An excellent book: “Empire of the Summer Moon”

February 1, 2026 • 9:30 am

I never would have selected this book on my own, but fortunately a reader suggested it, and I’m very glad. The book, Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History, by S. C. Gwynne III, is a history of the Native Americans of the Great Plains extending from about 1830 to the beginning of the 20th century. This is the period when all the tribes (the book calls them “Indians”, not “Native Americans”)—and there were many tribes and sub-tribes—came into conflict with Mexicans and with Americans moving West, and we know how that ends.

The history centers on the Comanches, the dominant tribe on the plains, though there was never one hierarchical tribe but a series of sub-tribes that were loosely affiliated as a “nation” and would sometimes join forces or fragment. Gwynne did a great deal of historical research using primary documents, and the result is a informative but mesmerizing tale, one that is hard to put down.

The Comanches were nomads, ranging widely over the Great Plains from Colorado to Texas.  Their “villages” were only temporary, and would be moved (by women, who did the heavy lifting) from place to place during wars or buffalo hunts.  And those were really their two primary activities: killing members of other tribes and killing buffalo, which were then so numerous then that their herds could extend to the horizon.  An important part of Comanche culture was the horse; Comanches were nearly always mounted in war or on the hunt, with horses descended from those brought to the Americas by the Spanish.  As you can see from the photo of a Comanche warrior below, the horses were small, descended from wild mustangs caught and “broken” with great skill.  Comanches also specialized in stealing horses from other tribes and from settlers and the American military. Horses were their riches.

Comanche horsemanship was superb, largely accounting for their success against other tribes and against settlers. They were able, for instance, to ride sideways on the horse’s flank, not visible to enemies on the other side, and shoot arrows (with tremendous accuracy) from below the horse’s neck. Until they managed to get firearms from the settlers and soldiers, they used arrows and lances, and that is how they brought down buffalo.  (The butchering, of course, was done by the women.)

I won’t go into detail about the lives and wars of the Comanche, except to say that the book imparts three lessons about Native Americans on the plains:

First, they did not “own” land or even occupy it. As I said, they were nomadic, and many other Native American tribes, including Apaches, Cherokees, Kickapoos, and Arapaho, roamed the same territory.  This bears on the present-day conflict about repatriating artifacts and human remains to tribes that claim them.  For artifacts or bones found on the Great Plains (and elsewhere, of course) cannot be ascribed to a given tribe without DNA analysis, which is almost never done, or if there are distinctive signs from the artifacts identifying them as belonging to a given group. Since this is rarely possible, it becomes a crapshoot about what to do about repatriating Native American artifacts, most of which now have to be returned to a tribe that claims them before scientists or anthropologists get to study them. Read the books and writings of Elizabeth Weiss to learn more about this conflict.

Second, war was a way of life for the Comanche; they were always at war with one tribe or another—even well before white settlers moved West. The view that all was peaceful among Native Americans until white settlers invaded “Indian” land and displaced the residents is grossly mistaken. Young men were trained for war beginning at five or six, and the youths were skillful with the horse and the bow.  Comanche life without war was unthinkable, and the men prided themselves, and rose in rank in their groups, largely through skill in warfare.  In the end, the Comanches were diminished not because of lack of skill in fighting, but because they were outnumbered by settlers and the Army, because the Army had superior weapons, especially cannons, and because the settlers killed off their main means of subsistence: the buffalo.  The number of Comanche is estimated to have fallen from about 40,000 in 1832 to only 1,171 in 1910.  The book describes many treaties between the Comanche and the U.S. government or its agents, but these treaties were almost always broken by one side or another—or both.

Third, their life was very hard.  They subsisted almost entirely on buffalo, had to weather the brutal cold of the Plains in tipis or on horseback, often went without food or water, and of course almost never bathed. (This was tough on the women, who became covered with blood and guts when skinning buffalo.) But they prided themselves on their toughness and bravery. (women often fought alongside the men). These features were mixed with an almost unimaginable degree of cruelty towards their enemies.  Enemies who were not killed outright were tortured, and in horrible ways: scalping, cutting, and roasting to death slowly.  These acts were considered normal and not immoral, though the white settlers (who were often tortured as captives) saw them as brutal and primitive. But the Comanche were capable of great kindness as well, especially towards other members of their tribe and occasionally towards white women and children who survived battle with the tribes and were “kidnapped’ by them, many becoming, in effect, Comanches themselves.

