The editorial board of the Washington Post What what wrong with the cease fire On culpability Can there *be* a negotiated settlement? Is it really “the occupation”? That wild 2022 video from Jenin that Moynihan mentioned You’re going to be defrocked
I like Shadi and have followed him for longer than I remember. I think his heart in the right place, but falls into the same traps as the most bad faith Palestine “supporters” though I think the reasons are different.
What is so frustrating about these conversations is that the solutions proposed aren’t solutions at all...they are fantasies in need of solutions to make possible. They constantly skip ahead to some nebulous future state where all the actual work has been done. What that work is no one can say.
A perfect example of this was the part about the blockade. When asked what replaces the blockade he talked about how once Hamas is removed hopefully there is no reason for it. That isn’t a solution much less an answer to the question.
People like Shadi who genuinely care about the plight of Palestinians have to contend with the demands that must be placed on Palestinians themselves. Whether intentional or not, the framing as often constructed is silent on the steps, and the implications of that silent is that Israel needs to figure it out - like it’s up to them to behave in a way that will stop the attacks from a group that is on the record saying they will never stop under any circumstances.
It all just doesn’t seem very serious even if I feel many of the same sympathies and concerns for the innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire. It’s beyond frustrating...there is no world where there is a lasting peace that doesn’t make demands from both sides of this conflict despite the power imbalance.
Yep. I too liked Shadi. To be generous, I think Shadi was reviewing and emphasizing previous points. If I am not being generous, his answers come off as circular arguments. I found myself thinking that he, like the rest of us, has no idea how to fix things in the middle east.
That said, Israel and the region has made progress in my lifetime. There are agreements for desalination plants. Portions of the Lowdermilk Plan for a Jordan Valley Authority have been accomplished, I believe.
Totally agree with this. I found myself agreeing with basically everything Shadi said, especially the criticism of the "pro-Israel" folx not really sympathizing with Palestinians who are very much being held hostage and many of the younger people have likely been brainwashed. However, the question of "what should Israel do" is never answered.
I know Shadi isn't a military expert (neither are the gents) but I feel like this discourse is circular. Reasonable people all think 1) Hamas sucks ass 2) Israel has a right to defend itself 3) Palestinians dying is awful. Ok, now what? I'd love to hear some true military expert of the region disagree about Israel's tactics here with specific recommendations for alternatives.
I agree with almost every both you and Shadi said, but faulting Shadi for not having a solution? Nobody has found anything close to a solution to strife in that region, especially inter religious strife, since humans started recording history.
I get your point. “Yeah but the Israelis shouldn’t kill too many Palestinians and need to try harder to be better” is the easiest thing to say and often spoken by those with zero understanding of either military history or geopolitics.
Points to Shadi for making a good faith, reasoned attempt and restoring my faith in my fellow Americans, left, right, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.
Oh I absolutely don't think Shadi's insight was not valuable. I've just listened to a lot of Israel content and I do feel that if you're going to say that Israel is not conducting this war properly, you should have some, realistic description of what you'd prefer they do. I've yet to hear that from anyone (perhaps I'm in a bubble).
I agree that Shadi made his points well and sounded reasonable (he did much better than his discussion at the Dispatch; thanks to the productive pushback). Unfortunately voices like his are rare in the anti-Israel crowd.
Well said and I also thought this was a great episode. One area of this conflict that needs some thorough sussing is the situation in the West Bank. I don’t mean this is a whatabout way but think it’s contextually important to the whole mess. The gentleman have mentioned it in passing several times, but quickly are back to, correctly, criticizing Hamas and Harvard. From my limited understanding of the region things have only gotten worse there of late and it’s a blind spot for defenders of Israel (including myself among them). It seems that one of the common threads of the foreign policy discussion on the show is the respect of internationally recognized boundaries and individual dignity which by most accounts (as far as I can tell) are being either actively or permissibly violated by Israel. Anyway wish I had a good suggestion for a guest to discuss this facet of the conflict but that’s why you guys get the big bucks.
Anything that is broadly unpopular for being awful could qualify as being oppressed under this half-baked “framework”. It’s painfully inadequate for all but the most hypothetical academic exercises.
I also find it so interesting how “oppressors” are never allowed to remember history, but the oppressed can dip into generations of supposed grievances to justify their actions. I just can’t imagine anyone with any semblance of intelligence or wisdom could buy into something so incomplete and incompatible with reality.
Ideology is a helluva drug. It can make things less relevant or hideously painful. It's like a fog that obscures the true scene and allows the mind and the voices of others to provide meaning.
Yes, there is no consistency. It’s disheartening because even people I am 99% sure are arguing in good faith out of genuine interest in the plight of Palestinian people fall back on the same incoherence to make their case. There is no justification or excuse good enough to convince me Hamas is not 100% at fault for provoking this conflict. They are, full stop.
Even with someone like Shadi, the talk of there being no excuse for what happened on 10/7 is transparently lip service because he seems to contradict it all with “context”. Not a single word of what living the constant threat of terrorism, even after large overtures towards making peace, might do to a people psychologically.
I would add the Shadi says at one point that in the 90's "only" 20% of Palestinians support violence against Israel. As if 20% was some great number to start from.
If 1 in 5 people prefer my brownies as opposed to someone else’s brownies, it’s not a big deal. If 1 in 5 want me dead, I feel like I’m in a pretty bad place.
Speaking of Columbia, I think Edward Said is to blame for so much of the one sided Palestinian discourse. Orientalism was required reading in every aspect of the humanities, and he really created the modern lefty standard view of the issue. Thanks, Columbia 🤬
There is a strain of Marxian Palestinian activists that do support a "South Africa" solution of a multiethnic democracy with two peoples in one state, from the River to the Sea. But these are tiny in number compared to those who prefer an "Algeria" solution of the Jews just going away (to... somewhere... maybe the US, maybe Madagascar). His claim that you can never be certain what the slogan means seems purposely obtuse, when supporters of the "Algeria" solution seem to outnumber supporters of the "South Africa" solution by 10 to 1.
This was a fascinating episode. It was great to hear a RESPECTFUL back and forth on this situation.
While I think Shadi Hamid's views are more idealistic than realistic, I think it was a great episode. Kudos to the guys for pressing him on details and pushing back on some inaccuracies.
For an issue drowning in nuance, this is probably the best conversation I've heard so far
Came here to say all of these things, almost word for word. Just so god damn pleasant to hear Americans from different backgrounds with different viewpoints having a serious, deep, and calm discussion about how to solve a problem.
Let’s hope he’s back on soon, and more guests like him too.
About halfway through and a couple of thoughts. I appreciate that Shadi came on but it seems to me something really gross about having to hold the US and Israel to absurd standards, but yet the poor Palestinians could not possibly be held to any moral standards including just don't murder people.
