Eli is a journalist and an old friend. He’s a former senior national security correspondent for The Daily Beast and Newsweek, and a former columnist for the Bloomberg View. He’s now a reporter for The Free Press, a contributing editor at Commentary Magazine, and the host of his own podcast, Breaking History. He’s one of the most dogged defenders of Israel in America. Who better to slug it out with?
An auto-transcript is available above (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the double standard of US aid to Israel and NATO, and escalation of settlements in the West Bank — head to our YouTube page.
Other topics: Eli’s speech at his bar mitzvah on Jewish views of nuclear proliferation; his Zionist sleepaway camp; the Iran-Contra affair; the Oslo Accords; the Second Intifada; Saddam and WMDs; mugged by the reality of the Iraq War; the rise of Hamas in Gaza; the Obama-Netanyahu feud; the Iran nuclear deal; Schumer’s commitment to Israel; the Golden Dome; Israel’s contributions to the US; the horrors of October 7; the Judeo-fascists in Bibi’s cabinet; US bombs sent to the IDF for Gaza; the 12-Day War that “obliterated” Iran’s nuke facilities; the mass slaughter of protesters in Iran; the shifting reasons for the current war; the lack of any public debate or Congressional approval; the farce of Hegseth; Witkoff and Kushner’s “negotiations” with Iran; international law; assassinating the leadership in Iran; Lindsey Graham’s fanaticism; Tucker Carlson; the dead schoolgirls; oil prices; and evangelical support for Israel.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Matt Goodwin on the political earthquake in the UK, Jeffrey Toobin on the pardon power, Derek Thompson on abundance, Jonah Goldberg on the state of conservatism, Tom Holland on the Christian roots of liberalism, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy in a liberal democracy, and Adrian Wooldridge on “the lost genius of liberalism.” As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
A listener writes, “Thanks for two terrific interviews”:
Sally Quinn is a consummate Washington insider, and also a kind, warm, and spirited woman whose work however I never followed closely. Gosh, wouldn’t it be great to be at one of her dinners?
On the episode with Kathryn Paige Harden (and I’m only part-way through that one, but I didn’t want to lose this thought), I am struck by what seems to me a logical blind spot. Her latest book explores whether and how genetics interacts with sin, and the extent to which genetic pre-disposition can exculpate a person for bad behavior. But she doesn’t deny the impact or importance of experience, in addition to genetics, on a person’s propensities. So, isn’t her question better formulated as to how free will or the lack of free will affects moral responsibility? I grant the genetics question is super interesting, but the moral responsibility question is better understood in the context of free will, or its lack.
Keep up the good work!
Another writes, “Loved your conversation with Sally — the first of your guests I have ever met in real life”:
I was her ski instructor for a few days a billion years ago when she and Ben were in Colorado. I knew nothing about either of them until Sally mentioned that she was a writer. So I went to the Vail public library and read one of her novels overnight. I can’t remember the plot, but it was a good read and included an intellectual reflection on what went through the protagonist’s mind when she gave a guy a blowjob. This was racy stuff for a young innocent ski guy from Down Under. And it led to a certain Steven Pinker-ish, knowing pause when I met Sally at her apartment in the morning and told her I’d read the book. Wonderful person.
“A certain Steven Pinker-ish, knowing pause.” LOL. Here’s a guest rec for the Dishcast:
Thanks for publishing my recommendation for Dean Ball as a guest the other week! In light of Pete Hegseth’s war against Anthropic (which Ball has been writing a lot about), that recommendation has become even more timely.
But I’m writing to you today to recommend another guest. Her name is Ruxandra Teslo, and she has an interesting background. She has a PhD in biology, which certainly influences her writing, but she’s written about a lot of different topics on her Substack. The post that made me decide to recommend her as a guest is her most recent, “Equality as a Consolation Prize.” Her core argument is that the modern world has become obsessed with equality because as we’ve secularized, the thought of there being no value for the weaker members of society is too horrifying to contemplate. It also traces how more successful people are often blind to this issue because they can obtain a sense of purpose through meaningful work.
Anyway, I thought you’d find it interesting given some of your previous writings about how your faith has given you an unshakable sense of the dignity of every person and how strange you’ve found progressives’ obsession with equity to be. I think Teslo may have found the answer to your question.
Another rec:
I noted your dig on Talarico under the Moore Award. I get it, I really do. Still, I’m a huge fan of his. (I can’t stand Jasmine Crockett, who screams narcissism to me.) As a longtime resident of Fort Worth and a Christian, he’s our guy — the first Democratic politician in Texas in generations who actually seems to embody the gospel, outwardly practices it as a legislator and politician, but still possesses the wisdom to discern the worldly from the heavenly. He’s no theocrat; quite the opposite, thank God.
And yet, I too have been a bit dismayed by some of his leftist pablum. I hope, for example, that his quote under the Moore Award was just him being caught up in BLM (it was from 2020 I believe, and I was a bit stupid then too), but I don’t know. I think he needs to be sharpened through debate with respectful but incisive critics like you, and I would love to hear him on your podcast. If anything, anywhere he appears garners loads of attention. He’s sort of the Southern Mamdani.
I totally understand your reticence to host politicians, but I wonder, with your ability to kindly push back and challenge, if you might be able to get under the hood of this very young, intriguing politician. In the debates I’ve seen I’m in, he’s at least a very attentive and thoughtful listener. He has his canned, over-rehearsed stump speech that he trots in every interview, but once you get past that, he’s quite engaging.
I guess we’ll see after this week’s column. But I’m not averse to having a conversation with him about faith and politics.
A reader responds to one of our items from “In the ‘Stacks” — “Kristi Noem gets put down”:
I typed a couple of sentences into ChatGPT describing the editorial cartoon I wanted. Ten seconds later I got the image below but with a Golden Retriever. I next requested that it be redone as a German Wirehaired Pointer (fairly rare breed) with a Cheshire cat grin. Seconds later, this was sent over:
ChatGPT is scary. My feelings about it are the same feelings I had when I first watched an email crawl across a black-and-white monitor. Like the song said, “There’s something happening here, what it is isn’t exactly clear.:”
I roll my eyes at my fellow Zionists who apparently can’t handle reading criticism of Israel and cancel their Dish subscriptions. It doesn’t seem very Israeli in spirit, frankly. Or Jewish! Argument for the sake of heaven, anyone? I appreciate that you frequently print dissents on this topic, and while I also sometimes roll my eyes at what you write, I have no plans to cancel my subscription over your views on this topic or any other.
And you are right to keep writing about gender. It is conceivable to me that Democrats might continue to lose elections because they can’t let this issue go. I understand Trump’s lies and corruption (who wouldn’t want to win an election or a war or be filthy rich?), but I don’t understand leftist fealty to land acknowledgements, radical medical treatments for children, etc. What do they get out of it? Is the smug, self-righteous feeling that good? A mystery for the ages.
If you’d like to balance out some of the cancelled subs, please do! We always publish opposing views to mine, which makes cancellation a bit much. Many more dissents are below. The first bashes my piece “The Last War For Israel?” (published the day before the war began):
Your recent column arguing that the US may be drifting toward war with Iran primarily to serve Israeli interests — despite there being “no case to be made” for confrontation — is striking not because it raises legitimate questions about the risks of war, but because it dismisses decades of Iranian behavior, American casualties, and strategic reality in order to reach that conclusion.
Let’s start with the most glaring omission:
Continue reading this post for free, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan.