This brings us to the centerpiece of the story: the abduction of an American woman, Cynthia Ann Parker, in a battle in 1836. She was eight years old. Parker became integrated into the tribe, learned their language (eventually forgetting much of her English) and married a Comanche chief, Peta Nocona. Among their three children was Quanah Parker, who showed tremendous skill, wisdom, and courage as a warrior, and rose through the ranks (despite being half white) to become a chief himself. The story of Quanah is the story of the decline and fall of the Comanches, limned with many battles and culminating in their surrender to American soldiers and sedentary occupation of land on a reservation, where of course they were unhappy. Quanah demonstrated his leadership skills even on the reservation and, through judicious rental of reservation land to settlers for grazing cattle, became wealthy and renowned among both whites and Native Americans. Here’s a photo of Quanah in his native clothing:

Daniel P. Sink of Vernon Texas, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Gwynne skillfully  weaves together the story of Quanah and greater historical events, so in the end you understand not just the history of the extirpation of Native Americans, but the life of Comanches and the personalities of Quanah and his mother, Cynthia Parker. Parker herself was captured by the Texas Rangers when she was 33 and lived the rest of her life with settlers, including members of her extended family. She was never happy, and tried to escape back to the Comanches several times, but never succeeded.  She had several children, including Quanah, but was separated from her sons and left with only one daughter, Topsannah (“Prairie Flower”).  Cynthia died at 40, heartbroken.  Here’s a photo of her with Topsannah. Despite arduous efforts of settlers to assimilate Cynthia back as an American, she was always a Comanche at heart. The expression on her face tells the tale.

Here’s Quanah in 1889. As you see, he adopted many of the settlers’ ways, including their clothing, But he never cut his braids:

Charles Milton Bell, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

I’ve run on too long, but I give this book an enthusiastic recommendation and thank the reader who recommended it. Although it may strike you as something you might not like, do give it a try. (Click on the picture below to go to the publisher.) You may know about the sad history of the extirpation of Native Americans, but this book tells you, more than anything I’ve read, how at least some of them lived their lives as free men and women.

Trump approves at least five committees to run Gaza, with nobody wanting to go after Hamas

January 20, 2026 • 9:30 am

Well, the cease-fire agreements in Gaza are proceeding, as Trump has appointed some committees (all approved by the UN) to run the territory. But again we have a dog’s breakfast, as there are multiple committees with two big problems: there are at least five committees with somewhat overlapping functions and members, and, second, there is no roadmap for the major task of getting rid of Hamas.

Here’s the composition as given by the NYT (bolding below is mine):

Mr. Trump’s “Board of Peace,” which he named himself the chairman of, is backed by a legal United Nations mandate and had previously been expected to be composed of world leaders who would supervise the Trump administration’s plan for an “International Stabilization Force” to occupy, demilitarize and govern Gaza during a yearslong reconstruction effort.

But the list of officials on the executive board announced on Monday included three members of the Trump administration — Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff and Robert Gabriel — as well as Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law; Ajay Banga, the head of the World Bank; the billionaire Trump ally Marc Rowan; and former Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Of the seven, only Mr. Blair is not American, and he was previously the Middle East envoy for the Quartet, a diplomatic group made up of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union, and considered a candidate to lead a transitional government in Gaza.

A second executive board, similarly named the “Gaza executive board,” includes a wider roster of foreign officials from Europe and the Middle East, and is implied to be in a supporting role. Some American officials sit on both executive boards, as well as Mr. Blair.

Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Central, which operates in the Middle East, was also tapped to lead the “International Stabilization Force,” the peacekeeping force authorized by the United Nations to be deployed to Gaza as part of the peace plan. General Jeffers previously helped oversee a brokered cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon last year.

Note that what seems to be the most important committee is almost all American, and the peacekeeping force, which presumably will be tasked with disarming Hamas, is also headed by an American general.  So who is going to disarm Hamas? Israel can’t, as that would violate the ceasefire agreement, and the U.S. certainly won’t send troops to Gaza. So how will Hamas disarm and disband: the first item on Trump’s agenda?

Trump apparently will solve it by threats:

It is not clear how the international force would ensure that Gaza is demilitarized. Hamas, which specializes in insurgent tactics and has not disbanded its battalions of armed fighters, has long regarded giving up all its weapons as tantamount to surrender, with armed struggle against Israel a crucial part of its ideology. On Thursday, Mr. Trump threatened Hamas with a renewed conflict if they did not disarm, writing on social media: “they can do this the easy way, or the hard way.”

The Times of Israel, as usual, has more information about the committees, and notes that the Board of Peace isn’t really the most important board, with the Gaza Executive Board really tasked with doing the heavy lifting. Bold headings are mine. And the ToI article implies that the NYT missed two committees:

The Board of Peace:

The Board of Peace is the umbrella body that was mandated by the UN Security Council to oversee the postwar management of Gaza until the end of 2027.

The Board of Peace is chaired by Trump, and will largely be made up of heads of state from around the world.

Formal invitations to become members of the Board of Peace were sent out on Friday, and by Saturday the leaders of Turkey, Egypt, Canada and Argentina confirmed having received the offer — an indication that they will likely accept

While this is the most prominent of all the panels established, the Board of Peace will play a generally symbolic role and be more relevant during the fundraising stage, a senior Arab diplomat told The Times of Israel.

The Gaza Executive Board:

The Gaza Executive Board is the operational arm of the Board of Peace and the body that will actually oversee the postwar management of Gaza.

Sitting on the Executive Board are Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, senior Qatari diplomat Ali Thawadi, Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad, UAE Minister of International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, US special envoy Steve Witkoff, top Trump aide Jared Kushner, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, Israeli-Cypriot businessman Yakir Gabay, former UN humanitarian coordinator Sigrid Kaag, and former UN envoy to the Mideast Nickolay Mladenov.