This oppressor oppressed binary is a helluva drug if it leads you to discount morality.
The sins of Hamas are waved away because of course they do bad things, they're terrorists. But there's a hyper fixation on Israel's wrongdoings, real or perceived.
This might be related to police shooting discussions too - basically the argument is "the police are in a position of power so they are held to a higher standard" but that makes a lot less sense when you're talking about different nations/governments.
Shadi really needs to talk to some “pro-Palestinian” groups and individuals. They don’t consider Hamas to be terrorists, nor do they consider Israel to be a democracy. Always trying to have it both ways. Which is exactly what I would expect from a morally and intellectually bankrupt movement. I’m sure Shadi was the best they could do, but even if he doesn’t have enough lipstick for this pig.
I wonder if action and superhero flicks have done us a disservice. Some people seem to think we have almost supernatural human and technological capabilities that allow for easily dismantling the enemy with the highest accuracy and precision that leaves infrastructure intact and civilians unharmed.
I also found myself wondering who he thinks this special Israeli task force is that only kills the bad guys and never harms civilians. Does he think Israel has the Avengers?
I've never thought about it like this before, but I think this is very insightful. Think of all of the dipshits marching at your local edifice of higher learning, and then think about what were the popular movies during their formative years.
I am torn to find the most appropriate historical context with which to respond to this. From Alexander's 15 year stroll through Persia into Asia or the razing of Carthage, from Mithridates wanton slaughter through Italy which resulted in over 100,000 deaths to the sacking of Isfahan in 1387 where Tamerline had his soldiers erect a tower from the 42,000 decapitated heads of its former inhabitants, from the Albigensian Crusade to the Third Reich's Final Solution, without even touching upon the peace-time genocides, persecutions, pogroms, and purges of the last three hundred years, once you cede the inevitability of civilian casualties as acceptable there is no longer any bar against the level of atrocity which can be tolerated.
It is a standard which must be regarded as absolute even when it is impossible as any acceptable number greater than zero will quickly become negotiable.
I certainly wasn’t implying they take a different approach that risks more lives. Merely that realistic vs. unrealistic expectations in light of higher expectations is an interesting take.
It would be a different world if everyone would abide by the highest standard that values human life. However, as we heard, only certain groups are required to meet such a standard.
Only certain groups believe in that standard. Those who stand in opposition to them are not above weaponizing failure -and make no mistake about it evey civilian killed is a failure.
And no, I don't buy that you that were pointing out an "interesting take." People who are on board with a course of action don't complain about the difficulty or cost, they just work toward the goal. If you want a better world you are going to accept the charges of hypocrisy from everyone who doesn't because progress is imperfect. Great change comes slowly and without consistency. The criticism of your adversaries is a balm, it serves to remind you of how different you are from them, what you are striving for, and how much it matters.
Even accepting the figure of 16,000 deaths in Gaza after two months, does anyone really believe there would have been fewer if HAMAS had the advantage? They killed a 1,000 civilians in one day. On purpose. This isn't a serious line of inquire and it certainly isn't interesting.
I made it 21 min. Gotta take a break because I can't stand this WP guy. Thanks for always having the patience to speak to people like him and Fuckelstein but I have this medical condition called "being Jewish" where these guys start speaking and all I can hear is a buzzing sound and I can literally see my pulse in the corners of my vision...
I’m forcing myself to go thru the whole thing. About 45 minutes in and getting frustrated because the guys keep asking him pointed questions that seem to be focused on the realities on the ground, but he is sidestepping then completely (e.g., Matt’s question about who is there to even negotiate with, Michael’s question about what do people expect Israel to do in re: blockade). Also a bit annoyed at the argument that it is actually Israel that doesn’t want a 2 state solution.
I was dissapointed that the guys didn't push back a but more- specifically about the number of casualties, the fact that Israel spent decades working toward a two-state solution which was roundly rejected every time, what Israel is to do and the very unique impossible standards they are held to.
It's not a perfect parallel but in a lot of ways listening to Shadi, I got similar vibes to Vivek when he was on the podcast. Someone who think very naively, they have an answer for everything while having an answer to nothing. "they just need to negotiate with Hamas. Israel should ask hamas to stop firing missiles. A genuine peace process". Oh wow. Why didn't anyone think of that before. Thanks shadi. It reminds me of Vivek's cartoonishly naive solutions that he thinks would work if only someone as smart as him was in charge. We just never really got an answer to the fundamental question -- OK, it's bad civilians are being harmed. So what do we do about Hamas, that hides under civilians, and absolutely promises to do more Oct. 7 pogroms, if they are not totally eradicated this time around. The second argument that I found extremely annoying that Shadi made, was the argument that the call for intifada, isn't inherently violent, bc, they were only suicide bombing busses sometimes.
My favorite was “Hamas will rape and murder, that’s terrible, but we can definitely trust them if they promise to stop attacking Israel.” This level of naïveté should be considered malicious at this point.
I had the same thoughts at a couple of the lines “Tell Hamas to accept...”
...I’m going to stop you right there, buddy. I’m going to need to see a list of “consequences that happen” the moment Hamas breaks whatever terms they agree to 20 minutes after signing an agreement. Then what? There is no reason for Israel to trust a single word Hamas says. Ever.
Shadi seemed to assert (In response to Matt's ? about negotiating w Hamas) that Israel should be negotiating w Hamas, for a disarmed Hamas first and foremost. And if Hamas so "nah", well only THEN is it okay that Israel fight back. Like, come again? Israel gets brutally attacked and their first reaction should be... to negotiate w the attackers? And when the attackers politely decline, THEN Israel can fight back... but only if they don't kill too many people amongst which Hamas has intertwined themselves with for this very purpose? It amounts to, Israel must allow itself to be attacked and take it on the chin.
Yeah these are the kinds of major omissions from these kinds of arguments that make it impossible for me to take seriously. That and what the consequences should be if Hamas breaks any terms of a treaty. How could any person in good faith argue that Israel should just trust Hamas and we’ll deal with consequences if they happen. That is the way of thinking that has gotten things to where they are today.
""they just need to negotiate with Hamas. Israel should ask hamas to stop firing missiles. A genuine peace process". Oh wow. Why didn't anyone think of that before. Thanks shadi.""
Gonna reply to my own comment here after the full listen to state that you TFC dudes did this really well. My soul wanted a point-by-point refutation but that's not what this was intended to be.
I was having a lot of trouble for the end with the apologia for “From the River to the Sea” - I would just love to see one example of someone out shouting “From the river to the sea, we want to coexist in HAR*MO*NY!” It’s ludicrous, and I don’t believe anyone can be that naive.
