and he was in the Oval Office today. I’ve talked to the foreign minister of Ukraine three times in the last 10 days. The argument that we’re not engaging – but yet you keep reading these press accounts about, oh, well, they’re leaving us out, we’re not involved, we’re not engaged. None of these things are true and it continues.

So all that led up to today and a deep sense of frustration, and my hope is that this all can be reset and maturity can kick in and some pragmatism, because this war – tonight, people will die in Ukraine. Tonight, people will die in this conflict.

Of course, the usual coverage will skip all of this. It will just be clips of Trump and Vance being mean to poor Zelensky.

A reminder for those people who say they’ve never seen anything on the world stage like what happened yesterday with Zelensky, Trump and Vance

The New Neo Posted on by

I suggest they stroll down memory lane with me if they’re old enough – or take a look at a vignette from history if they’re not old enough. I bring you (drum roll please) that wily old showman, Nikita Khrushchev.

I was just a mere wisp of a girl, but well I remember this incident. Although there’s no footage of it and therefore I don’t remember “seeing” it, I certainly heard a great deal about it. The setting was the UN and the year was 1960:

The alleged shoe-banging incident occurred when Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, pounded his shoe on his delegate-desk in protest at a speech by Philippine delegate Lorenzo Sumulong during the 902nd Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York City on 12 October 1960.

Khrushchev at a meeting of the UN General Assembly on 22 September, three weeks before the incident
In 2003, American scholar William Taubman reported that he had interviewed some eyewitnesses who said that Khrushchev had brandished his shoe but not banged it. He also reported that no photographic or video records of the shoe-banging had been found. However, in his biography of Khrushchev, he wrote that he accepted that the shoe-banging had occurred. There is at least one fake photograph …

So we even have fake news photographs, way before AI.

More:

On 12 October 1960, head of the Filipino delegation Lorenzo Sumulong referred to “the peoples of Eastern Europe and elsewhere which have been deprived of the free exercise of their civil and political rights and which have been swallowed up, so to speak, by the Soviet Union”. Upon hearing this, Khrushchev quickly came to the rostrum, being recognized on a point of order. There he demonstratively, in a theatrical manner, brushed Sumulong aside, with an upward motion of his right arm—without physically touching him—and began a lengthy denunciation of Sumulong, branding him (among other things) as “a jerk, a stooge, and a lackey”, and a “toady of American imperialism” and demanded Assembly President Frederick Boland (Ireland) call Sumulong to order. Boland did caution Sumulong to “avoid wandering out into an argument which is certain to provoke further interventions”, but permitted him to continue speaking and sent Khrushchev back to his seat.

According to some sources, Khrushchev pounded his fists on his desk in protest as Sumulong continued to speak, and at one point picked up his shoe and banged the desk with it. Some other sources report a different order of events: Khrushchev first banged the shoe then went to the rostrum to protest. Sumulong’s speech was again interrupted. Another point of order was raised by the highly agitated Romanian Foreign Vice-minister Eduard Mezincescu, a member of the Eastern Bloc. Mezincescu gave his own angry denunciation of Sumulong and then turned his anger on Boland, his provoking, insulting, and ignoring of the Assembly President leading to his microphone being eventually shut off. This prompted a chorus of shouts and jeers from the Eastern Bloc delegations. The chaotic scene finally ended when Boland abruptly declared the meeting adjourned and slammed his gavel, named Thor’s gavel, down so hard he broke it, sending the head flying.

Pretty impressive as a public brouhaha, IMHO.

It wasn’t Khrushchev’s only such performance at the UN, either:

This incident should not be confused with an earlier one at the General Assembly, on 29 September, when Khrushchev angrily interrupted Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, banging the desk and shouting in Russian, at which Macmillan drily said “I should like that to be translated, if I may.”

Oh, for a little bit of that old-fashioned British dry humor.

More on yesterday’s Zelensky/Trump/Vance blowup: what about Europe?

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s been the news highlight ever since it happened, and although I’ve read tons of articles about it, there’s no way to read them all. In fact, as I write this, I haven’t even read all the comments here.

But naturally, I have some thoughts that I want to add to yesterday’s two posts on the subject. But first I want to point out what Victor Davis Hanson has written. That’s the link to his “X” comment, but just in case you can’t read it there easily, I’m copying and pasting it here in its entirety. Hanson is no hothead, and he’s an expert on the history of war:

Ten bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up

1. Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Penn. campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being “briefed” by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine’s as they feign.

