This is a compelling use of the “and then what?” principle, and the narrative you build around Sinwar’s miscalculation is sharp. But one question lingers for me… not as a rebuttal, but as a continuation.
The essay applies second-order thinking clearly to Hamas’s choices, but less so to the present course of Israeli policy. If “and then what?” is a vital moral and strategic tool, should it not also be aimed forward? Toward the destruction in Gaza, the fallout of war with Iran, and the political future that might or might not be possible when the dust settles?
It is not a matter of moral equivalence. It is a matter of analytic consistency. The principle either applies across the board or it becomes a way of insulating one side from scrutiny while indicting the other.
The name of the blog, Listening to the Sirens, seems to gesture at this challenge. Odysseus did not defeat the sirens with cleverness or strength. He tied himself to the mast because he knew that seductive certainty would overpower his judgment. This raises a question. For someone living inside the conflict, personally connected to those fighting, and ethnically bound to the nation at war, how does one tie oneself to that mast?
That is not rhetorical. It seems like an honest, hard question for any Israeli thinker right now. How can someone stay tethered to long term reasoning and moral foresight when the sirens are all around… trauma, loss, duty, vengeance, solidarity?
If “and then what?” means anything, perhaps it must also be asked in the present tense. What comes after Gaza? What future is being made possible or impossible by these choices? What political horizon is left for coexistence? These are hard questions, and perhaps impossible to fully answer. But if second order thinking is worth doing, it cannot only be retrospective. And it cannot only be aimed at one side.
Where does the Palestinian question go from here? One way to look at it is that progress was impossible so long as Iran was always sitting just off stage, ready not only to undermine but to take tactical advantage of any progress. But what happens now? Because hate will eventually find a new patron: China? Pakistan? Turkiye? Who knows. Can Bibi and his coalition make peace as well as war? If he tries, would some of his opponents see the wisdom in support (as some of his allies would surely fall away)? Perhaps it is far too early for these questions, but this war was planned for many years, and planning for peace is even harder than planning for war.
Thanks Russ . I am from the US and wish you and your family and your country well. Great that you live where you can write about your country’s leader in such a clear voice.
The failure on 10/7 is Israel's failure- the failure of the Israeli left and the naive peace processes, the failure of the Kibbutzim who allowed murderers to case their homes while they enjoyed coffee together, the failure of the Shin Bet who had intelligence jurisdiction over Gaza, the failure of the IDF to mobilize quickly. The government gave Israeli society what it wanted - short term peace. It was a societal failure.
Hubris, indeed. For good reason G-d teaches that Israel’s greatest prophet and leader “was a very humble man, more than any other man that was upon the face of the earth.”
I’m not sure whether I agree with the second, no matter how very much I appreciate reading Russ’ writings.
But since two of the posts are based on Israel being on the offensive against their (and the U.S.’s in the Middle East) true enemy, I guess I do agree with you after all.
Sorry, the edit was because I had originally written "I am glad to see you read more" due to not being through my first cup of coffee yet. Even the edit wasn't very clear :D
Israel and Bibi sought a peaceful long game as a possible resolution to the Gaza and Israel conflict. Unfortunately, Hamas had other plans. With the West Bank ‘success’, Israeli leadership thought of the peaceful long term solution and possibilities. Why not?
It is all the touchy feely, empathetic, sympathetic, etc, that brings people to seek out less uglier solutions.
Maybe, the time has come for a change. This same idea is prevalent amongst American libertarians and political democrats that open borders can work, in the US.
We… the world… hasn’t reached this idealistic global stage, yet. It shall occur, eventually. Today, is not that day.
I am positively optimistic about what does dramatically change a society and any want to take part in radically harming others…. Economic development and success.
When life is good, a want to participate in actions that would upset any living without modern luxuries is minimal.
“Implementation is everything.” — Russ Roberts (circa somewhere around Econtalk episode 825, in reference to technology ideation and implementation, possibly with Andreesen).