Unjustifiable to whom? I'm pretty sure that the Israelis are no longer willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters to save the lives of those who would slaughter them.
It’s unjustifiable to me personally on a moral level. It’s unjustifiable from a US national security perspective to send Israel an additional $14b. It seems like a gamble as to whether or not this grotesque level of violence won’t end in more extremism in Palestine and in the Middle East more broadly so I don’t see how one could justify it as being in the interest of Israeli national security either.
Well I'd imagine the parents of those who were raped, kidnapped and slaughter have less qualms with the "morality" of striking those who committed those acts and the vast majority who support in Gaza who support them.
As far as the 14b. Considering for the entirety of their existance some group or other has always been trying to eliminate the Jews, I'm okay with spending 14b to help prevent that.
All the more so when you watch how much of Western culture has shown their true antisemitic fervor. Something I was not anticipating. Self deternination is their only real hope for survival.
Will this 'radicalize more "Palestinians". Doubtful. Not because it couldn't, but because they are literally radicalized from birth to hate the Jews. Judging by the recent polls from Gaza, "radicalization" is the least of Israels concerns.
Lastly, we have no idea what the casualty count is. I'm sure it's significant, but I'm also sure the numbers you quote are grossly exagerrated. The come from the Gaza Health Ministry, ie Hamas, to take the numbers from these animals at face value is absurd.
That raises the morality of war and how it is waged itself. Almost by definition to wage war, and bring it to an end you have to inflict far worse on your opponent than they have on you.
If they kill a thousand of yours and you kill a thousand of theirs, few combatants are going to say "ok we're even, war over". Almost the only way to win a war is to inflict enough damage on tour opponent to not make it worthwhile for them to retaliate at all. That strategy was more than used in the wars a lot of people generally consider "the good wars".
It's truly astounding how Hamas can state that Gazan civilian welfare is not their responsibility but is that of the UN's, and can *quickly* count every single civilian Gazan death with such accuracy. E.g., Al-Ahli Hospital, etc., etc.
So they’re saying 16,000 dead- what do you think? If not that, maybe 14? 12? 10? I’d be repulsed by any of those numbers especially considering the number of children that have been killed.
What is the acceptable number? What is the number of Israeli soldiers that you're willing to sacrifice in order to keep the numbers of civilian deaths down? Israel has warned residents repeatedly to leave the area. Is Israel obligated to take no action if those civilians choose, or are compelled, to stay in areas where Hamas is known to have men or equipment?
Al-Mawasi has no running water, little to no humanitarian aid, and makeshift tents providing very little shelter. The conditions in Gaza are unimaginable, no internet connection, scarce access to basic necessities, 10s of thousands of displaced people without a home. It’s easy to say from afar, “yea they should listen to the IDF and go elsewhere.”
And??? Whose reponsiblity is that? Israel only supplies 10 percent of their water and last I read had restored that. Maybe if the Palestinians had focused on infrastructure instead of rockets this wouldn't be an issue.
Israel does not control the aid to Gaza. Gaza shares a border with Egypt as well. The aid can flow in from there much more easily. Predictably when aid does come in it's hijacked by Hamas. It's naive to the point of stupidity to think Israel should open it's border to same region that just invaded it, raped it's women, killed it's babies and slaughtered its citizenry.
You want the Iraelis to lay down and die to protect those who cheer when it's attacked. In my finest English: Fuck that.
Yes. The weird thing about all this is that for some reason there are no podcasts or such empathetic concern about pretty much any other suffering group on this planet. Palestinians in actual refugee camps killed in Syria, nada. Children starving in Yemen. Nothing. Yazidis, Kurds, Uighurs, silence. It's bizarre that all this beautiful concern only for one group. Do you wonder why? And if not, why? Afganis are being displaced right now in Pakistan, brutally treated and nothing. Children are being raped and sold in Afghanistan but we don't do podcasts or count how many. Why? I'm all for empathy and humanity but please do apply it equally. Otherwise, it comes across... Umm... Asymmetrical.
Samuel, I don't agree with you, but I appreciate your good-faith contributions nonetheless. Not easy to state the views that are clearly less popular on this thread. Thanks for helping us avoid an echo chamber.
Thank you Jon, I’ll admit- I’ve been a longtime listener to TFC and actually didn’t expect so much consensus on the issue among the fellas or among the listenership.
Yes actually, but my gauge on what’s right and what’s wrong in the world is not measured by the opinions of TFC. Prior to October 7th, I’d tell people that I knew just enough about the Israel/ Palestine conflict to know that I’m not informed enough to have a steadfast opinion. I still try to maintain this humility although I’ve been persuaded over the course of this particular conflict that the scale of the Israeli response is unjustifiable and far too indiscriminate. I also disagree with TFC on Ukraine and increasingly on immigration. I enjoy listening and find the lads to be reasonable. They get me thinking and keep me grounded even if I might not be totally won over by every argument.
You seem to be inferring that consensus is inherently problematic. My guess is that you've been a longtime listener because, like many TFC listeners, you respect Kmele's, Michael's and Matt's attempt to be thoughtful, careful and intellectually honest about the views they espouse. If you believe they are failing in regard to this particular issue, instead of complaining that there's too much consensus, provide a substantive refutation to the points you believe to be wrong. For example, you can start by providing a realistic and clear alternative to Israel's approach (which you deem unjustifiable) that doesn't rob Israel of its ability to defend itself and survive.
You’re welcome to make that claim. One thing I notice about the people who are concern trolling about the scale in a war Hamas started, is the scale of death on Oct 7, wish is 0 to 1200. None of these people ever seemed concerned that there is infinite ratio of innocent people Hamas kills when there is literally nothing happening
I appreciate the response. I don’t listen to every episode, but most of them. I’m not saying you guys haven’t explored the issue or that you don’t care, I’m just saying it hasn’t been a core issue. Certainly not a kind of prerequisite to enjoying the show, that is, If a friend asked me to describe the podcast mentioning a pro Israeli or pro Zionist perspective would certainly not be top of mind- Don’t you agree? I believe I’d feel the same way even if I had caught that episode a year ago.
What is concern trolling? I don’t troll, the only reason I’m putting so much effort in here is to remind you all that this podcast is listened to be plenty of folks who disagree with the host’s consensus on Israel. I’m not trying to instigate hostility, I don’t use hyperbole, I say what I mean and mean what I say and behave with civility even when communicating online. Israel wasn’t even close to a top concern of TFC before October 7th. I actually never really heard any of the guys say anything about it.
Fuck around, find out. That is how wars work, the Palestinians repeatedly seem desperate to start one, and they keep losing but then the west is nice to them.
