"I have some further questions: Does favoring international trade make you a globalist? Does favoring alliances? Collective security? Does an interest in other peoples, other cultures, and other languages make you a globalist? Liking spicy food?"
Yes to all. Maybe even a cosmopolitan globalist, though being a Cosmopolitan Globalist takes being Claire Berlinski –
The kid has much to learn about golf, and life. What one says about the other would also be a great symposium topic. Best of luck to him from someone who still struggles with both 60+ years ahead of him.
Mr. Nordlinger, good piece. Language is often used as a political whip, and I am a big fan of understatement. If you have to use a bunch of hyperbole to prove your point, it is a weak point.
I, at this point, only support aid to Israel if it can be ascertained that they are not violating the rules of war or acting in an inhumane manner, and if they are advancing a better solution, that considers the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinians, not Hamas, but the average non political citizens who living in a police state which Hamas runs, did not ask for this war. My favorite quote is Nicholas Kristoff who said "“If your moral compass is attuned to the suffering of only one side, your compass is broken, and so is your humanity.”
I am no more a Hamas apologist than you, but I take seriously violations of conduct of war, and I think the principled conservatives, like Jonah at Dispatch, have refused to grapple with that, I have heard David French mention it, but most of what I see is cherry picking the real, but not the whole picture, apologism for the terrorists while avoiding the avoidable suffering of the civilian population. And I agree, since we are talking language, that it is not the hyperbole of genocide, which imo is a stupid argument, but neither does it make it right.
Now with the peace plan hopefully things will change, but my prior take was that before we continue to supply Israel, and, as opposed to say Ukraine, they are quite capable of defending themselves, we should make sure that there is no systematic violation of the conduct of war and that there is a minimum of civilian harm.
"I have some further questions: Does favoring international trade make you a globalist? Does favoring alliances? Collective security? Does an interest in other peoples, other cultures, and other languages make you a globalist? Liking spicy food?"
Yes to all. Maybe even a cosmopolitan globalist, though being a Cosmopolitan Globalist takes being Claire Berlinski –
https://claireberlinski.substack.com/
The kid has much to learn about golf, and life. What one says about the other would also be a great symposium topic. Best of luck to him from someone who still struggles with both 60+ years ahead of him.
Mr. Nordlinger, good piece. Language is often used as a political whip, and I am a big fan of understatement. If you have to use a bunch of hyperbole to prove your point, it is a weak point.
I, at this point, only support aid to Israel if it can be ascertained that they are not violating the rules of war or acting in an inhumane manner, and if they are advancing a better solution, that considers the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinians, not Hamas, but the average non political citizens who living in a police state which Hamas runs, did not ask for this war. My favorite quote is Nicholas Kristoff who said "“If your moral compass is attuned to the suffering of only one side, your compass is broken, and so is your humanity.”
I am no more a Hamas apologist than you, but I take seriously violations of conduct of war, and I think the principled conservatives, like Jonah at Dispatch, have refused to grapple with that, I have heard David French mention it, but most of what I see is cherry picking the real, but not the whole picture, apologism for the terrorists while avoiding the avoidable suffering of the civilian population. And I agree, since we are talking language, that it is not the hyperbole of genocide, which imo is a stupid argument, but neither does it make it right.
Now with the peace plan hopefully things will change, but my prior take was that before we continue to supply Israel, and, as opposed to say Ukraine, they are quite capable of defending themselves, we should make sure that there is no systematic violation of the conduct of war and that there is a minimum of civilian harm.
Good article. I'd like to be a "globalist," but I don't think an occasional visit to South Carolina qualifies me.
"Remember how ill educated people are."
That made me snicker.