Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
The Palestinian situation concerns Israel and Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and a range of Arab countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Hamas, which the United States designates a terrorist organization, is obviously part of the equation, as is Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. It is therefore very difficult to make sense of terms like “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-Israel” when one is talking about either the current war or one's position on the future of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.
What does it even mean to be pro-Palestinian? Which Palestinians and Palestinian platforms does one support if one is pro-Palestinian?
Someone who is pro-Palestinian might be supportive of Palestinian civilians in the current war but also in favor of a two-state solution or confederation solution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinians. On the other hand, someone who is pro-Palestinian might be supportive of Palestinian civilians in the current war as well as supportive of Hamas and the effort to destroy Israel and Jews in Israel because he or she denies that Israel has a right to exist. Many people who are pro-Palestinian, in either sense of the term, like to say they are Pro-Palestinian and many are very passionate about saying it. The problem is that saying you are pro-Palestinian is not informative and can be very misleading.
The same holds for people who say they are pro-Israel. Someone who uses that term could be supportive of Israel in the current war and also supportive of a two-state solution or a confederation solution. On the other hand, someone who uses these words could be supportive of Israel in the current war but against the idea of a two-state solution or a confederation solution or indeed any solution to the Palestinian situation.
What would truly eliminate confusion is if people would first identify their overall position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The key is to know if someone thinks there is a way to create a map of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza that enables Jews and Palestinians to live in peace. This can be called the "Peaceful Coexistence Model." Thus someone can either stand for peaceful coexistence or not. Hamas, for one, is against the idea of peaceful coexistence. Iran is also opposed to the idea. The Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, have appeared for years to be for peaceful coexistence, although they have sharply criticized Israel for building up too many settlements in what they regard as Palestinian land given to them by the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Regarding the war itself, it is best to spell out specifically where you stand. There are not two clear camps. For example, you can be for peaceful coexistence, argue that Israel has a right to defend itself, oppose the precise way Israel has been trying to dismantle Hamas, and support the humanitarian pauses and hostage/prisoner exchanges as they have proceeded so far. This is the position of the Biden administration and many other countries. Alternatively, you can be for peaceful coexistence, support the hostage/prisoner exchanges, but essentially favor a cease-fire and an end to the war. If that is your position, then you must explain how there is a path to peaceful coexistence if Hamas has not been dismantled, recognizing that Hamas has threatened to attack Israel over and over again.
If you are not in favor of peaceful coexistence, then you should say so. At that point, you can make it clear that you support Israel against the Palestinians in every sense or that you support the Palestinians against Israel in every sense. Theoretically, you could say you are pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, but this will be very confusing because others might be using these terms even though they favor peaceful coexistence. Best therefore to express your total commitment to one side rather than the other in some other way.
Overall, if the media, nonprofit organizations and citizens themselves, especially in their families, dropped the terms pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel. there would be less confusion. Even more, there would be less unnecessary polarization and strife where people may favor a form of peaceful coexistence but the language they use to identify their positions may suggest just the opposite.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.