And Shadi did it without a throat clear. I expected Moyn to point out how overblown the numbers were on the supposed Israeli missile attack on the Al-Ahli hospital. He didn't, I suspect, because he knows we know.
When it was revealed to be a missile malfunction on the Gazan side and probably 5-20 people died, it should be a clue that Hamas is not even trying to be anything but dishonest to whip up support for its cause.
Last I'd seen, a single IDF spokesperson claimed it was an estimated 2:1 ratio of civilians to terrorists, and that approximately 5,000 terrorists were dead. 1) this is not a good ratio. 2) who knows how accurate it is. At the same time, Hamas had claimed it was 15,900 Gaza civilians dead, yet again showing their tremendous accuracy and believability.
If the question was about hiding tunnels in schools and hospitals, I'd find Hamas-sourced data more trustworthy.
I have to find the source, but there was a study done comparing civilian to combatant ratios in various modern asymmetric warfare conflicts and they found that a ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 was typical. So, even if the death rate in Gaza is appalling, it’s still *better* than in comparable conflicts.
Regardless of your credulity, the point is that the guest was quoting the number cited by an anonymous IDF official, and not the Gaza’s Health Ministry. Saying he was "quoting Hamas’ figures on deaths" is inaccurate.
No, he did not reference an IDF claim of 15,000 Gazan deaths, it was unsourced. It's at 12 mins, 29 seconds. I listened again to it and the follow-up after finding the spot in the transcript that initially ticked me off. There have been more than enough citations of the Hamas claims to have to point to it.
Ok, you've now called me foolish. And I'm going to reply and say that you attributed his comment to an IDF source, which did not happen.
I have not seen any IDF estimate of "15,000" dead Gazans, with "6,000" being children - both of these are mentioned by the guest. I have seen these numbers from the Hamas-run ministry of health, repeated ad nauseum in much of the press. It's pretty clear that he is citing these numbers by either uncritically or maliciously, especially if you consider it alongside the entirety of his statements within this episode.
This is just the kind of discussion I was hoping for in my recent comments on the previous episode thread. Thank you for seeking out and arranging this discussion. It's been refreshing to hear some back-and-forth, and I'm still only halfway through!
Okay last comment...I knew this would be a great episode and I’ve been replaying it in my mind since listening.
I’m so sick of the “Intifada actually means X” schtick. If that is true, please explain the specific context of “Globalizing the Intifada”. What is a GLOBAL uprising in this context? Swastikas used to have a different meaning too, does that mean we can’t be sure of the context if they appear at an anti-Israel rally? What a stupid hill to die on.
That was astonishing. He's a lovely guy, but that was pure, woolly nonsense, at best. He never answered the question about what military response would be appropriate, he never answered the question about rape denial, he said that the intifada chants were references to the 1980s "peaceful" protests not to the much more contemporary terrorism that deliberately targeted civilians and undermined the Israeli left, who were the protagonists in the peace process, that the genocidal "river to the sea" chants were a call for very specific state solutions, etc. For the love of G-d, pure nonsense. And, as others have noted, he denies agency to the "oppressed," which, incidentally, is a shitty and unuseful way to divide the world. Hamas has agency and acted on it and continue to act on it, holding the hostages and firing rockets at Israeli civilians, etc. Fortunately, Israel is acting decisively and comprehensively this time, and, as noted, Gaza will remain permanently demilitarized.
I just find some of the folks on the anti-Israel side to be completely divorced from reality, not just on the long timeline but on the very short timeline. Shadi, like other protestors this week, says he wants Israel to commit to a ceasefire. Did these folks go into a coma after eating their Thanksgiving turkey and wake up yesterday? THERE WAS A CEASEFIRE! It started on Nov. 24, and involved the exchange of prisoners for hostages. Israel was prepared to continue the ceasefire to get more of their hostages out, but Hamas broke the ceasefire on November 30!
Now sure, I hope Israel is able to negotiate another ceasefire and get more hostages out. But Israel does not have the power here, Hamas does. If Hamas surrenders and turns over the hostages, the war is over and the people of Palestine can live in peace again. Unrealistic? Sure. But not any more than the demands being made by the other side.
I agree with Shadi so far as “there’s a world where the Palestinian grievances are legitimate” but their pursuit of redress over the last 20 years makes me feel like their grievance is the existence of Jews rather than being forced from their homes.
I’m not far enough into it but while I’m here and since I’m sure it comes up, I’d like to contrast the behavior of normal Iranian citizens who risk their lives and freedom to protest the government at almost any chance they get. Only very recently are we getting videos of Gazans speaking against Hamas and that is only after they were used as human shields in an urban war.
Also interesting how he says things like Palestinian feelings, Palestinian houses, and (my personal favorite) Palestinian dignity are supposed to be considered a priority. After October 7th, it's almost laughable.
I like Shadi and have followed him for longer than I remember. I think his heart in the right place, but falls into the same traps as the most bad faith Palestine “supporters” though I think the reasons are different.
What is so frustrating about these conversations is that the solutions proposed aren’t solutions at all...they are fantasies in need of solutions to make possible. They constantly skip ahead to some nebulous future state where all the actual work has been done. What that work is no one can say.
A perfect example of this was the part about the blockade. When asked what replaces the blockade he talked about how once Hamas is removed hopefully there is no reason for it. That isn’t a solution much less an answer to the question.
People like Shadi who genuinely care about the plight of Palestinians have to contend with the demands that must be placed on Palestinians themselves. Whether intentional or not, the framing as often constructed is silent on the steps, and the implications of that silent is that Israel needs to figure it out - like it’s up to them to behave in a way that will stop the attacks from a group that is on the record saying they will never stop under any circumstances.
It all just doesn’t seem very serious even if I feel many of the same sympathies and concerns for the innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire. It’s beyond frustrating...there is no world where there is a lasting peace that doesn’t make demands from both sides of this conflict despite the power imbalance.
Goddamn you organized my thoughts gooder.
Yep. I too liked Shadi. To be generous, I think Shadi was reviewing and emphasizing previous points. If I am not being generous, his answers come off as circular arguments. I found myself thinking that he, like the rest of us, has no idea how to fix things in the middle east.
That said, Israel and the region has made progress in my lifetime. There are agreements for desalination plants. Portions of the Lowdermilk Plan for a Jordan Valley Authority have been accomplished, I believe.
😂
Totally agree with this. I found myself agreeing with basically everything Shadi said, especially the criticism of the "pro-Israel" folx not really sympathizing with Palestinians who are very much being held hostage and many of the younger people have likely been brainwashed. However, the question of "what should Israel do" is never answered.