2. Zelenskyy acts as if his agendas and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean-distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to “reset” with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone’s sake.

3. The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the U.S. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsessions, and spend 3-5 percent of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16 percent of NATO’s budget but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogues states that otherwise might interrupt Europe’s commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.

4. Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea. So, the only two issues are a) how far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders and b) how will he be deterred? The first is answered by a commercial sector/tripwire, joint Ukrainian-US-Europe resource development corridor in Eastern Ukraine, coupled with a Korea-like DMZ; the second by the fact that Putin unlike his 2008 and 2014 invasions has now lost a million dead and wounded to a Ukraine that will remain thusly armed.

5. What are Zelenskyy’s alternatives without much U.S. help—wait for a return of the Democrats to the White House in four years? Hope for a rearmed Europe? Pray for a Democratic House and a 3rd Vindman-like engineered Trump impeachment? Or swallow his pride, return to the White House, sign the rare-earth minerals deal, invite in the Euros (are they seriously willing to patrol a DMZ?), and hope Trump can warn Putin, as he did successfully between 2017-21, not to dare try it again?

6. If there is a cease fire, a commercial deal, a Euro ground presence, and influx of Western companies into Ukraine, would there be elections? And if so, would Zelenskyy and his party win? And if not, would there be a successor transparent government that would reveal exactly where all the Western financial aid money went?

7. Zelenskyy might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden Administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine: suspending arms shipments, demanding cease-fires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelenskyy. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and when visiting was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never before the global media have interrupted, and berated a host and patron president in the White House.

8. If Ukraine has alienated the U.S. what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Euros? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelenskyy’s cards he seems to think are a winning hand?

9. If one views carefully all the 50-minute tape, most of it was going quite well—until Zelenskyy started correcting Vance firstly, and Trump secondly. By Ukraine-splaining to his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naïve for such a supposedly worldly leader.

10. March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelenskyy is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in Spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in Spring 2025.

Before I had read any of that, I had already come to many of the same conclusions. In particular, I’d been thinking about numbers 1 and 3, and that’s the angle I want to emphasize here, because I think it’s the most important one of all. It involves far more than Zelensky and his actions and perceptions; it involves America’s relation to Europe post-WWII, and current changes in that relationship as envisioned by Trump.

Trump has been talking for a long time about having other NATO nations pay their fair share – and by “a long time” I mean since long before he ran for president in 2015 (I recall hearing him say it in old interview clips from when he was a youngish man). We’ve been footing the bill for an increasingly ungrateful Europe since the end of WWII, and a lot of Americans are tired of it. Europe – especially Western European leaders and their globalist supporters – looks down on Trump and his unwashed Americans, not just the MAGA folks but Americans in general. These Europeans much preferred Obama (all the way through to “Obama’s third term”) for obvious reasons. It was shortsighted of Zelensky to campaign for Harris, but not really surprising in that he correctly assumed that Trump’s election would spell trouble for him and a Harris victory would keep the money and arms flowing. The same, in a way, for western Europe, which isn’t in a hot war with Russia but which has nevertheless become somewhat dependent on American military aid while at the same time often acting critical of and superior to the US.

And so one of the main things Zelensky was doing yesterday was attempting to pivot to Europe. I believe that he even said it explicitly (although I’m having trouble finding the quote right now; perhaps you can help) – that Europe has been of more help to Ukraine than the US has. As for Trump and Vance, one of the noteworthy things about this administration so far has been Vance’s Munich speech, in which he gave Europe a tongue-lashing for, among other things, being insufficiently protective of free speech and shutting down popular parties they don’t like. Those parties tend to be MAGA-like parties, more or less, which have been rising in popularity in Europe and which threaten the current leaders whether those leaders are on the left or the right. You might say they threaten the Western European uniparty.

So no wonder the Europeans are horrified at Trump and Vance; they were already horrified about them anyway, and sympathetic to Zelensky’s position. They also would like to continue to take America’s help and look down on that help, as well as giving America advice.

