Why Neutrality in War Is a Lie—and a Dangerous One:Why I Don’t Flinch When It’s Time to Choose

The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #354

Photo by Mahdi Bafande on Unsplash

Warning

Be forewarned: You might be very angry with me by the end of this issue of JHN. I can't know for sure—because I don’t know your exact position on the subject being discussed. I’m okay with you being angry. I’m OK with you being happy, as well. So…no pressure.

But I do know this:

I felt compelled to write it and share it because I genuinely believe that even if it frustrates you, even if it challenges your assumptions…even if it makes you consider unsubscribing—you will still walk away having gained something of value.

I don’t write to please. I write because I believe readers deserve more than affirmation—they deserve honesty…rigor…and the opportunity to reflect.

I don’t tiptoe. Every issue of JHN delivers my legitimate thoughts…values…and observations as clearly as I can express them. That’s what I owe you—and it’s exactly what you’ll always get.

So take a deep breath, brace yourself, and let’s begin this important read.

“If You Defend a Jew…I Hate You, Too!”

Over the past months, I’ve found myself in the crosshairs of increasingly emotional and hostile reactions…on multiple platforms… whenever I express support for Israel or the Jewish people more broadly.

The accusations fly fast—words like “genocide supporter” or “imperialist” are thrown around as if they settle the debate before it’s even begun.

I’ve heard these critiques often enough to recognize a pattern:

Most aren’t grounded in clear-eyed strategic analysis or a sincere understanding of history, but in emotionally driven reactions that feel good to express…yet lack the discipline and intellectual rigor that complex geopolitical realities demand.

It’s not that emotion doesn’t belong in these conversations. We’re talking about war…trauma…displacement…and death—topics that strike at the core of human conscience.

But what I’ve encountered far too often are arguments built exclusively out of emotional necessity:

Pain seeking explanation, outrage seeking direction, grief seeking a target.

And in that search, nuance gets lost…history gets bent…and strategy is discarded.

What’s left is a worldview that demands purity…moral symmetry…and tidy answers—none of which exist in actual warfare or international affairs.

As a veteran and someone who often writes about politics and global events, I view these issues through a different lens—one informed by war…consequence…and clarity of mission.

My perspective isn’t abstract or romantic. It’s grounded in the understanding that in times of conflict…choices must be made not just with compassion…but with purpose and precision. I don’t deal in utopias.

I deal in real-world stakes, where hesitation costs lives…and where alliances…however imperfect…are sometimes the difference between chaos and stability.

That’s why I’m writing this now—to make my position crystal clear. I want to lay out not just what I believe, but why I believe it.

I will discuss how my values—rooted in both history and hard experience—align with my support for the Jewish people and for Israel.

And I want to do so in a way that is unapologetic…honest…and grounded in the belief that sometimes…picking a side isn’t divisive—it’s necessary.

Moral Clarity in an Age of Moral Confusion

In 2025, picking a side is no longer a matter of preference—it is a matter of principle.

We live in a time when neutrality in the face of overwhelming evidence and injustice isn’t neutrality at all—it’s complicity.

“Both sides-ism,” the reflexive attempt to balance every outrage with a counterpoint… erases context…ignores power dynamics…and ultimately shields those with greater means to do harm.

It replaces moral clarity with moral cowardice…and in the process...enables cycles of violence…disinformation…and inaction.

We have the tools to know better…and the choice to act better—so the refusal to pick a side is a deliberate decision not to.

False equivalence is not objectivity; it's abdication.

A person who watches a house being set on fire and then scolds both the arsonist and the firefighter is not being fair—they're being absurd.

In conflicts where one side holds overwhelming military power…or where one side occupies and controls another…flattening the narrative under the guise of fairness distorts reality.

When we reduce every situation to “complexity,” we lose our ability to call out oppression…to demand justice…or to stand in defense of those who are suffering disproportionately.

Picking a side, when values and human lives are at stake…is not extremism—it is moral responsibility.

What War Demands: A Veteran’s Lens

This is why I argue for a “war footing”—not necessarily in the literal military sense…but in the sense of clarity…urgency…and willingness to act decisively.

History reminds us that there are moments when hesitation is itself a form of betrayal.

War footing means mobilizing every moral, political, and economic resource to uphold justice and survival—not waiting until the ground has been lost.

When we look back on the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki…we can criticize the horror…but we also must understand the rationale: a belief that ending the war swiftly…on our terms…was necessary to secure victory and minimize future American casualties.

A Gallup poll conducted in August 1945 found that 85% of Americans approved of the use of atomic bombs against Japan.