I know Shadi isn't a military expert (neither are the gents) but I feel like this discourse is circular. Reasonable people all think 1) Hamas sucks ass 2) Israel has a right to defend itself 3) Palestinians dying is awful. Ok, now what? I'd love to hear some true military expert of the region disagree about Israel's tactics here with specific recommendations for alternatives.
Enjoyed the episode!
I agree with almost every both you and Shadi said, but faulting Shadi for not having a solution? Nobody has found anything close to a solution to strife in that region, especially inter religious strife, since humans started recording history.
I get your point. “Yeah but the Israelis shouldn’t kill too many Palestinians and need to try harder to be better” is the easiest thing to say and often spoken by those with zero understanding of either military history or geopolitics.
Points to Shadi for making a good faith, reasoned attempt and restoring my faith in my fellow Americans, left, right, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.
Oh I absolutely don't think Shadi's insight was not valuable. I've just listened to a lot of Israel content and I do feel that if you're going to say that Israel is not conducting this war properly, you should have some, realistic description of what you'd prefer they do. I've yet to hear that from anyone (perhaps I'm in a bubble).
I agree that Shadi made his points well and sounded reasonable (he did much better than his discussion at the Dispatch; thanks to the productive pushback). Unfortunately voices like his are rare in the anti-Israel crowd.
Totally
Excellent insight
Even a broken clock and all that. 😜
Well said and I also thought this was a great episode. One area of this conflict that needs some thorough sussing is the situation in the West Bank. I don’t mean this is a whatabout way but think it’s contextually important to the whole mess. The gentleman have mentioned it in passing several times, but quickly are back to, correctly, criticizing Hamas and Harvard. From my limited understanding of the region things have only gotten worse there of late and it’s a blind spot for defenders of Israel (including myself among them). It seems that one of the common threads of the foreign policy discussion on the show is the respect of internationally recognized boundaries and individual dignity which by most accounts (as far as I can tell) are being either actively or permissibly violated by Israel. Anyway wish I had a good suggestion for a guest to discuss this facet of the conflict but that’s why you guys get the big bucks.
🎯🎯🎯
Anything that is broadly unpopular for being awful could qualify as being oppressed under this half-baked “framework”. It’s painfully inadequate for all but the most hypothetical academic exercises.
I also find it so interesting how “oppressors” are never allowed to remember history, but the oppressed can dip into generations of supposed grievances to justify their actions. I just can’t imagine anyone with any semblance of intelligence or wisdom could buy into something so incomplete and incompatible with reality.
Ideology is a helluva drug. It can make things less relevant or hideously painful. It's like a fog that obscures the true scene and allows the mind and the voices of others to provide meaning.
Yes, there is no consistency. It’s disheartening because even people I am 99% sure are arguing in good faith out of genuine interest in the plight of Palestinian people fall back on the same incoherence to make their case. There is no justification or excuse good enough to convince me Hamas is not 100% at fault for provoking this conflict. They are, full stop.
Even with someone like Shadi, the talk of there being no excuse for what happened on 10/7 is transparently lip service because he seems to contradict it all with “context”. Not a single word of what living the constant threat of terrorism, even after large overtures towards making peace, might do to a people psychologically.
I would add the Shadi says at one point that in the 90's "only" 20% of Palestinians support violence against Israel. As if 20% was some great number to start from.
If 1 in 5 people prefer my brownies as opposed to someone else’s brownies, it’s not a big deal. If 1 in 5 want me dead, I feel like I’m in a pretty bad place.
Speaking of Columbia, I think Edward Said is to blame for so much of the one sided Palestinian discourse. Orientalism was required reading in every aspect of the humanities, and he really created the modern lefty standard view of the issue. Thanks, Columbia 🤬
There is a strain of Marxian Palestinian activists that do support a "South Africa" solution of a multiethnic democracy with two peoples in one state, from the River to the Sea. But these are tiny in number compared to those who prefer an "Algeria" solution of the Jews just going away (to... somewhere... maybe the US, maybe Madagascar). His claim that you can never be certain what the slogan means seems purposely obtuse, when supporters of the "Algeria" solution seem to outnumber supporters of the "South Africa" solution by 10 to 1.
What is it with people who hate Jews wanting to put them on Madagascar?
This was a fascinating episode. It was great to hear a RESPECTFUL back and forth on this situation.
While I think Shadi Hamid's views are more idealistic than realistic, I think it was a great episode. Kudos to the guys for pressing him on details and pushing back on some inaccuracies.
For an issue drowning in nuance, this is probably the best conversation I've heard so far
Came here to say all of these things, almost word for word. Just so god damn pleasant to hear Americans from different backgrounds with different viewpoints having a serious, deep, and calm discussion about how to solve a problem.
Let’s hope he’s back on soon, and more guests like him too.
“Terrorists should be held to a lower standard” is certainly a take. Hot or crazy? You decide.
About halfway through and a couple of thoughts. I appreciate that Shadi came on but it seems to me something really gross about having to hold the US and Israel to absurd standards, but yet the poor Palestinians could not possibly be held to any moral standards including just don't murder people.
This oppressor oppressed binary is a helluva drug if it leads you to discount morality.
“discount morality” I like that. I hope you don’t mind if I steal that term!
Welcome to it!
I've encountered that in some [online] arguments.
The sins of Hamas are waved away because of course they do bad things, they're terrorists. But there's a hyper fixation on Israel's wrongdoings, real or perceived.
This might be related to police shooting discussions too - basically the argument is "the police are in a position of power so they are held to a higher standard" but that makes a lot less sense when you're talking about different nations/governments.
Shadi really needs to talk to some “pro-Palestinian” groups and individuals. They don’t consider Hamas to be terrorists, nor do they consider Israel to be a democracy. Always trying to have it both ways. Which is exactly what I would expect from a morally and intellectually bankrupt movement. I’m sure Shadi was the best they could do, but even if he doesn’t have enough lipstick for this pig.
He seems aware of this at times, and in denial at others.
You can get people to say some very strange things when academic theory collides with cold, hard reality.
Ivy League presidents have entered the chat
This is behind a paywall but Jonah Goldberg wrote a great piece about this https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-exactly-should-israel-do/
Non-paywalled here https://tinyurl.com/yumqvamk
Loved this piece! Very high quality writing and reporting at The Dispatch!
I was sharing it with everyone! Clarifying.
I interpreted that comment as "we should have lower expectations for terrorists", which I find reasonable.
I wonder if action and superhero flicks have done us a disservice. Some people seem to think we have almost supernatural human and technological capabilities that allow for easily dismantling the enemy with the highest accuracy and precision that leaves infrastructure intact and civilians unharmed.
I also found myself wondering who he thinks this special Israeli task force is that only kills the bad guys and never harms civilians. Does he think Israel has the Avengers?
