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.
Have you actually read the agreement that Trump produced? It's vague and lacking in specifics - a typical Trump effort that's all sizzle and no steak. The core accomplishment here was a ceasefire in exchange for the remaining living hostages. That's great, it's significant, and it's to be celebrated. However, it's probably also another case of Trump pushing on an open door after 2 years of war and exhausted parties unsure of how to get out of the trap they put themselves in. Already the agreement is starting to fall apart. If Trump actually gets Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar to contribute to keeping the peace and rebuilding Gaza, THEN it's an accomplishment.
No, it's more like looking at the outlier in a long track record of incompetence, self-dealing, and malfeasance and figuring out if there's an explanation for the deviation from a well-established trend.
An outlier among... what, successfully intervening between Pakistan and India, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand and Cambodia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Serbia and Kosovo? So mediating ceasefires successfully over and over again is still incompetence, self-dealing, malfeasance, and a deviation?
Just spit-ballin' here because, you know, evidence but I suspect you may hold a bit of a... umm, what's the most polite term here... 'biased' view regarding Trump. Maybe a bit of a predigested tribally correct political view that has difficulty allowing an inconvenient fact or two - or seven if not including Israel and Hamas (eight if Iran - Israel hot war is included) - from interfering with a strongly held Just So anti-Trump, anti-all-things-Trump, narrative. The guy's done some good stuff. That's the truth. Would it kill you to admit as much?
Turn off the Fox News and reference a real news source like The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, or The New York Times. Trump and his allies have been misrepresenting his involvement and accomplishments in all of those areas. Maybe start with this fact check: https://thedispatch.com/article/trump-six-wars-six-months-claims-false/
I see; the poor quality 'news' I get in your mind is not REAL news like the good quality kind you get! That must explain the difference!
(Are you detecting a pattern yet?)
In spite of your beliefs, I don't get ANY cable news including FOX but I read, and subscribe to a cross section of, many sources... the old 'compare and contrast' approach I prefer and that my education once upon a time made mandatory.
I should mention I find it interesting how invested and dedicated are so many 'media' representatives who seem to be required to cast as much doubt as possible with words (such 'violence'!) and ever greater aspersions on Trump and this administration no matter what is done. It reminds me of what Jen and Matt quoted many times: 'Liberals are the kind of people who would never, ever, dream of doing what they are actually doing.' The heavy bias now so common in evaluating all things Israeli seems to be just as true regarding all things Trump. And it's never positive. That's a red flag of poor thinking on display to me as well as reason not to trust the source.
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.
Thank you so much for this. It was so useful to get insights from someone with relevant experience and immediate perspective. I have a brand new, even if grudging, appreciation for Trump's role in this partial resolution--and an equally new, bloody unnerving appreciation for Carney's (or lack thereof). Excellent, excellent interview.
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.
Greatly enjoyed this episode and conversation with our former ambassador Vivian Bercovici - she explained an incredibly nuanced version of the Israel/Middle East events of the past several weeks. Very impressed and learned much.
I felt, however, that Jen brought a great deal of bias and some outright misinformation into this discussion (re: Canada’s recognition of palestine by PM Carney July vs September).
I also cringed on several occasions when she interrupted and talked over the guest to push her points rather than allow the guest to complete her often quite complex thoughts - I find she interrupts often on regular The Line episodes too with Matt but I figure he can hold his own for the most part.
Honestly, I think any future On The Line interviews pertaining to wars (both current and historical) and international relations (especially the Middle East) should be led by Matt as he seems to have a broader interest and educated knowledge base of those subjects… I find Jen’s stances on these to be very simplistic personally.
(No offence Jen, I very much enjoy your writing on other topics)
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.
Have you actually read the agreement that Trump produced? It's vague and lacking in specifics - a typical Trump effort that's all sizzle and no steak. The core accomplishment here was a ceasefire in exchange for the remaining living hostages. That's great, it's significant, and it's to be celebrated. However, it's probably also another case of Trump pushing on an open door after 2 years of war and exhausted parties unsure of how to get out of the trap they put themselves in. Already the agreement is starting to fall apart. If Trump actually gets Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar to contribute to keeping the peace and rebuilding Gaza, THEN it's an accomplishment.
I see; not a REAL Scotsman (all haggis, no whiskey).
No, it's more like looking at the outlier in a long track record of incompetence, self-dealing, and malfeasance and figuring out if there's an explanation for the deviation from a well-established trend.
An outlier among... what, successfully intervening between Pakistan and India, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand and Cambodia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Serbia and Kosovo? So mediating ceasefires successfully over and over again is still incompetence, self-dealing, malfeasance, and a deviation?
Just spit-ballin' here because, you know, evidence but I suspect you may hold a bit of a... umm, what's the most polite term here... 'biased' view regarding Trump. Maybe a bit of a predigested tribally correct political view that has difficulty allowing an inconvenient fact or two - or seven if not including Israel and Hamas (eight if Iran - Israel hot war is included) - from interfering with a strongly held Just So anti-Trump, anti-all-things-Trump, narrative. The guy's done some good stuff. That's the truth. Would it kill you to admit as much?
Turn off the Fox News and reference a real news source like The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, or The New York Times. Trump and his allies have been misrepresenting his involvement and accomplishments in all of those areas. Maybe start with this fact check: https://thedispatch.com/article/trump-six-wars-six-months-claims-false/
I see; the poor quality 'news' I get in your mind is not REAL news like the good quality kind you get! That must explain the difference!
(Are you detecting a pattern yet?)
In spite of your beliefs, I don't get ANY cable news including FOX but I read, and subscribe to a cross section of, many sources... the old 'compare and contrast' approach I prefer and that my education once upon a time made mandatory.
I should mention I find it interesting how invested and dedicated are so many 'media' representatives who seem to be required to cast as much doubt as possible with words (such 'violence'!) and ever greater aspersions on Trump and this administration no matter what is done. It reminds me of what Jen and Matt quoted many times: 'Liberals are the kind of people who would never, ever, dream of doing what they are actually doing.' The heavy bias now so common in evaluating all things Israeli seems to be just as true regarding all things Trump. And it's never positive. That's a red flag of poor thinking on display to me as well as reason not to trust the source.
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.
Thank you so much for this. It was so useful to get insights from someone with relevant experience and immediate perspective. I have a brand new, even if grudging, appreciation for Trump's role in this partial resolution--and an equally new, bloody unnerving appreciation for Carney's (or lack thereof). Excellent, excellent interview.
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”
Greatly enjoyed this episode and conversation with our former ambassador Vivian Bercovici - she explained an incredibly nuanced version of the Israel/Middle East events of the past several weeks. Very impressed and learned much.
I felt, however, that Jen brought a great deal of bias and some outright misinformation into this discussion (re: Canada’s recognition of palestine by PM Carney July vs September).
I also cringed on several occasions when she interrupted and talked over the guest to push her points rather than allow the guest to complete her often quite complex thoughts - I find she interrupts often on regular The Line episodes too with Matt but I figure he can hold his own for the most part.
Honestly, I think any future On The Line interviews pertaining to wars (both current and historical) and international relations (especially the Middle East) should be led by Matt as he seems to have a broader interest and educated knowledge base of those subjects… I find Jen’s stances on these to be very simplistic personally.
(No offence Jen, I very much enjoy your writing on other topics)