In my world, 90% of the work is preparation. Implementation is the remaining 10%. In fact, I would say that implementation can be rather easy, if and once the preparation is complete. Of course we can define preparation and implementation to fit these percentages.
Asking, “and then what” repeatedly, consistently, and patiently during the preparation phase is crucial. This conserves energy overall and maximizes order. Conserving energy and creating order are closely related to flourishing, truth, and loveliness.
Revising the plan is where most of the work is. The ability to plan for the long term separates the barbarian from the Socratic civilian.
Sinwar was a barbarian, myopic, and mistaken.
“Stay curious and be lovely.” — Russ Roberts, episode 1000. If only Sinwar was curious and lovely.
Yes! As the slave used to whisper in Caesar’s ear when he was drunk with hubris after winning a great battle, so the same should be repeated endlessly to Bibi: “memento mori!”
George Will uses the “And then what?” prompt frequently too, though he claims to draw it from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of Pearl Harbor, who supposedly confirmed he could strike the US fleet at anchor in Hawai’i: and then what?
Will someone who lost a loved one become the backbone of a new group who brings violence?
Without having exstensive knowledge on Adolph Hitler, I wonder what the difference, in the world may have occurred, if he had been accepted into art school and been fully focused on his creativity. Would the world have been dramatically changed ?
Russ,
This is a compelling use of the “and then what?” principle, and the narrative you build around Sinwar’s miscalculation is sharp. But one question lingers for me… not as a rebuttal, but as a continuation.
The essay applies second-order thinking clearly to Hamas’s choices, but less so to the present course of Israeli policy. If “and then what?” is a vital moral and strategic tool, should it not also be aimed forward? Toward the destruction in Gaza, the fallout of war with Iran, and the political future that might or might not be possible when the dust settles?
It is not a matter of moral equivalence. It is a matter of analytic consistency. The principle either applies across the board or it becomes a way of insulating one side from scrutiny while indicting the other.
The name of the blog, Listening to the Sirens, seems to gesture at this challenge. Odysseus did not defeat the sirens with cleverness or strength. He tied himself to the mast because he knew that seductive certainty would overpower his judgment. This raises a question. For someone living inside the conflict, personally connected to those fighting, and ethnically bound to the nation at war, how does one tie oneself to that mast?
That is not rhetorical. It seems like an honest, hard question for any Israeli thinker right now. How can someone stay tethered to long term reasoning and moral foresight when the sirens are all around… trauma, loss, duty, vengeance, solidarity?
If “and then what?” means anything, perhaps it must also be asked in the present tense. What comes after Gaza? What future is being made possible or impossible by these choices? What political horizon is left for coexistence? These are hard questions, and perhaps impossible to fully answer. But if second order thinking is worth doing, it cannot only be retrospective. And it cannot only be aimed at one side.
Yes. (Russ, love your writing and podcast btw)
Where does the Palestinian question go from here? One way to look at it is that progress was impossible so long as Iran was always sitting just off stage, ready not only to undermine but to take tactical advantage of any progress. But what happens now? Because hate will eventually find a new patron: China? Pakistan? Turkiye? Who knows. Can Bibi and his coalition make peace as well as war? If he tries, would some of his opponents see the wisdom in support (as some of his allies would surely fall away)? Perhaps it is far too early for these questions, but this war was planned for many years, and planning for peace is even harder than planning for war.
Thanks Russ . I am from the US and wish you and your family and your country well. Great that you live where you can write about your country’s leader in such a clear voice.
"Don't mess with Israel." Absolutely right.
This is so good, I’m reading it to my 100% all-in supporter of Israel husband. Very very appreciated. God bless you.
The failure on 10/7 is Israel's failure- the failure of the Israeli left and the naive peace processes, the failure of the Kibbutzim who allowed murderers to case their homes while they enjoyed coffee together, the failure of the Shin Bet who had intelligence jurisdiction over Gaza, the failure of the IDF to mobilize quickly. The government gave Israeli society what it wanted - short term peace. It was a societal failure.