The Avengers movies made a huge deal out of the civilian casualties, in a Disney sort of way.
You’re right. Probably not the best example.
I've never thought about it like this before, but I think this is very insightful. Think of all of the dipshits marching at your local edifice of higher learning, and then think about what were the popular movies during their formative years.
I am torn to find the most appropriate historical context with which to respond to this. From Alexander's 15 year stroll through Persia into Asia or the razing of Carthage, from Mithridates wanton slaughter through Italy which resulted in over 100,000 deaths to the sacking of Isfahan in 1387 where Tamerline had his soldiers erect a tower from the 42,000 decapitated heads of its former inhabitants, from the Albigensian Crusade to the Third Reich's Final Solution, without even touching upon the peace-time genocides, persecutions, pogroms, and purges of the last three hundred years, once you cede the inevitability of civilian casualties as acceptable there is no longer any bar against the level of atrocity which can be tolerated.
It is a standard which must be regarded as absolute even when it is impossible as any acceptable number greater than zero will quickly become negotiable.
I certainly wasn’t implying they take a different approach that risks more lives. Merely that realistic vs. unrealistic expectations in light of higher expectations is an interesting take.
It would be a different world if everyone would abide by the highest standard that values human life. However, as we heard, only certain groups are required to meet such a standard.
Only certain groups believe in that standard. Those who stand in opposition to them are not above weaponizing failure -and make no mistake about it evey civilian killed is a failure.
And no, I don't buy that you that were pointing out an "interesting take." People who are on board with a course of action don't complain about the difficulty or cost, they just work toward the goal. If you want a better world you are going to accept the charges of hypocrisy from everyone who doesn't because progress is imperfect. Great change comes slowly and without consistency. The criticism of your adversaries is a balm, it serves to remind you of how different you are from them, what you are striving for, and how much it matters.
Even accepting the figure of 16,000 deaths in Gaza after two months, does anyone really believe there would have been fewer if HAMAS had the advantage? They killed a 1,000 civilians in one day. On purpose. This isn't a serious line of inquire and it certainly isn't interesting.
Reminiscent of the Biden comments about how police should non-lethally shoot armed suspects.
I made it 21 min. Gotta take a break because I can't stand this WP guy. Thanks for always having the patience to speak to people like him and Fuckelstein but I have this medical condition called "being Jewish" where these guys start speaking and all I can hear is a buzzing sound and I can literally see my pulse in the corners of my vision...
I’m forcing myself to go thru the whole thing. About 45 minutes in and getting frustrated because the guys keep asking him pointed questions that seem to be focused on the realities on the ground, but he is sidestepping then completely (e.g., Matt’s question about who is there to even negotiate with, Michael’s question about what do people expect Israel to do in re: blockade). Also a bit annoyed at the argument that it is actually Israel that doesn’t want a 2 state solution.
I was dissapointed that the guys didn't push back a but more- specifically about the number of casualties, the fact that Israel spent decades working toward a two-state solution which was roundly rejected every time, what Israel is to do and the very unique impossible standards they are held to.
I started listening about an hour in and made it through 20 minutes
There are so many commentators/politicians out there with surface level thinking that go just like this conversation with Shadi.
Does Israel have the right to defend itself?
Commentator: Yes.
Ok so they are able to conduct a war where they take out Hamas?
Commentator: Yes but they are killing too many civilians so they aren't doing correctly.
Ok so how should they do it?
Commentator: More precise. Take out the Hamas military targets.
Ok but you know they aren't really any stand alone Hamas military targets. They are all imbedded in the civilian infrastructure.
Commentator: Then Israel should focus more on negotiating a cease fire and only take out enough targets to make sure Hamas can't do this again.
How do you make sure they don't do this again?
Commentator: Focus on Israel security.
Oh you mean like a border fence and a naval blockade?
Commentator: ......
Round and round we go.
It's not a perfect parallel but in a lot of ways listening to Shadi, I got similar vibes to Vivek when he was on the podcast. Someone who think very naively, they have an answer for everything while having an answer to nothing. "they just need to negotiate with Hamas. Israel should ask hamas to stop firing missiles. A genuine peace process". Oh wow. Why didn't anyone think of that before. Thanks shadi. It reminds me of Vivek's cartoonishly naive solutions that he thinks would work if only someone as smart as him was in charge. We just never really got an answer to the fundamental question -- OK, it's bad civilians are being harmed. So what do we do about Hamas, that hides under civilians, and absolutely promises to do more Oct. 7 pogroms, if they are not totally eradicated this time around. The second argument that I found extremely annoying that Shadi made, was the argument that the call for intifada, isn't inherently violent, bc, they were only suicide bombing busses sometimes.
My favorite was “Hamas will rape and murder, that’s terrible, but we can definitely trust them if they promise to stop attacking Israel.” This level of naïveté should be considered malicious at this point.
Do these guys have any self awareness whatsoever or are they just so high off their own farts they can’t see past the utopian bubble they’re in?
I had the same thoughts at a couple of the lines “Tell Hamas to accept...”
...I’m going to stop you right there, buddy. I’m going to need to see a list of “consequences that happen” the moment Hamas breaks whatever terms they agree to 20 minutes after signing an agreement. Then what? There is no reason for Israel to trust a single word Hamas says. Ever.
Shadi seemed to assert (In response to Matt's ? about negotiating w Hamas) that Israel should be negotiating w Hamas, for a disarmed Hamas first and foremost. And if Hamas so "nah", well only THEN is it okay that Israel fight back. Like, come again? Israel gets brutally attacked and their first reaction should be... to negotiate w the attackers? And when the attackers politely decline, THEN Israel can fight back... but only if they don't kill too many people amongst which Hamas has intertwined themselves with for this very purpose? It amounts to, Israel must allow itself to be attacked and take it on the chin.
Yeah these are the kinds of major omissions from these kinds of arguments that make it impossible for me to take seriously. That and what the consequences should be if Hamas breaks any terms of a treaty. How could any person in good faith argue that Israel should just trust Hamas and we’ll deal with consequences if they happen. That is the way of thinking that has gotten things to where they are today.
The "a genuine peace process" line really got me.
""they just need to negotiate with Hamas. Israel should ask hamas to stop firing missiles. A genuine peace process". Oh wow. Why didn't anyone think of that before. Thanks shadi.""
This is golden
A few minutes in, the guest is quoting Hamas’ figures on deaths, and I knew this episode would not be good for a healthy blood pressure.
Gonna reply to my own comment here after the full listen to state that you TFC dudes did this really well. My soul wanted a point-by-point refutation but that's not what this was intended to be.