Israel has expressed opposition to the makeup of the Executive Board, apparently taking issue with the inclusion of representatives from Turkey and Qatar, who were heavily critical of its prosecution of the war in Gaza.

However, the inclusion of both countries demonstrates their perceived utility to Trump, who has touted his personal relationships with the leaders of Turkey and Qatar as well as their success in pressuring Hamas to accept a ceasefire deal in October.

The Founding Executive Board:

In addition to inexplicably sharing nearly the same name as the Gaza Executive Board, the Founding Executive Board also consists of many of the same members.

Joining Witkoff, Kushner, Blair and Rowan on this additional board are US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, World Bank president Ajay Banga and Trump’s former deputy national security adviser Robert Gabriel.

The White House said that each member of the Founding Executive Board “will oversee a defined portfolio critical to Gaza’s stabilization and long-term success, including, but not limited to, governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction, investment attraction, large-scale funding, and capital mobilization.”

The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza:

. . . .The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza is the committee of Palestinian technocrats that will be tasked with running daily affairs on the ground and providing services for Gazans in place of Hamas.

While Egypt, in announcing the new panel, claimed it consists of 15 members, the actual figure is 12, and they are headed by former Palestinian Authority deputy planning minister Ali Shaath.

. . . . Each of the other panel members was given a portfolio covering the fields in which they are experts.

Abdul Karim Ashour, who heads an agricultural non-profit, will serve as agriculture commissioner.

Aed Yaghi, who currently heads the Palestinian Medical Relief Society, will serve as health commissioner.

Osama Sa’adawi, who previously headed the Palestinian Housing Council nonprofit, will serve as housing commissioner.

Adnan Abu Warda, a former PA Supreme Constitutional Court judge, will serve as justice commissioner.

Maj. Gen. Sami Nassman, who has served in the PA’s General Intelligence Service and is seen as a strong opponent of Hamas, will serve as internal security and police commissioner

And so on, including commissioners for water and municipal affairs, social affairs, communications, economy, and trade. You can see that their duties will overlap. Who resolves conflicts? A member of the Palestinian Authority, which of course is anti-Israel, and is an organization hated by Hamas.  Finally, there is the crucial

International Stabilization Force:

The International Stabilization Force is tasked with providing security for the Strip, while gradually phasing out the IDF, which currently remains in control of 53% of the enclave.

While the US has said the ISF will support efforts to disarm Hamas, officials familiar with the matter said the multinational force won’t be expected to engage in kinetic activity to seize weapons from the terror group, which has pledged not to give them up.

Instead, they will support the disarmament process once an agreement is reached, with mediators optimistic that Hamas will agree to a gradual process that starts with the return of heavy weapons, Arab and US officials have said.

. . .The US had struggled to convince countries to contribute troops to the ISF board amid heavy skepticism that Hamas will disarm and that the IDF will withdraw further from Gaza. One of the two countries Washington had publicly touted, Azerbaijan, announced earlier this month that it would not be participating.

US officials briefing reporters last week insisted that they now have enough countries offering troops and that an announcement can be expected in about two weeks.

This is a mess.  There are five committees whose jobs are overlapping, a heavy U.S. presence on the supervising Board of Peace, and what I see as the most important committee at the outset—the group tasked with demilitarizing Gaza by erasing Hamas—has no specified troops.

It’s not surprising that no country wants to take on Hamas, since they know the international opprobrium attached to that task.  Since Hamas refuses to disarm, this guarantees that there will be extensive fighting in Gaza for a long time to come.  Getting rid of Hamas is Job #1, and until that is done, none of the other committees can do their jobs.

Now the UN could run the whole show instead of the U.S., but that might be even worse given the UN’s hatred of Israel. I doubt that the UN has the stomach to disarm Hamas. They have UN troops that could try, but the UN troops in Lebanon, tasked with disarming Hezbollah, are completely ineffectual. UN troops would be useless against the determined fighters of Hamas.

My conclusion: this messy plan won’t work, and therefore the destruction in Gaza will continue for some time to come.  And don’t forget that Hamas and the Gazans hate the Palestinian Authority, so there can be no solution that allows the PA to run the Gaza Strip. I feel for the Gazan civilians that must endure this mishigass for years to come. If readers have an alternative solution, do suggest it below.

To describe the odious, terroristic nature of Hamas, which all of you should know about by now (even though many young Americans are on their side), I proffer Rawan Osman, a Syrian-born but pro-Israeli activist who was brought up as an Israeli-hating Muslim:

Natasha Hausdorff explains the UN resolution approving Trump’s plan for Gaza

November 20, 2025 • 12:00 pm

Here’s Natasha Hausdorff (legal director of the UK Lawyers for Israel) explaining, in an 11-minute video, the U.N. Security Council’s resolution approving Trump’s plan for ending the war in and reconstructing Gaza.  She notes that this approval is not legally binding, but goes through the most important of the plan’s 20 provisions.

