Don't get me wrong - these interviews are always worthwhile . . . however there's a lot of rehashing regarding things we already know. I would like to hear both you and Glenn expand upon the situation most imperatively, why Israel is committing political suicide.
Secondly, Glenn's run-up to a question needs to be much more succinct. He's doing what all journalists also do, which doesn't make it any less annoying. I have watched Rashid Khalidi practically fall asleep waiting for Glenn to get to his point! I personally find it disrespectful to keep such esteemed guests waiting for the actual question. You could see almost the same reaction with John during this interview.
While I agree with you in need to reduce lengthy background and intro to questions for the sake of maintaining a more captivating conversation, I also defend Glenn's mode of operation from a standard journalistic standpoint: That of assuming that even just one audience member may have just woken from a 20 year coma and comes with zero background. On that point Glenn is faultless.
Eve I could not agree more - no one explains thing's better than he does. NO ONE! The problem is the repetitiveness. No one makes a point better than he does as far as clarifying things - but, he needs to stop there and move on. Wanna hear something ironic? When he does interviews on other people shows he is unbelievably concise obviously because of time constraints but also . . . . comes off much more scholarly.
A prescient professor is certainly welcome in these days of partisan truth. John Mearsheimer is always a bearer of informed views and analyses. Thanks for the opportunity to hear you both, and I will try to get through the 85-page South African brief!
Thank you for this superb interview, Professor Mearsheimer. I appreciate not only the information you impart but also the clear and concise manner in which you explain international relations.
Glenn: “…Why should someone who looks at the world, in a realist way, care whether or not the US ends up alienating or isolating much of the world because of this obsession with standing with Israel?”
John: “Diplomacy matters. A realist like me places enormous amount of attention in the balance of power. I wouldn’t argue that diplomacy doesn’t matter. If you’re interested in acting on the world stage, you don’t want to be diplomatically isolated. And one of the consequences in the fact that [the US] is joined at the hip with Israel, is that it causes us diplomatic problems and that’s certainly the case since October 7th… international legal institutions do not have the ability to coerce great powers like the US, China, or Russia, they can ignore the dictates of those institutions — in a highly interdependent world that we live in, there’s no way you can conduct business without institutions. Therefore the US is a big proponent of institutions. If you were to laundry list all of the powerful institutions in the world, you would see [the US] created most of them — [the US] wrote the rules, with regard to the genocide convention. This is the way the world works. Powerful states write the rules, and support institutions more generally because it’s in their interest. We have an interest in maintaining the United Nations and ICJ, this doesn’t mean we’re gunna be happy with what that court or institution proposes as a solution to a problem, in some cases we ignore the dictates of the institution but the fact is, institutions matter to us and therefore we have a vested interest in making sure we are in sync with what those institutions are doing as much as possible”.
Don't get me wrong - these interviews are always worthwhile . . . however there's a lot of rehashing regarding things we already know. I would like to hear both you and Glenn expand upon the situation most imperatively, why Israel is committing political suicide.
Secondly, Glenn's run-up to a question needs to be much more succinct. He's doing what all journalists also do, which doesn't make it any less annoying. I have watched Rashid Khalidi practically fall asleep waiting for Glenn to get to his point! I personally find it disrespectful to keep such esteemed guests waiting for the actual question. You could see almost the same reaction with John during this interview.
While I agree with you in need to reduce lengthy background and intro to questions for the sake of maintaining a more captivating conversation, I also defend Glenn's mode of operation from a standard journalistic standpoint: That of assuming that even just one audience member may have just woken from a 20 year coma and comes with zero background. On that point Glenn is faultless.
Eve I could not agree more - no one explains thing's better than he does. NO ONE! The problem is the repetitiveness. No one makes a point better than he does as far as clarifying things - but, he needs to stop there and move on. Wanna hear something ironic? When he does interviews on other people shows he is unbelievably concise obviously because of time constraints but also . . . . comes off much more scholarly.
A prescient professor is certainly welcome in these days of partisan truth. John Mearsheimer is always a bearer of informed views and analyses. Thanks for the opportunity to hear you both, and I will try to get through the 85-page South African brief!
Actually, Glenn's background setting the stage for the interview was excellent, too.
Thank you for this superb interview, Professor Mearsheimer. I appreciate not only the information you impart but also the clear and concise manner in which you explain international relations.
Glenn: “…Why should someone who looks at the world, in a realist way, care whether or not the US ends up alienating or isolating much of the world because of this obsession with standing with Israel?”
John: “Diplomacy matters. A realist like me places enormous amount of attention in the balance of power. I wouldn’t argue that diplomacy doesn’t matter. If you’re interested in acting on the world stage, you don’t want to be diplomatically isolated. And one of the consequences in the fact that [the US] is joined at the hip with Israel, is that it causes us diplomatic problems and that’s certainly the case since October 7th… international legal institutions do not have the ability to coerce great powers like the US, China, or Russia, they can ignore the dictates of those institutions — in a highly interdependent world that we live in, there’s no way you can conduct business without institutions. Therefore the US is a big proponent of institutions. If you were to laundry list all of the powerful institutions in the world, you would see [the US] created most of them — [the US] wrote the rules, with regard to the genocide convention. This is the way the world works. Powerful states write the rules, and support institutions more generally because it’s in their interest. We have an interest in maintaining the United Nations and ICJ, this doesn’t mean we’re gunna be happy with what that court or institution proposes as a solution to a problem, in some cases we ignore the dictates of the institution but the fact is, institutions matter to us and therefore we have a vested interest in making sure we are in sync with what those institutions are doing as much as possible”.
Yep. Try Russel and Norman.
Scroll down for the link.
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulokirk/p/evil-in-t-shirt-a-la-zelensky-and?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5i319
I just listend to it. Excellent segment! Thank you, professor. Keep up the good fight in an age of mass delusion.