And what of Zelensky and Ukraine now? I can’t predict the future, although I’m quite worried about the fate of Ukraine. I will mention, however, that this is what Zelensky is saying today, as well as what some of Europe’s “elites” are saying, and that I don’t yet hear the fat lady singing:

A Europe already rattled by Trump’s overtures to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin quickly rallied around Zelensky, with the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, saying in a statement that it’s “clear that the free world needs a new leader.”

On Saturday, Zelensky appeared conciliatory when he posted on social media after arriving in London to meet UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

“It’s crucial for us to have President Trump’s support,” Zelensky said in a series of posts on X on Saturday morning. “He wants to end the war, but no one wants peace more than we do.” …

“We are very grateful to the United States for all the support. I’m thankful to President Trump, Congress for their bipartisan support, and American people. Ukrainians have always appreciated this support, especially during these three years of full-scale invasion,” Zelensky reiterated in his posts on social media.

But he reiterated his demands for security guarantees before he signs any minerals agreement.

As I said, this doesn’t seem to be over.

More on the Trump/Zelensky/Vance blowup

The New Neo Posted on by

This is such a big story at the moment that I thought I’d start another thread for it. I’m still basically angry at all three parties, and continue to think that once it got going the much better thing to do would have been to call an end to the photo-op and go behind closed doors to try to iron it out. That way, whatever angry words were said would not be irrevocable because they would not be public, and taking them back wouldn’t be as difficult because it wouldn’t be seen as a public sign of weakness.

I also think that this goes back a ways. The genesis for Trump’s recent previous blowup at Zelensky – that he “started” the war and is a “dictator,” was sparked by the following, according to Rubio. Please watch; it’s only two minutes long. This interview with Rubio occurred about a week ago, and in it Rubio correctly states what the issues were then and what they still are now. When you look back on it you can see how prescient Rubio was about what happened today:

Here’s one take on the “who started it” question:

For those who aren’t on X, here’s a transcript (minus the videos, though):

If you watch the full Trump-Zelensky press conference, it is very clear that Zelensky, not Trump or Vance, became the antagonist. Both POTUS and VP were very respectful and cordial until Zelensky very publicly ignited a firestorm.

It all starts at 40:30

1) Zelensky essentially rejects how VP described the mandate of POTUS to conduct foreign affairs, and he insinuates that Trump term one did nothing to stop Putin.

2) He then basically tells Vance that his ideas are faulty and that the administration’s diplomacy won’t work.

These two comments are *deliberately antagonistic.* Everything was all well and good, but Zelensky took two major shots in a public forum, and they had to respond. And respond they did.

Recall, this is the guy who interfered in our electoral politics and called VP “too radical,” and bashed Trump in an interview with New York Mag weeks before the election.

Zelensky is ENTIRELY at fault here. 100%.

Here’s a similar breakdown of the breakdown:

Here my observations on Z’s comments/mindsets:
1. Z says in the first 2 minutes, “No concessions to Putin, he is a killer, a terrorist.”
2. He does not shake his head “yes” when T is talking about getting a deal done as he does when T praises soldiers and UK people.
3. It starts to get dicey when Z says Europe gave as much as US at 12:18.
4. Z starts to be antagonistic at 24:00 when he says that Putin broke ceasefire while T was president.
5. Z says “this document…will not stop Putin” at 26:30 and that Putin, since he started the war, needs to pay for it. (Doesn’t this undermine the whole basis of the negotiation?)
6. “You have big nice ocean, yes…but Putin does not want to stop….your soldiers will fight” at about 32:00.
7. At 40:00 “Nobody stopped him (when T was president)…We signed a ceasefire and Putin still invaded. So, what kind of diplomacy are you talking about (to JD)…Z says “you have the ocean but you will feel it…you will influence.” And, then it all goes to hell and Z continues to interrupt and T loses it…all goes to shit. …

Based on Z’s comments, tone of voice, and posture (crossed arms, etc.), I think Z had already decided not to accept the deal. His argument seems to be, it doesn’t matter our current (weak) negotiating position, Russia/Putin is a killer and we want enough money from EU and US affect “defeat” of Russia (which I guess means R out of Crimea and Donbas). I think this is why T thinks Z is not ready for peace. It’s sad.

Personally, I think Russia invading Ukraine at all was terrible, but T can’t rewrite history and end the killing. He can only work with the current situation and get a negotiated peace where, like in any negotiation, no one comes away with everything they want.