I was having a lot of trouble for the end with the apologia for “From the River to the Sea” - I would just love to see one example of someone out shouting “From the river to the sea, we want to coexist in HAR*MO*NY!” It’s ludicrous, and I don’t believe anyone can be that naive.
I could not stop laughing at Moynihan's jokes. "in arabic is just one word" Dying....
All that practice at the Cellar is really starting to pay off
Either way the figures are egregious. 16,000 dead- maybe 14,000. The scale of force is unjustifiable.
Unjustifiable to whom? I'm pretty sure that the Israelis are no longer willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters to save the lives of those who would slaughter them.
It’s unjustifiable to me personally on a moral level. It’s unjustifiable from a US national security perspective to send Israel an additional $14b. It seems like a gamble as to whether or not this grotesque level of violence won’t end in more extremism in Palestine and in the Middle East more broadly so I don’t see how one could justify it as being in the interest of Israeli national security either.
Well I'd imagine the parents of those who were raped, kidnapped and slaughter have less qualms with the "morality" of striking those who committed those acts and the vast majority who support in Gaza who support them.
As far as the 14b. Considering for the entirety of their existance some group or other has always been trying to eliminate the Jews, I'm okay with spending 14b to help prevent that.
All the more so when you watch how much of Western culture has shown their true antisemitic fervor. Something I was not anticipating. Self deternination is their only real hope for survival.
Will this 'radicalize more "Palestinians". Doubtful. Not because it couldn't, but because they are literally radicalized from birth to hate the Jews. Judging by the recent polls from Gaza, "radicalization" is the least of Israels concerns.
Lastly, we have no idea what the casualty count is. I'm sure it's significant, but I'm also sure the numbers you quote are grossly exagerrated. The come from the Gaza Health Ministry, ie Hamas, to take the numbers from these animals at face value is absurd.
That raises the morality of war and how it is waged itself. Almost by definition to wage war, and bring it to an end you have to inflict far worse on your opponent than they have on you.
If they kill a thousand of yours and you kill a thousand of theirs, few combatants are going to say "ok we're even, war over". Almost the only way to win a war is to inflict enough damage on tour opponent to not make it worthwhile for them to retaliate at all. That strategy was more than used in the wars a lot of people generally consider "the good wars".
It's a human (and very American) impulse to want to root for the underdog but statistically speaking, sometimes the underdog is an asshole.
It's truly astounding how Hamas can state that Gazan civilian welfare is not their responsibility but is that of the UN's, and can *quickly* count every single civilian Gazan death with such accuracy. E.g., Al-Ahli Hospital, etc., etc.
So they’re saying 16,000 dead- what do you think? If not that, maybe 14? 12? 10? I’d be repulsed by any of those numbers especially considering the number of children that have been killed.
My ability to count the deaths of non-Hamas civilians in Gaza is similar to Hamas': negligible to nonexistent.
A good article on the counting as well as the history of body count accuracy in previous conflicts in the area. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67347201
What is the acceptable number? What is the number of Israeli soldiers that you're willing to sacrifice in order to keep the numbers of civilian deaths down? Israel has warned residents repeatedly to leave the area. Is Israel obligated to take no action if those civilians choose, or are compelled, to stay in areas where Hamas is known to have men or equipment?
Al-Mawasi has no running water, little to no humanitarian aid, and makeshift tents providing very little shelter. The conditions in Gaza are unimaginable, no internet connection, scarce access to basic necessities, 10s of thousands of displaced people without a home. It’s easy to say from afar, “yea they should listen to the IDF and go elsewhere.”
And??? Whose reponsiblity is that? Israel only supplies 10 percent of their water and last I read had restored that. Maybe if the Palestinians had focused on infrastructure instead of rockets this wouldn't be an issue.
Israel does not control the aid to Gaza. Gaza shares a border with Egypt as well. The aid can flow in from there much more easily. Predictably when aid does come in it's hijacked by Hamas. It's naive to the point of stupidity to think Israel should open it's border to same region that just invaded it, raped it's women, killed it's babies and slaughtered its citizenry.
You want the Iraelis to lay down and die to protect those who cheer when it's attacked. In my finest English: Fuck that.
Yes. The weird thing about all this is that for some reason there are no podcasts or such empathetic concern about pretty much any other suffering group on this planet. Palestinians in actual refugee camps killed in Syria, nada. Children starving in Yemen. Nothing. Yazidis, Kurds, Uighurs, silence. It's bizarre that all this beautiful concern only for one group. Do you wonder why? And if not, why? Afganis are being displaced right now in Pakistan, brutally treated and nothing. Children are being raped and sold in Afghanistan but we don't do podcasts or count how many. Why? I'm all for empathy and humanity but please do apply it equally. Otherwise, it comes across... Umm... Asymmetrical.
People die in wars, not sure if you were aware, should open a history book sometime.
Tell Hamas to surrender and then nobody else will die.
Samuel, I don't agree with you, but I appreciate your good-faith contributions nonetheless. Not easy to state the views that are clearly less popular on this thread. Thanks for helping us avoid an echo chamber.
Thank you Jon, I’ll admit- I’ve been a longtime listener to TFC and actually didn’t expect so much consensus on the issue among the fellas or among the listenership.
Does that ever make you wonder if maybe you’re just wrong?
Yes actually, but my gauge on what’s right and what’s wrong in the world is not measured by the opinions of TFC. Prior to October 7th, I’d tell people that I knew just enough about the Israel/ Palestine conflict to know that I’m not informed enough to have a steadfast opinion. I still try to maintain this humility although I’ve been persuaded over the course of this particular conflict that the scale of the Israeli response is unjustifiable and far too indiscriminate. I also disagree with TFC on Ukraine and increasingly on immigration. I enjoy listening and find the lads to be reasonable. They get me thinking and keep me grounded even if I might not be totally won over by every argument.
You seem to be inferring that consensus is inherently problematic. My guess is that you've been a longtime listener because, like many TFC listeners, you respect Kmele's, Michael's and Matt's attempt to be thoughtful, careful and intellectually honest about the views they espouse. If you believe they are failing in regard to this particular issue, instead of complaining that there's too much consensus, provide a substantive refutation to the points you believe to be wrong. For example, you can start by providing a realistic and clear alternative to Israel's approach (which you deem unjustifiable) that doesn't rob Israel of its ability to defend itself and survive.
You’re welcome to make that claim. One thing I notice about the people who are concern trolling about the scale in a war Hamas started, is the scale of death on Oct 7, wish is 0 to 1200. None of these people ever seemed concerned that there is infinite ratio of innocent people Hamas kills when there is literally nothing happening
I appreciate the response. I don’t listen to every episode, but most of them. I’m not saying you guys haven’t explored the issue or that you don’t care, I’m just saying it hasn’t been a core issue. Certainly not a kind of prerequisite to enjoying the show, that is, If a friend asked me to describe the podcast mentioning a pro Israeli or pro Zionist perspective would certainly not be top of mind- Don’t you agree? I believe I’d feel the same way even if I had caught that episode a year ago.
