In this week's @WCrowdsLive essay, I make the case for hypocrisy in foreign policy, not because hypocrisy is good but because it is better than the alternative. I wish it were otherwise but apparently it's not. 1/x
As I finish a book about rethinking democracy promotion for the post-Trump era, I've been struggling with the question of hypocrisy. It's unavoidable now that the gap between words and deeds has returned with Biden, which is both bad and good. 2/x
The hypocrite has always been a subject of fascination, not merely because he is bad. Mere badness is pedestrian. The hypocrite is different (and worse) because of his ostentatious morality. But should a hatred of hypocrisy be applied to countries and not just individuals? 3/x
Liberal democracies, despite—or due to—being more moral, are especially prone to hypocrisy. Because they legitimate themselves on normative grounds, liberal societies "present themselves as better than they are." 4/x
With Trump, we had something of a natural experiment. For the first time in my life, the gap between words and deeds was basically eliminated. We didn't even have a president who *pretended.* Trump was our first anti-hypocrite on foreign policy, but is anti-hypocrisy better? 5/x
Under no illusions about American interest in their plight, dissidents in the Middle East could adapt their activism accordingly and focus exclusively on their own local context. In his honest and frank disregard, Trump was simply incapable of betraying them. 6/x
There is a reason that Francois Le Rochefoucauld said "hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."
But it's a brilliant, tour-de-force of argument. A reminder, if one was needed, of why @dmarusic is one of the most challenging and original American essayists around
This is what I hope we can do more of at @WCrowdsLive—to find new and interesting ways of disagreeing. And use our disagreements to get to the bottom of *why* we disagree. How do we come to believe the things we believe?
When @dmarusic & I get in debates, we often find ourselves ending up at the most foundational question of all: the existence of God, because it is difficult to disentangle morality from the divine. Ostensibly, God shouldn't figure too much into our policy assessments of Gaza...
By popular demand, we've decided to un-paywall my piece "I'm Angry About Palestine. Should You Be?" for a day. I didn't really write it for the public, but what the heck.
This is a more personal essay on what I was thinking and feeling last week as I was trying to making sense of the news in Gaza. It's as honest a piece as I could have written. I look forward to sharing it with more of you.
My piece was inspired in part by two old, estranged friends: Christopher Hitchens and Edward Said. Here, Hitchens' moral clarity cuts through. It's a beautiful passage.
If you missed it, my new @BrookingsFP piece on how Arab regimes mastered the art of not caring about the Palestinians while pretending to care about them. But this isn't new. Decades ago, Anwar el-Sadat was the pioneer of a separate peace
The Trump administration was right that Arab nations could be peeled off the Palestinians one by one, but it was building on an old idea with a storied history. Camp David is almost unanimously seen as Carter's great achievement, but there was a dark side.
For the best account on how Camp David was the first, original step in sidelining the Palestinians, see @SethAnziska's brilliant book based on original archival research—'Preventing Palestine': amazon.com/Preventing-Pal…
If you missed it, here's my latest in @TheAtlantic. This is my attempt to carefully outline my position on Gaza and lay out the broader context that brought us here. There are two conflicting narratives. I try to make sense of where they diverge.
If you look at the Gaza crisis in a vacuum—as if there is no history and as if context is irrelevant, you'll come to certain conclusions, but they will be based on misleading premises. The question has to be: why now? And what are the "sources" of the conflict?
There is a danger in talking about "root causes." People will accuse you of justifying Hamas' actions. But it should be possible to do two things—to believe Hamas is committing war crimes, while also recognizing that the current crisis didn't appear from the sky unannounced.
In Gaza, the death toll is up to 119, including 31 children. All just in the matter of a few days. This is the "proportional" response we keep hearing about.
In the last Gaza war, which lasted 7 weeks, around 100 of the over 700 Palestinians killed were children. So this is not new. If anything, it could become worse.
Yet Palestinians face indignity not just in life but in death. It's not Israel's fault, according to this particular narrative. Palestinians brought this upon themselves. They are being blamed for being killed.
Israel's "generous offer" to Palestinians is the myth that will never die. I've never met a single Palestinian who thinks the offer was "generous." Presumably what they think matters. Unless one thinks that there's something fundamentally irrational about Palestinians as a people
Israel's "generous offer" was not generous. But once the propaganda started (spread by Bill Clinton to deflect responsibility), it never stopped. I discuss the myth of the generous offer in this essay: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I'm glad folks are starting to say the quiet part out loud. It basically comes down to this: Palestinians don't know what's good for them. They're irrational and self-destructive. It's just a couple short steps from that to say that they deserve it. The dehumanization of a people