The only two caveats were that 1) Jen failed to grasp just how different the July and September announcements by Carney were but carried on as if they were similar when they were not. The guest was informed about this important difference, and tried to say as much, but was subjected and politely listened to Jen's misinformed opinion, which demonstrated much grace. And 2) the high opinion the guest had of Trump's (unique, perhaps?) ability to negotiate with so many affected actors and get everyone to the table to achieve at the very least the return of all the living hostages didn't seem to sit well with Jen. It was almost as if she presumed on behalf of the audience that compliments about Trump and/or his achievements must be highly doubted in spite of contrary evidence. And this reminded me strongly of Trump pointing out in his state of the Union address that NOTHING he could say or do would ever be sufficient to earn praise from the determinedly hostile 'left'. That seems true. Jen appears to be equally determined in spite of contrary evidence from reality (weeks of directed negotiations with multiple actors) that anything positive about Trump and his administration must, at best, be a fluke of the even-a-broken-clock-is-correct-twice-a-day variety. Good journalism to earn trust needs at the very least an appearance of neutrality.
But I must give much kudos to Jen for allowing an informed guest to address her good questions and speak/explain at length to offer insight into a very complex situation. I am more informed now because of The Line. Well done.
Strong ditto on both counts, especially point 2. I learned a lot from the guest’s presentation … and by extension, how JG feels by only lightly admonishing Carney, while making (futile) efforts to diminish the US work. Let’s see more guests like this informed representative. She was truly worthwhile listening to.
Jen did a fantastic job. For anyone wanting to know how to properly conduct an interview professionally and respectfully, while still necessarily challenging narratives being put forth when required, this is required listening.
Neither Trump nor anybody else can create lasting peace for parties that don't want it. Hamas has a nonnegotiable goal, to expunge Jews from a certain geographic area and replace them with Muslims; and Hamas has shown itself willing to resort even to terrorist atrocity to achieve this goal. So, no, as long as Israeli Jews are regarded by Hamas as nothing more than impediments to a nonnegotiable goal, they can expect no peace.
Of course, if the 'impediments' waved the white flag, fled their homes and sought peace elsewhere in the world, it's possible they might find it that way. Whether the territory they'd abandoned would then become peaceful for the first time in its history is anybody's guess.
Wonderful interview. Very informative.
The only two caveats were that 1) Jen failed to grasp just how different the July and September announcements by Carney were but carried on as if they were similar when they were not. The guest was informed about this important difference, and tried to say as much, but was subjected and politely listened to Jen's misinformed opinion, which demonstrated much grace. And 2) the high opinion the guest had of Trump's (unique, perhaps?) ability to negotiate with so many affected actors and get everyone to the table to achieve at the very least the return of all the living hostages didn't seem to sit well with Jen. It was almost as if she presumed on behalf of the audience that compliments about Trump and/or his achievements must be highly doubted in spite of contrary evidence. And this reminded me strongly of Trump pointing out in his state of the Union address that NOTHING he could say or do would ever be sufficient to earn praise from the determinedly hostile 'left'. That seems true. Jen appears to be equally determined in spite of contrary evidence from reality (weeks of directed negotiations with multiple actors) that anything positive about Trump and his administration must, at best, be a fluke of the even-a-broken-clock-is-correct-twice-a-day variety. Good journalism to earn trust needs at the very least an appearance of neutrality.
But I must give much kudos to Jen for allowing an informed guest to address her good questions and speak/explain at length to offer insight into a very complex situation. I am more informed now because of The Line. Well done.
Strong ditto on both counts, especially point 2. I learned a lot from the guest’s presentation … and by extension, how JG feels by only lightly admonishing Carney, while making (futile) efforts to diminish the US work. Let’s see more guests like this informed representative. She was truly worthwhile listening to.
Jen did a fantastic job. For anyone wanting to know how to properly conduct an interview professionally and respectfully, while still necessarily challenging narratives being put forth when required, this is required listening.
Neither Trump nor anybody else can create lasting peace for parties that don't want it. Hamas has a nonnegotiable goal, to expunge Jews from a certain geographic area and replace them with Muslims; and Hamas has shown itself willing to resort even to terrorist atrocity to achieve this goal. So, no, as long as Israeli Jews are regarded by Hamas as nothing more than impediments to a nonnegotiable goal, they can expect no peace.
Of course, if the 'impediments' waved the white flag, fled their homes and sought peace elsewhere in the world, it's possible they might find it that way. Whether the territory they'd abandoned would then become peaceful for the first time in its history is anybody's guess.
Trump brought the most recent pause, or as my Gr.12 history used to say, “And then peace broke out”