Some of the problems I’ve mentioned before, including the difficulty of bringing Arab neighbors aboard and constructing an international peacekeeping force, finding a decent transitional government to run Gaza, and the insoluble problem of disarming Hamas (a provision of the plan that Hamas of course rejects). She notes that the UN resolution clearly states that a “state of Palestine does not yet exist,” which embarrasses not only Palestinians, but also the many countries like France and the UK who have already recognized such a state. (5:05). (She notes that the UK decision has been applauded by Hamas, and thus is good for the terrorist group.)

She doesn’t mention the difficult issue of the West Bank. That’s not part of the U.N. resolution, but I’d like to hear her views on it, anyway.

The “anti-Zios” are back

November 19, 2025 • 10:45 am

A lot of the protests and kerfuffles on campus two years ago involved a student organization, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).  Their favorite metier seemed to be disrupting access through the Quad, using bullhorns to shout slogans (“river to the sea. . . ” etc.), and in general touting the actions of Hamas and demonizing Israel.  Now when these actions are done according to campus rules, they’re fine—it’s free speech, and that kind of expression is of the glories of our University.  But often SJP people are involved in violating campus regulations; in April of last year I documented four instances of the organization or its members violating campus regulations. Those included sit-ins that constituted trespassing and led to the arrest of both students and faculty. But, this being Chicago with a woke mayor, all charges were dropped.

What about the rest of the violations? There was almost no discipline: the University, as noted in the link above, simply gave SJP a slap on the wrist, for the last thing the University of Chicago wants to see is officials or police “laying hands on students”. Below is the “punishment” that the Standing Disciplinary Committee on Disruptive Conduct meted out to SJP after they shouted down a Jewish “teach-in” in 2023, violating campus rules.


This isn’t even a slap on the wrist, but a tap on the wrist. It’s even lighter punishment than the warning the cops give you if they catch you speeding a little.

In light of SJP’s repeated violations of university rules, I wrote a letter to the student newspaper in January of last year asking “Should Students for Justice in Palestine be a recognized student organization?” I provided no answer save to say that the University should mete out genuine punishment to people who repeatedly violate campus rules about public demonstrations.  The University did get serious once, when it used the UC police—the Chicago police refused to participate—in taking down the illegal encampment that defaced our quad and prevented free access to buildings.

Things have been quiet for the last year, and probably for two reasons: Hamas has been trounced in Gaza, and a lot of the participants in anti-Israel demonstrations appear to be outsiders rather than members of the University community.  Demonstrators may well be afraid to have a public presence because Trump sent ICE to Chicago, and if you entered the country illegally, now is not the time you want to fall into the hands of the authorities.

Regardless, I continue to promote free speech that adheres to our policies while at the same time deploring the hatred and antisemitism that seems to motivate groups and individuals like the SJP.  And so they’ve put up a legal “installation” on our quad again. It’s okay that they did so, but it’s a performative, misguided, and hate-filled “installation.”  It went up a few days ago for a week, and here are some photos:

Note that it was  erected by SJP.

What we have here is a work of art accusing one John Kirby of genocide. Well, I didn’t know who John Kirby was, but Wikipedia says he was a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy who later took up positions in the media and also in the government under Democratic Presidents:

In the Biden administration, he served as United States Department of Defense Press Secretary and Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs from 2021 to 2022 and as White House National Security Communications Advisor from 2022 to 2025. He worked as a military and diplomatic analyst for CNN from 2017 to 2021. In the second Obama administration, he served as United States Department of Defense Press Secretary from 2013 to 2015 and as Spokesperson for the United States Department of State and Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs from 2015 to 2017.

Kirby has also just been appointed as director of the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, a nonpartisan venue for free discussion aimed at inspiring students to go into politics and public service.  It has invited people from all sides of the ideological spectrum to speak, though when someone who doesn’t hate Israel speaks, miscreants sometimes have demonstrations outside the building or have even invaded the building (they were heaved out).  Again, those demonstrations are legal if they don’t violate university rules, but they sometimes have (I have heard of no punsihments).

At any rate, Kirby’s position in the military, and some words he said, prominently displayed in the first photo below, convinced SJP that he is complicit in GENOCIDE.  In fact, Kirby has been careful about the use of the word than has SJP, applying it only to Hamas. This is from the Guardian when Kirby was working under Biden:

Challenged at a White House briefing to confront the term “Genocide Joe” by some protesters to described Biden, Kirby, who had previously ruled out “drawing red lines” for Israel’s actions in Gaza, embarked on an animated exposition.

“People can say what they want on the sidewalk and we respect that. That’s what the first amendment’s about,” he said. “But this word genocide’s getting thrown around in a pretty inappropriate way by lots of different folks. What Hamas wants, make no mistake about it, is genocide. They want to wipe Israel off the map.

“And they’ve said that they’re not going to stop. What happened on the 7th of October is going to happen again and again and again. And what happened on the 7th of October? Murder; slaughter of innocent people in their homes or at a music festival. That’s genocidal intentions.

“Yes, there are too many civilian casualties in Gaza … And yes, we continue to urge the Israelis to be as careful and cautious as possible. But Israel is not trying to wipe the Palestinian people off the map. Israel’s not trying to wipe Gaza off the map. Israel is trying to defend itself against a genocidal terrorist threat. If we’re going to start using that word – fine. Let’s use it appropriately.”