Sorry, no. I am a person of the right. I support Bibi and the right writ large.
But it is simply not credible to blame Oct 7th primarily on the Israeli left. Even if no doubt they share a *portion* of the blame.
I didn't blame it on the left. I said it is Israel's failure.
My partial apologies.
You began by blaming the Israeli left, so I didn’t bother reading much - or carefully - beyond that.
Thanks for your insights from Israel. I couldn’t help thinking that you may have titled this article, “The theory of immoral sentiments.”
Hubris, indeed. For good reason G-d teaches that Israel’s greatest prophet and leader “was a very humble man, more than any other man that was upon the face of the earth.”
Russ, A beautifully clear statement. Thanks. Lee
Very well written; I am glad to see you writing more!
Edit: can't keep straight glad to read you more and glad you are writing more, apparently.
I agree with your first sentence.
I’m not sure whether I agree with the second, no matter how very much I appreciate reading Russ’ writings.
But since two of the posts are based on Israel being on the offensive against their (and the U.S.’s in the Middle East) true enemy, I guess I do agree with you after all.
Sorry, the edit was because I had originally written "I am glad to see you read more" due to not being through my first cup of coffee yet. Even the edit wasn't very clear :D
Israel and Bibi sought a peaceful long game as a possible resolution to the Gaza and Israel conflict. Unfortunately, Hamas had other plans. With the West Bank ‘success’, Israeli leadership thought of the peaceful long term solution and possibilities. Why not?
It is all the touchy feely, empathetic, sympathetic, etc, that brings people to seek out less uglier solutions.
Maybe, the time has come for a change. This same idea is prevalent amongst American libertarians and political democrats that open borders can work, in the US.
We… the world… hasn’t reached this idealistic global stage, yet. It shall occur, eventually. Today, is not that day.
I am positively optimistic about what does dramatically change a society and any want to take part in radically harming others…. Economic development and success.
When life is good, a want to participate in actions that would upset any living without modern luxuries is minimal.
When life is good men have ways of making a living besides killing Jews..
The reference to Mr. Sowell reminds me of any old saying: "That's about as farsighted as wetting the bed to keep warm.",
“Implementation is everything.” — Russ Roberts (circa somewhere around Econtalk episode 825, in reference to technology ideation and implementation, possibly with Andreesen).
In my world, 90% of the work is preparation. Implementation is the remaining 10%. In fact, I would say that implementation can be rather easy, if and once the preparation is complete. Of course we can define preparation and implementation to fit these percentages.
Asking, “and then what” repeatedly, consistently, and patiently during the preparation phase is crucial. This conserves energy overall and maximizes order. Conserving energy and creating order are closely related to flourishing, truth, and loveliness.
Revising the plan is where most of the work is. The ability to plan for the long term separates the barbarian from the Socratic civilian.
Sinwar was a barbarian, myopic, and mistaken.
“Stay curious and be lovely.” — Russ Roberts, episode 1000. If only Sinwar was curious and lovely.
Yes! As the slave used to whisper in Caesar’s ear when he was drunk with hubris after winning a great battle, so the same should be repeated endlessly to Bibi: “memento mori!”
Thank you,
very well written but that is just the icing on the cake which is superb content. I hope someone there is indeed whispering this in his ear.
George Will uses the “And then what?” prompt frequently too, though he claims to draw it from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of Pearl Harbor, who supposedly confirmed he could strike the US fleet at anchor in Hawai’i: and then what?
A thought…… what unseen consequences shall
Arise from the current actions?
Will someone who lost a loved one become the backbone of a new group who brings violence?
Without having exstensive knowledge on Adolph Hitler, I wonder what the difference, in the world may have occurred, if he had been accepted into art school and been fully focused on his creativity. Would the world have been dramatically changed ?