This may indeed be a correct interpretation. But it’s not the way half of America – and the MSM, and Europe – will see it. Whatever Zelensky said, Trump and Vance should have kept their anger under check and gone behind closed doors, as I already staated. Not everything has to be transparent and public. On the other hand, there’s plenty of reason to wonder about Zelensky and his motives. He can’t be trusted.

The IDF issues its report on how and why Israel failed to prepare for 10/7

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a summary. An excerpt:

The investigations found that the State of Israel, including both political and defense echelons, believed or carried out the following, due to their perception of Gaza:

Over the past decades, Israel considered the threats from Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon to be the priority, while the Gaza Strip was secondary. …

Israel chose to “manage the conflict” with Hamas, to create long periods of quiet, under the false presumption that the terror group was uninterested in a large-scale war. There were no plans to conquer the Gaza Strip in a war, and there were no plans to reach a full diplomatic agreement with the terror group either, but rather return to normalcy after periodic escalation. Israel believed that leveraging improved civil conditions in Gaza would make Hamas less likely to launch a war. …

The threat of a surprise and wide-scale attack from Gaza was not perceived as realistic by the IDF, due to a major gap in Israel’s understanding of Hamas. The IDF believed Hamas to be a limited threat, in the event of it responding to incidents, rather than taking initiative. …

The most significant threat from the Gaza Strip, as seen by the IDF at the time, was rocket fire. At the same time, Hamas’s invasion capability was seen by the military as very limited, due to Israel’s advanced border fence and the false belief that the IDF had successfully destroyed significant elements of the terror group’s tunnel networks in the 2021 Gaza War. …

Israel’s fence on the border with the Gaza Strip was not intended to prevent a large-scale invasion, but to handle rioting on the border, and delay or disrupt limited infiltration attacks. …

Israel’s perceptions of Gaza were “rooted and deep.” Over the years there were no meaningful attempts to question the perceptions, and no proper investigation was held to think “Where are we [doing] wrong?”

I think a big part of the problem was also that Hamas was dissembling, and Israel was taken in due to wishful thinking.

Working on Gerard’s poetry book leads me to thinking about Emily Dickinson’s editors

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s step away from politics for a moment.

Lately I’ve been working hard on Gerard’s poetry book. I’ve discovered that editing poetry is different than editing essays – in some ways easier and in some ways more difficult. And of course I can’t ask Gerard for help, although it might be a novel idea to go to a medium with the question: “In this particular poem of yours, did you mean to leave out the period at the end? Poetic license and all that?”

So I just have to wing it. Emily Dickinson’s editors had the same questions, I’m sure, and the very first efforts at editing her work has since sparked controversy:

The poems published then were usually edited significantly to fit conventional poetic rules. Her poems were unique for her era; they contain short lines, typically lack titles, and often use slant rhyme as well as unconventional capitalization and punctuation. Many of her poems deal with themes of death and immortality (two recurring topics in letters to her friends), aesthetics, society, nature, and spirituality.

Although Dickinson’s acquaintances were most likely aware of her writing, it was not until after she died in 1886 – when Lavinia, Dickinson’s younger sister, discovered her cache of poems — that her work became public. Her first published collection of poetry was made in 1890 by her personal acquaintances Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Mabel Loomis Todd, though they heavily edited the content.

Gerard led a life so different from Dickinson’s as to be almost its polar opposite. And he certainly didn’t write 1800 poems, as she did; I don’t envy her editors that task. But his themes also are primarily (although not entirely) death and immortality, nature, and spirituality.

When he and I talked about poetry, Gerard often said he admired Dickinson. And I discover, as I delve more deeply into his work, that sometimes in his shorter poems I see distant echoes.

I also had to decide, as with the essay book, whether to include photos. Gerard loved the visuals and when he published poems or essays on his blog they always included beautiful photos. I can’t use the same photos for various reasons, so if I use photos in the book I must either use my own, or photos available without copyright. So it would be easier, and the book could be sold more cheaply, if I left out the photos. But I find that, without them, the work just doesn’t look like Gerard’s. The poems look like they’re missing something.

So now I’m working on the visuals to match the poems. My guess is that the book will be available for sale in a month or two. Whether there will be as many takers as there were for the essay book I really don’t know; what do you think?