There are three quotes from Kirby (one of them fell over last night), including one that apparently refers to the U.S. providing aid to Israel (second photo). The other two seem to show him claiming that Israel did not violate international human rights law (you can read them by clocking twice on the first photo to enlarge it).

Two points:

1.)  This is a performative “installation” that accomplishes nothing. There was never a “genocide,” and even if you think there was, there’s now a cease-fire.

2.)  Why do you never see students demonstrating against a real genocide: the one that’s a huge goal of Hamas, which wants to kill all the Jews and wipe out Israel? (Read the Hamas Covenant of 1988, especially the introduction and Article Seven.)

3.)  It shows, in my view, that hatred of Jews and Israel hasn’t disappeared here (who would ever think that, anyway?) but is bubbling under the surface, waiting to emerge should the conflict in Gaza begin again.

4.) These installations, while they should be legal, nevertheless forment the atmosphere of hatred that, in my view, keeps Jewish students (who never erect similar “installations” about Hamas) from speaking their minds or wearing paraphernalia like Stars of David and yarmulkes (I’ve heard this directly from Jewish students).  This kind of intimidation—which in America also chills discussions about abortion and gender issues,—still falls within University regulations, so there’s nothing to do about it, but according to statistics, it does chill speech.

Is there truth in Yeats?

November 9, 2025 • 11:36 am

I was plesed to find an analysis in The Free Press today of one of my favorite poems by Yeats, “An Irish Airman Foresees His Death,” and here’s one of Yeats’s masterpieces:

I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love;
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan’s poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before.
Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds,
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds;
I balanced all, brought all to mind,
The years to come seemed waste of breath,
A waste of breath the years behind
In balance with this life, this death.
It’s an odd poem, as one wonders exactly why the guy is flying for his country if he doesn’t much care about it, nor about his enemies, and least of all about his own life. What we have from Klay below is an interpretation of this poem, which is as good as any, but I’m posting it not just so you can see the work’s beauty, but also that there is no objective “truth” to be found here. It’s purely an expression of the airman’s emotion, which we can, perhaps, share by putting ourselves into his shoes.  But in fact we don’t even know if Yeats himself felt this way about war. What he’s doing is allowing us to share one possible reaction in a combatant—to suss out the point of view of somebody else. (Believe me, I wouldn’t be fighting unless I had a good reason to do so).

 

Click the screenshot below to read Klay’s take on the poem:

A few words by Phil Klay about the poem. First he analyzes the structure and internal rhymes of the poem, and I have to say that at this form of composition Yeats excelled. He stuck to rhymes (and nearly all good poems do), but not conventional form. Klay:

It’s a perfect little poem, and incredibly easy to memorize, with a singsongy abab rhyme scheme and lines in iambic tetrameter which, as is often the case with Yeats, somehow end up feeling like natural speech despite the rigorous perfection of the form.

Yeats also regularly makes parallelisms, such that one line will answer or complete another. At the time, I thought it was a great poem for a young man heading off to war. One of the other lieutenants, Irish by birth and heading to be a pilot, thought so too, and he borrowed my copy so he could memorize it as well. Here is the text:

And this description is a form of “truth”: it’s simply how the poem is set out: the situation, the choice of words, and the rhymes. That can all be described objectively, just like the structure of a sonata can be divided into three parts and is in a certain key. In that sense, and in that sense alone, one can find “truth” in this work.  But that’s not the kind of truth that English professors say that they’re teaching their students. After all, isn’t the purpose of a university to find and promulgate “truth and knowledge”?

And one can guess, though this is not so easy, what the pilot is really trying to say. Here’s Klay’s take:

Accustomed as we are to the anti-war poets of World War I, it can be jarring to read such a dark but stunningly beautiful poem. The narrator isn’t bloodthirsty or sociopathic, but there is something in warfare he can’t shake: something valuable, something teased at with the maddeningly vague line about the “lonely impulse of delight” driving men to war—an impulse distinct from patriotism.

What is this lonely impulse, if not “law” or “duty”?

The fact is, some people like the work of war. Every year, tens of thousands of young people join the Army or Marine Corps. They want the camaraderie of war, the adventure, the intellectual challenge but also the sheer beauty of it—of night fires and powerful weaponry and superbly trained groups of men and women operating with skill and precision. Beyond that, though, is the encounter with the utter limits of human experience, something the World War I veteran Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in a 1917 essay on his strange longing to return to the front, described as a “unique atmosphere, penetrating and dense, in which this entire richness of violence and majesty bathes.”

And then there’s the poem’s equanimity about death. As a young man in military training, that attitude seemed admirable to me. It’s also one often expressed by soldiers and Marines.

But wait! As he got older, Klay changed his mind about the emotions expressed in the poem:

Now, slightly older and looking back, I see the sentiments of the poem differently. It’s not mere bluster—or not entirely. Rather, it’s the speaker, amid the vast, impersonal, and terrifying forces of the battlefield, privately finding a way to confront the unimaginable possibility of his own death.