At the time, the American public overwhelmingly approved—because they understood what was at stake, and that not choosing a side meant prolonging defeat and death.

Israel today operates from a similar logic: that to survive…it must act with overwhelming force against an enemy it sees as existential.

Many disagree with the methods or the scale of Israel’s campaign…but the rationale—to protect the future by making brutal decisions in the present—mirrors our own wartime mindset.

The U.S. in 1945 didn’t apologize for ending the war by any means necessary; we defended our right to survive and to win.

Picking a side, especially when your values…your allies…and your own future are implicated…isn’t just rational—it’s essential. The mistake isn’t choosing wrongly; the real mistake is refusing to choose at all.

Human and Soldier: Not Mutually Exclusive

I hold the ability—and the burden—of switching between two deeply rooted perspectives: that of a veteran who understands war intimately, and that of a human being who grieves the loss of innocent life.

I’ve seen what the trauma of violence does up close. I understand the brutal calculus behind decisions made in combat…decisions that often look inhumane from the outside but are grounded in survival…strategy…and mission.

That perspective doesn’t make me callous—it makes me sober. I understand that war is never clean…never fair…and never without unintended casualties.

But I also know that in war…clarity of purpose and strength of resolve often mean the difference between victory and annihilation.

At the same time, I’m not immune to the human cost. I can feel the anguish of families destroyed by violence—whether it’s Israelis massacred in their homes on October 7th or Palestinians in Gaza pulled from rubble they had no role in creating.

These are real people…and their suffering is undeniable. I don't look away from that pain.

But when I write, when I analyze global events or weigh the morality of decisions made by nations…I shift deliberately into the perspective of someone who is looking at structure; more specifically, the structure that answers the question,”What gives democracy and freedom the best chance of surviving in the United States of America?”—because that’s the framework that best equips me to evaluate the hard truths of conflict and power. It’s also where I live.

The Myth of a Warless World

The idea of eliminating all wars is a noble sentiment, but ultimately an unrealistic and potentially dangerous goal.

Human history has been shaped by conflict not because people inherently crave violence…but because power…resources…ideologies…and threats have always collided.

Conflict arises when interests can’t be reconciled peacefully, and while diplomacy should always be pursued first, the notion that war can be removed from the human equation entirely ignores the fundamental nature of global politics and human behavior.

Pretending that war can be abolished doesn't make us more peaceful; it often just makes us more unprepared.

The pursuit of a warless world often leads to paralysis in the face of aggression. When leaders or nations are unwilling to accept that war is sometimes necessary…they delay action…avoid confrontation…and allow dangerous forces to grow unchecked.

History shows us time and again that appeasement and inaction in the name of peace can lead to larger, more devastating wars later.

By the time conflict becomes unavoidable…the costs are higher…he stakes are greater…and more lives are lost than if strength and resolve had been shown earlier.

In trying to avoid all war, we may actually invite more suffering.

Peace isn’t the absence of conflict; it’s the presence of strength…deterrence…and the willingness to act when values…lives…and freedoms are at stake.

War should never be celebrated—but denying its necessity under certain conditions is not a sign of progress; it’s a refusal to face the world as it is.

Why This Position Must Be Said Out Loud

For me, supporting the Jewish people is a simple and deeply rooted decision. As someone who studies history…I can't overlook the centuries of persecution Jews have faced around the world…from pogroms and expulsions to the Holocaust and ongoing antisemitism.

That kind of targeted suffering doesn't just vanish with time; it leaves a permanent mark on the global moral ledger.

So when I see a people still fighting for security and survival in a world that has too often turned its back on them…I don't hesitate to stand with them.

It’s not complicated—it’s human decency informed by historical awareness. I will stand with them—always.

Supporting Israel is just as straightforward…especially as a U.S. citizen…a veteran…and someone who approaches global affairs through a strategic lens.

Israel isn’t just an ally; it’s a strategic asset in a region rife with volatility…hostile regimes…and competing powers.

It shares intelligence…technology…and counterterrorism resources that directly benefit American security.

I don’t view this support through an emotional or ideological filter—I see it as a clear…rational choice for what’s in the best interest of the United States.

Backing Israel strengthens our position in the world…reinforces deterrence against shared threats…and upholds a partnership built on mutual benefit.

In times like these…clarity matters. We are living in an age where complexity is often used as a shield against responsibility. But I reject that.

I believe in calling things what they are. I believe in choosing a side when that side represents survival…sovereignty…and the hard-won right to defend oneself against those who would see you erased.

This isn’t about cheerleading for war—it’s about standing where it counts. It’s about knowing what side of history you want to be on and not flinching when it matters most.