The most dangerous enemy is an enemy that has nothing to lose

NPR host Michel Martin talked to Ami Ayalon, the former director of Shin Bet, Israel’s security service. With credentials like that one might think of not wanting to listen to him. But I heard some good things, some that I’ve been thinking about for a while. Here are some ideas and quotes from what Ayalon said: Days after the Hamas attack the Israeli Cabinet decided not to discuss the day after. But that means there is no concept of victory. To defeat Hamas there must be a win in the war of ideas. What better idea are we working for? That must be a better idea for the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

I think that most Israelis do not understand that victory for Israel is to see, on the other side of the border, a Palestinian state, because once they will have a state, they will have something to lose, and if I learn something in the Shin Bet, the most dangerous enemy is an enemy that has nothing to lose. This is exactly what we saw on the 7 of October. ... In order to defeat Hamas, the ideology of Hamas, we have to present a better future in which most Palestinians will believe.

Me talking: Jews were given the land of Israel because they were oppressed mightily under the Nazis. Yet, Israelis became oppressors of the Palestinians. I had been thinking for a long time, what would be the situation today if Israel had been kind to the Palestinians? What if Israel made sure the Palestinians had nice homes, like the homes of the West Bank settlers but without the settlers taking over the land? What if Israelis made sure the schools in Gaza were great, that the people there had what they needed to flourish on their own terms, rather than being packed into what amounts to a prison? What if the Israelis made sure the Palestinians were prosperous enough that they wouldn't want their society jeopardized by Hamas? What the world got instead is a group oppressed by supremacy becoming supremacists. Dartagnan of Daily Kos discussed the nasty guy’s big announcement on abortion he posted earlier this week and on the media’s response. Some of his points: The nasty guy never admits a mistake. He will not say he miscalculated on a pronouncement. He is not a normal candidate. Yet media outlets try to pretend he is. So if he sounds like he shifted policy it is not because he recognized the problems with what he said before. Also, outlets want a story, a “sensible, rational narrative to present to their viewers.” And they’ll make one up if they need to. Dartagnan quoted Matt Gertz (not Rep. Matt Gaetz) of Media Matters.

Major news outlets are falsely claiming that Trump said abortion “should be left to the states” in a video announcement Monday on his Truth Social platform. In fact, Trump said only that abortion “will” be left to the states, a statement of law that does not address how he would respond if Congress passed a federal abortion ban or how regulators would treat abortion under a second Trump administration.

Gertz has the receipts – a long list of media outlets, including the big ones, that feature the word “should” in their headlines instead of “will.” That different word implies the nasty guy has abandoned his desire for a national abortion ban, expressed just last month. In that big abortion video the nasty guy did not say a great many things. From Gertz:

Trump did not say whether he would sign a federal abortion ban if Congress passed it. Nor did he say whether federal regulators under his administration would move to ban medication abortions or restrict sending them through the mail, or how he will vote on the abortion referendum in his home state of Florida, or whether he will continue to appoint judges who will further curtail abortion rights.

And from Dartagnan:

So the media narrative as implied—and literally spelled out in many headlines—was wholly false. Instead, what we got were headlines that had the pernicious effect of minimizing the threat Trump actually represents, and more importantly, misrepresenting what he does or does not intend to do on abortion. ... It’s difficult to fathom why nearly every major news outlet leapt to the same erroneous conclusion about what he said, and pushed it to their viewers and readers in the exact same fashion.

I had written about the Arizona Supreme Court saying an 1864 abortion ban was valid and enforceable. Mark Sumner of Kos wrote about how things are going now.

But that same evening, when Republicans in the Arizona Legislature had a chance to address the 1864 law, they used another option—they ran for the exits. GOP lawmakers ignored votes to suspend the archaic law and instead voted to take a recess. Twice. Republicans aren’t taking immediate action. They’re not even taking less-than-immediate action. Their reaction to efforts to repeal the 1864 ban was to get out of town for the next week.

Bob Moriarity posted a cartoon by Signe Wilkinson. It shows a man holding an umbrella, not over a woman or her child, but over her pregnant belly. Ruben Bolling of Kos comics used his Tom the Dancing Bug panel to show scenes from the “Trump Illustrated Bible.” Some of them:

Marvel at the gorgeous baby Jesus! “When are the guys with the gold getting here?” Exult as he teaches to love your enemy! “I am your retribution!” Jubilate as he preaches to the prostitutes! “Thanks, toots. See Peter on your way out, and he’ll give you a bag of gold to keep your yap shut.”

Aldous Pennyfarthing of the Kos community discussed a video of Rita Palma. She’s the New York state director for the Robert Kennedy Jr campaign. Her goal is to get the 28 electoral votes of New York and...

give those 28 electoral votes to Bobby rather than to Biden, thereby reducing Biden’s 270? And we all know how that works, right? 270 wins the election. If nobody gets to 270, then Congress picks the president. So who are they going to pick, who are they going to pick if it’s a Republican Congress? They’ll pick Trump. So we’re rid of Biden either way. Does everybody follow that? Okay.

This is an admission that RFK Jr is in it as a spoiler, to keep Biden from an outright win. This logic works because when the election is thrown to the House it isn’t a vote of the 435 members, it is a vote of the 50 state delegations – California gets the same one vote as Wyoming – and the nasty guy could win, “even if he loses both the popular and electoral votes.” Yes, Biden is taking this seriously. I’ve heard he’s been using the line: A vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos includes a quote from Molly Ivins on Thursday. She had a good way of showing the absurdity of Texas politics during the 1990s. From this week’s excerpt:

Ann Richards [Texas governor, 1991-95] says one of her frustrations with the Texas legislature is that boys are taught from early on to win—and when someone wins, someone else loses. Richards thinks girls are socialized to find win/win solutions. My favorite example is what any smart mom does when there are two kids and one cookie. The first kid gets to divide the cookie, and the second kid gets first pick of the halves. You can generally count on the moms of the world to find solutions where nobody loses.

I was thinking moms do this because otherwise they have to console the loser. In another column Bill quoted late night commentary:

"Weather experts are forecasting that this year will see the highest number of hurricanes ever, thanks to an abnormally active summer of gay weddings." —Michael Che, SNL