Well, what is it? What does the poem mean? What is its “truth”? Is it Klay’s first take that it’s the pilot exposing himself to a unique and stimulating experience, or is it instead about the poet rationalizing his actions and likely death by realizing that it’s all meaningless? Or is it both? Or something else?

This is the beauty of poetry: it is music in words, sometimes expresses a point of view that can be ambiguous, , but gives only one point of view, and one that is not universal. There is no “propositional truth” here that can be deemed “true” or “false”. It’s simply the expression of an emotion and, to put it somewhat crassly, a form of entertainment.

This is all, of course, part of my view that the fine arts, an essential part of a good liberal education, differs from other areas of education in that it doesn’t deal with finding truth.  I am not of course denigrating the humanities, as I count them among the most valuable part of my own education. (And yes, some of what counts as “humanities,” like economics and sociology, can be a search for propositional truth.) It’s just that the finding of truth is not the point of any of the arts: not of cinema, painting, dance, music, poetry, or long-form literature. I won’t explicate further on this as I’m writing something longer, except to add that this shows that the old saw that the purpose of a university is to find and disseminate truth is not 100% correct.

Finally, let me put up another poem by Yeats that I love. You may well have read this one, “The Lake Isle of Innisfree“:

I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made;
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.
And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight’s all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet’s wings.
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart’s core.

It is a gorgeous work, with A/B/A/B stanzas, but with lovely alliteration and a last line that’s a bit jarring as it deviates in meter from the other stanzas’ last lines and has no word longer than one syllable.

What is its “truth”? Well, the writer clearly is tired of urban life and wants to decamp to nature, living a Thoreau-ian life with linnet’s wings.  Did Yeats feel that way, or, as in the first poem, is he only putting emotions into another speaker’s head? I suspect it’s Yeat’s own feelings. How would we know, though? The poet is dead, and we can’t ask him. Perhaps he described the meaning of the poem somewhere else, and in that case we would have a “truth”: Yeats was sick of the city and wanted to live alone in nature. Maybe this was a familiar feeling he had and expressed to others, which could help verify that he was speaking for himself.  But if that’s the poem’s “truth,” it is a trivial truth. In this sense the “truth” can teach us nothing that isn’t trivial and nothing that is universal. (I prefer to live an urban life.)

But of course that’s not why we revere poems like this. It’s like saying that the “truth” in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” is this: “Someone’s overweening ambition can drive them to tragedy.”  Some truth!  We already know that sometimes that happens, and sometimes it doesn’t.  The value of such art is its ability to stimulate our own emotions, to allow us to reflect on our own selves by seeing other people’s different points of view, and to expose us beauty that we would otherwise lack.

Well, these are some random musings, but if you find any “truth” in this poem that couldn’t have been seen otherwise, or hadn’t already been said otherwise, and without the poetry, by all means let me know what it is. Remember, Klay himself can’t pin down any truth in the first poem, for he changed his mind about it over the years.

From Commentary: now that the fighting in Gaza seems to be over Seth Mandel calls out the antisemitic libels

November 2, 2025 • 9:40 am

Commentary is a Jewish magazine, and a conservative one, and if you want to dismiss this article because of that, go ahead, but you’d be obtuse to do so. The article below, which is short, puts paid to the libels that Israel not only committed genocide in Gaza (to me, making such a claim is a touchstone of antisemitism) but also deliberately starved the Gazan population. (I’ll will say, though, that Israel’s brief 11-day withholding of food from Gaza was a mistake.)

But these false accusations, combined with the “progressives'” ignoring of real genocide in Sudan. give us a real idea about the motivations of many during this conflict.  I’m not a big exponent of “whataboutery”, but the deaths in Sudan have now mounted to over 150,000, and there are ample atrocities, including the recent attack on a maternity hospital by antigovernment forces in which nearly 500 of patients were killed willy-nilly. Could a reason for “progressives'” ignoring this war be because most of the perpetrators (and victims) are Muslim, with no Jews being involved?”

At any rate, Commentary writer and editor Seth Mandel, whom I’ve found to be a reliable reporter, calls out the antisemites in a new article in Commentary. Click the headline below to read for free.

Mandel makes several points (my summary):

1.) The UN doesn’t want to war to end. That’s because the organization, which is pro-Palestine and also supports an organization, UNRWA, that’s rife with Hamas terrorists, can now be called to account because the cease-fire allows investigations of death tolls and UNRWA involvement that could be ignored when all the news came from Hamas.

2.) There was no Israeli genocide; that much is clear to anybody with neurons. Of course it may be true that were a few deaths of Gazan civilians who were killed by the IDF deliberately rather than being “byproduct” casualties of IDF soldiers attacking Hamas. But I’d like to ask the “pro-genocide progressives” this:  if Israel intended to wipe out all Gazans, why did it send IDF soldiers into the territory, risking their lives, rather than simply bombing Gaza flat? After all, more than 1,100 IDF soldiers have died in that effort: far more than the number of hostagers rescued.

3.) There is no credible evidence of a famine, a near-famine, or Israeli-caused mass starvation in Gaza.  While throughout the conflict, which may be at an end, we heard repeatedly that Gaza was in the grips of mass starvation, the deaths by starvation were very, very few, and most of them involved people with pre-existing conditions.