What is concern trolling? I don’t troll, the only reason I’m putting so much effort in here is to remind you all that this podcast is listened to be plenty of folks who disagree with the host’s consensus on Israel. I’m not trying to instigate hostility, I don’t use hyperbole, I say what I mean and mean what I say and behave with civility even when communicating online. Israel wasn’t even close to a top concern of TFC before October 7th. I actually never really heard any of the guys say anything about it.
Literally did a podcast from Tel Aviv, with an Israeli historian, a year ago:
https://wethefifth.substack.com/p/382-w-nadav-eyal-revolt-and-resurrection
Fuck around, find out. That is how wars work, the Palestinians repeatedly seem desperate to start one, and they keep losing but then the west is nice to them.
And Shadi did it without a throat clear. I expected Moyn to point out how overblown the numbers were on the supposed Israeli missile attack on the Al-Ahli hospital. He didn't, I suspect, because he knows we know.
When it was revealed to be a missile malfunction on the Gazan side and probably 5-20 people died, it should be a clue that Hamas is not even trying to be anything but dishonest to whip up support for its cause.
Those were the IDF's numbers "15,000 likely killed in Gaza since start of war, 5,000 of them are Hamas"
Last I'd seen, a single IDF spokesperson claimed it was an estimated 2:1 ratio of civilians to terrorists, and that approximately 5,000 terrorists were dead. 1) this is not a good ratio. 2) who knows how accurate it is. At the same time, Hamas had claimed it was 15,900 Gaza civilians dead, yet again showing their tremendous accuracy and believability.
If the question was about hiding tunnels in schools and hospitals, I'd find Hamas-sourced data more trustworthy.
I have to find the source, but there was a study done comparing civilian to combatant ratios in various modern asymmetric warfare conflicts and they found that a ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 was typical. So, even if the death rate in Gaza is appalling, it’s still *better* than in comparable conflicts.
Wait, Assad and Putin are *not* paying attention to where their bombs fall in Syria?
Regardless of your credulity, the point is that the guest was quoting the number cited by an anonymous IDF official, and not the Gaza’s Health Ministry. Saying he was "quoting Hamas’ figures on deaths" is inaccurate.
No, he did not reference an IDF claim of 15,000 Gazan deaths, it was unsourced. It's at 12 mins, 29 seconds. I listened again to it and the follow-up after finding the spot in the transcript that initially ticked me off. There have been more than enough citations of the Hamas claims to have to point to it.
Unsourced or not, it's been reported. To confidently say he was quoting Hamas' figures is foolish.
Ok, you've now called me foolish. And I'm going to reply and say that you attributed his comment to an IDF source, which did not happen.
I have not seen any IDF estimate of "15,000" dead Gazans, with "6,000" being children - both of these are mentioned by the guest. I have seen these numbers from the Hamas-run ministry of health, repeated ad nauseum in much of the press. It's pretty clear that he is citing these numbers by either uncritically or maliciously, especially if you consider it alongside the entirety of his statements within this episode.
Love our boys. They push back. They listen. And their laughter and MM's jokes make it all better.
By the end they were cracking him up! "Here we go .."
Moynihan just Moynihaning so hard in the second half of this pod!
He has superb timing!
This is just the kind of discussion I was hoping for in my recent comments on the previous episode thread. Thank you for seeking out and arranging this discussion. It's been refreshing to hear some back-and-forth, and I'm still only halfway through!
Okay last comment...I knew this would be a great episode and I’ve been replaying it in my mind since listening.
I’m so sick of the “Intifada actually means X” schtick. If that is true, please explain the specific context of “Globalizing the Intifada”. What is a GLOBAL uprising in this context? Swastikas used to have a different meaning too, does that mean we can’t be sure of the context if they appear at an anti-Israel rally? What a stupid hill to die on.
Mein Kampf just means "my struggle", there are a lot of different ways to struggle. You could title it Mein Jihad!
Happy Hanukkah Fifdom! 🕎🍩
Chag sameach!
That was astonishing. He's a lovely guy, but that was pure, woolly nonsense, at best. He never answered the question about what military response would be appropriate, he never answered the question about rape denial, he said that the intifada chants were references to the 1980s "peaceful" protests not to the much more contemporary terrorism that deliberately targeted civilians and undermined the Israeli left, who were the protagonists in the peace process, that the genocidal "river to the sea" chants were a call for very specific state solutions, etc. For the love of G-d, pure nonsense. And, as others have noted, he denies agency to the "oppressed," which, incidentally, is a shitty and unuseful way to divide the world. Hamas has agency and acted on it and continue to act on it, holding the hostages and firing rockets at Israeli civilians, etc. Fortunately, Israel is acting decisively and comprehensively this time, and, as noted, Gaza will remain permanently demilitarized.
This is intifada. https://x.com/EFischberger/status/1733095886111019366?s=20
I just find some of the folks on the anti-Israel side to be completely divorced from reality, not just on the long timeline but on the very short timeline. Shadi, like other protestors this week, says he wants Israel to commit to a ceasefire. Did these folks go into a coma after eating their Thanksgiving turkey and wake up yesterday? THERE WAS A CEASEFIRE! It started on Nov. 24, and involved the exchange of prisoners for hostages. Israel was prepared to continue the ceasefire to get more of their hostages out, but Hamas broke the ceasefire on November 30!
Now sure, I hope Israel is able to negotiate another ceasefire and get more hostages out. But Israel does not have the power here, Hamas does. If Hamas surrenders and turns over the hostages, the war is over and the people of Palestine can live in peace again. Unrealistic? Sure. But not any more than the demands being made by the other side.
I agree with Shadi so far as “there’s a world where the Palestinian grievances are legitimate” but their pursuit of redress over the last 20 years makes me feel like their grievance is the existence of Jews rather than being forced from their homes.
I’m not far enough into it but while I’m here and since I’m sure it comes up, I’d like to contrast the behavior of normal Iranian citizens who risk their lives and freedom to protest the government at almost any chance they get. Only very recently are we getting videos of Gazans speaking against Hamas and that is only after they were used as human shields in an urban war.
And why don't Iranians get the support of the US Left? The Woman Life Freedom protesters are surely more sympathetic!
Also interesting how he says things like Palestinian feelings, Palestinian houses, and (my personal favorite) Palestinian dignity are supposed to be considered a priority. After October 7th, it's almost laughable.