Now for some excerpts by Mandel:

No one’s having more trouble accepting the possibility of peace than the United Nations.

While Gazans are finishing school, opening cafes, and posting photos of their full chicken dinners, one UN agency is still banging the drum of “acute malnutrition”—this as the crossings are open and the aid is flowing. UN relief coordinator Tom Fletcher, the source of the “14,000 dead babies in 48 hours” lie—one of the more dangerous and consequential hoaxes of the war—is meeting with the Irish government, which has itself achieved a previously unimagined level of irrelevance. And the International Court of Justice, the UN’s pretend world court, is issuing new demands of Israel to give Hamas-adjacent UN activists more access in Gaza.

All of it is meaningless, of course, having long been overtaken by events. Palestinian social media is currently the UN’s worst nightmare: Gazans with big smiles and full bellies. As John Lennon and Yoko Ono famously said, war is over if you want it. It’s just that the UN doesn’t want it.

Thankfully, nobody cares what the UN wants. But it’s worth examining why the UN is so angry that the war has ceased and Palestinian lives are improving.

One reason is that the war’s end makes it possible to start compiling definitive statistics. And those statistics make it crystal clear that UN-affiliated agencies and their partner NGOs have conducted large-scale fraud, the blast radius of which has incinerated the credibility of much of Western academic and “humanitarian” institutions.

About the “starvation”.  First, a couple of tweets showing the exaggerated claims (the IPC is the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification):

This tweet is based on a JNS article, but on the UN’s own data (see article here):

Of course I am not cold-hearted about these deaths: after all, each one is a child loved by its parents, and each death is heartbreaking. My point is simply to show that the claims of “mass starvation caused by Israel” were always exaggerated–to the point of almost being totally false. And unless you want Gazans to die to support your narrative, this is heartening. From Mandel:

Let’s start with food. Salo Aizenberg—who probably deserves some sort of medal for his painstaking work compiling the true statistical toll of the war—pointed out this week that the UN-backed IPC declared a Gaza famine in August, and that we can now check the numbers against the prediction and verify exactly what the IPC got wrong.

Between the famine declaration and the cease-fire, there should have been 10,143 famine deaths in Gaza. Using Hamas’s own numbers of such deaths—which are obviously not undercounted—the total famine deaths in that period was 192.

That means the IPC predicted about 10,000 famine deaths and was short by about 10,000. The IPC is now at Candace Owens’s level of credibility and statistical reliability.

There was no famine. That’s not an opinion, it’s an indisputable fact. Also indisputable is that there was no near-famine. It wasn’t a close call.

That, by the way, is good news. Although the anti-Israel activist world was hoping for mass starvation, those of us who aren’t monsters are very happy that there was no famine in Gaza. Pay attention to those who dispute this and those who show their disappointment.

Now that the dust is settling, we can see that the ratio of civilian deaths to combatants was about 1.5 to 1: a remarkably low value for urban warfare in which Hamas used human shields. It is in fact the lowest value known among similar situations, and a testimony to the IDF’s policy of trying to eliminate combatants but not civilians:

Then there is the main event: the accusation of “genocide.” While this has been debunked again and again and again throughout the war—to the extent that anyone accusing Israel of genocide has disqualified themselves from legitimate debate over matters of war and peace—now that there is a cease-fire, we can work with steady numbers.

Aizenberg noted in September that using Hamas’s own statistics, and subtracting natural deaths and fatalities caused by munitions fired by Gazan combatants, one gets a total of about 33,000 civilian casualties. The widely accepted number of combatant casualties is at about 25,000.

Every one of those 33,000 civilian casualties is a tragedy and a testament to the effectiveness and ruthlessness of Hamas’s human-shield strategy. That number also means that there are fewer than 1.5 civilian deaths for each combatant war death, an almost unheard-of level of care for civilians by the Israeli army.

Again, these are the numbers. A genocide didn’t happen—that we knew a long time ago. But it is now clear that there is no plausible case that Israel used excessive force against civilians or targeted noncombatants. The opposite is true: In pursuing Hamas, Israeli soldiers sacrificed their own lives to protect civilians. This is not an interpretation of some contextless video floating around social media; this is established fact.

The United Nations and other “humanitarian” and “human rights” groups needed this war to go on in perpetuity so they could forestall a public reckoning they richly deserve. Peace is bad for their business.

Below is Mandel’s conclusion. I have to say that I’ve lived 75 years and have come across antisemitism only once—in a personal incident in high school. Otherwise I was oblivious to it. But the war in Gaza, with its widely-believed lies and libels, has certainly alerted me to the reason “progressives” pay so much attention to the world’s only Jewish country:

Finally, the “genocide” and “deliberate starvation” accusations can now take their place alongside history’s other assorted grotesque expressions of anti-Judaism. Just as Jews should feel no obligation to refute the accusation that they are “the sons of apes and pigs,” they should similarly avoid the debasement of being forced to answer for the fabricated claims of “genocide,” the intention of which is merely to incite violence against Jews and to diminish the crimes of the Holocaust.

The good news is that (fingers crossed) most of the killing has stopped, and also that we can have peace on campus now that the Hamasniks have lost. But don’t be deceived into thinking that antisemitism is dead. Those who banged drums and chanted “From the River to the sea” have lost most of what they were protesting, but of course the animus against Israel and Jews remains.

Brendan O’Neill ponders the unemployment of Israel haters

October 10, 2025 • 11:45 am

The lead story on last night’s NBC News was about the cease-fire in Gaza, and it showed Israelis celebrating the return of the hostages, and Gazan civilians celebrating the cessation of war. Even my Jewish friends in America are celebrating, though they’re properly wary of “stage 2” of the deal: will Hamas gives up its arms and aspirations to control Gaza?

But one group is not celebrating: the pro-Palestinian (and pro-Hamas) activists in the West. Why aren’t they celebrating? This is the question Brendan O’Neill asks in the Spectator article below.  If you won’t read the Spectator or Brendan O’Neill because they’re conservative, well, skip this, but I don’t have a lot of respect for people who would refuse to read a piece like this because of its author or place of publication.

The title is self-explanatory, and you can click on it to read it (or find it archived here). It’s not only well written, but, more important true:

Excerpts (I don’t have a lot to add):

Normal people are cheering the prospect of peace in Gaza. Some might even raise a glass to Donald Trump for his valiant efforts to end this horrible war Hamas started. But there are others who will be feeling forlorn. The anti-Israel mob, to be specific. Won’t you spare a thought for this tragic community that built its entire personality around hating Israel – what are they going to do now?

There is an eerie silence in anti-Israel circles this morning. The people who spent the past two years hollering ‘Ceasefire now!’ seem strangely downbeat about the prospect of a ceasefire. No doubt that’s partly because they would rather eat hot coal than credit Trump with a geopolitical win. But it’s also because they feel the rug of relevance being pulled from under their feet. The brutal truth: peace will rob them of purpose.

It’s been clear for some time now that the fashionable animus for Israel is more than a political position – it’s a religious crusade. These people see Israel not only as a nation fighting a war they don’t like, but as a demonic entity, uniquely barbarous, the poison in the well of humanity. Israel has become a Satan substitute for a godless activist class, the devil against which they measure their own decency. If this war ends, so might their false religion.

They wear the holy garments of Israelophobia so that others will know the depth of their devotion to the cause: the keffiyeh around the necks, the Palestine flag draped like a pashmina over their shoulders. They repeat Israelophobia’s mantras, with little thought but great bombast. Witness how ‘From the river to the sea’ usurped ‘Trans women are women’ as the mating call of woke’s true believers.

. . . .Perhaps the most dangerous thing for the genuflectors to Israelophobia is that Trump’s peace deal shatters the founding lie of their fake faith – namely that Israel is hell-bent on genociding the Palestinian people. In truth, Israel has signed up for a deal that envisions a ceasefire soon and which expressly says that not one Palestinian will be forcibly expelled from Gaza. And so their church crumbles under the weight of its own calumnies.

If the deal works, if Trump and Israel bring peace and banish the anti-Semites of Hamas from public life in Gaza, what will these people do? How will they get their moral kicks? By what means will they advertise to the world their implacable virtue? What will occupy their every waking thought and inform their every political utterance if not that dastardly Jewish State and its ‘genocide’?

Well, there’s always Trump.  Yes, he seems to have done a good thing this time—something that “progressive” leftists would rather die than admit—but he continues his crazy antics elsewhere. Still, Trump doesn’t seem to satisfy people’s needs to signal virtue like the Gaza war has done.

And just when I was about to ask “And what will Greta do?”, O’Neill beat me to the punch:

And poor Greta! She’ll have to go back to talking about climate change, won’t she? Having failed to ‘Save Gaza’, she’ll have to content herself with that oh-so-Nineties mission of saving the planet. Boring! One thinks, too, of the YouTubers who have monetised their hatred for Israel, spending every hour of every day slamming the Jewish State for clicks and bucks. Blessed be the peacemakers, sure, but won’t someone think of the videomakers?

I like what O’Neill said, but remember that the war is far from over: we still have to go to phases 2 and 3: setting up a Gazan government and having Hamas surrender, giving up its weapons and, ideally, migrating to Qatar or some other state.  And until that’s done, the protests will continue and the Israel haters will march on. As O’Neill says:

Of course, there’s another possibility – that they will double down. That they will carry on traipsing against Israel, zombie-style, even when peace descends. Indeed, Your Party, the Zarah Sultana/ Jeremy Corbyn freakshow, is advertising a march in London this weekend. ‘We march on’, the flyer says, ‘until apartheid falls’. For two years, they screamed ‘Ceasefire now!’ – so why are they still marching? I’m tempted to go and laugh from the sidelines. Who’s with me?

Not me!  For peace hasn’t descended yet.

They will continue marching until there are two states: Israel and Palestine, or one state: Palestine engulfing Israel.  Either is a long way off.  The main point that should dampen O’Neill’s glee is that although the protestors did cry “Ceasefire now!” what they really meant was “Eliminate Israel and get rid of all the Jews.” And that ain’t gonna happen. So the marches will continue.