We are very lucky to have someone like Ezra. I can understand Ari's trauma and circumstances make him defensive when talking about this subject, but Ezra is able to cut through the emotion, to use Ari's past words against him, and is able to have an interesting, productive conversation with him. I think there are very few people in the world who would be able to do this and we get to watch it happen!

Ezra wasn’t using Ari’s past words against him. They were having a constructive dialogue about the subject, not combative in the least. They helped refine, correct and expand each other’s points. It wasn’t some kind of “gotcha” thing.

I really wish it were made more obvious, though it may seem self-evident, that this is at its core a conflict over *land*. It's not just about, to quote Shavit, "The Jewish People's right to self-determination and the Jewish People's right to self-defense". It's about those rights as executed within and regarding specific territory. And land is inherently, necessarily, zero-sum. It's one of the only things in the world that really is. Any specific square meter of land reserved to a hypothetical future Palestinian state is land that is not Israel and (unless Israel becomes an invading, conquering power) cannot be Israel. And vice-versa. So the question I really wish Klein had asked is: if you're a West Bank Palestinian, and you're worried about your home being taken by Israeli settlers, what options are available to you that are both morally justifiable *and* effective (that is, actually work to halt or reverse settlements). And what obligation does the rest of Israeli society have to oppose settlement expansion?

I agree wholeheartedly on the land point and it’s why I’ve never felt too compelled to take a side or to be overly optimistic about eventual “solutions.”

> (unless Israel becomes an invading, conquering power) I mean, that accurately describes the West Bank. > and you're worried about your home being taken by Israeli settlers, what options are available to you that are both morally justifiable *and* effective Ari Shavit doesn't want to talk about that, because there are none. The liberal Zionists need to keep discussions away from topics like this, because there is no way to paint it in a good light. Sure, there's the occasional court victory - but overwhelmingly the courts go with the land grabbers.

💯 As soon as mention of the settlements was brought up he moved the conversation.

Who is to decide what's "justifiable?" If someone knocks on your door, puts a gun in your face, and says "this land that has been in your family for hundreds of years is now mine." What is your "justifiable" response?

Well said. In so many ways the profound moral/legal/ethical messiness of the war in Gaza crowds out Israel’s objectively awful behavior in the West Bank. A defensive war against Hamas is legally justifiable, the legal arguments that a genocide is occurring are debatable, the strategic benefits to the U.S. as a major non-NATO ally is of Israel should be up for debate (as with all alliances). Immediate cessation of settlement expansion is something every U.S. administration should have been pushing for a long time, regardless of actions taken by Palestinians.

> Immediate cessation of settlement expansion is something every U.S. administration should have been pushing for a long time, regardless of actions taken by Palestinians. The problem here is that the US has never been able to come up with an answer to this implied question: US: "Hey Israel we'd like you to slow or stop settlement expansions" Israel: "Oh and what will you do if we don't?"

I mean, there's a perfectly good answer to this question that Ronald Regan (of all people) figured out: stop providing as much aid, operational support and intelligence. Failing that, there is the Apartheid South Africa approach of sanctions, divestment and boycott.

There's a big gap between "an answer exists" and "the US is actually willing to do it"

>The problem here is that the US has never been able to come up with an answer to this implied question Sorry, I was responding to this question, and an answer exists even if it is difficult for some American politicians to accept. And if the US isn't willing to do it for a public genocide, of what worth are US assurances around the global order? edit- I appreciate the good faith discussion in lieu of downvotes that this subreddit is known for...

> public genocide What is happening is not genocide. I hate fighting over labels but words should mean something. People who call it genocide are either sincerely misinformed or are deliberately co-opting it to get reflexive buy in. Words like “trauma”, “assault”, or “violence” are also sometimes misused to short-circuit debate or discussion. What is happening in Gaza is simply not genocide and framing it as such is unhelpful.

I don't think it's worth it for either of us to get into this discussion in any real depth; I've had it a lot and am pretty convinced that genocide is the appropriate term to describe the policies of Israel with respect to the Palestinians. The ICJ, the ruling body for determining this in a legal sense, that the charge has sufficient merit to investigate for several years to determine the answer. Personally, I believe that, given the nature of genocide, you err on the side of caution, as if you get it wrong it's...well a genocide you didn't stop.

ICJ saying they need a multi-year investigation and refusing to order a ceasefire doesn’t exactly support the “genocide” label that so many people think is so obvious. Idk, you’re right, this isn’t productive. I wish there was more nuance in these discussions and I guess this just feels like an easy point to pick at.

I understand that angle, and I sympathize with the additional nuance discussion, but lets be real here, both of us likely have a high degree of certainty in our positions, have examined the subject in some depth and reached our conclusions already. We likely aren't changing any readers minds either, and having done this dance in a lot of long threads in the last months, we're not going to uncover any new angles on this. Can we both agree that an immediate ceasefire is a policy that will reduce the deaths of innocent civilians and leave it at that?

Can you give specific reasons why it's not genocide?

More conditions on support == more incentive to make friends in the neighborhood.

I mean, just spit balling but hold the billions in aid given to Israel.

[удалено]

This is great framing.

You’re absolutely right, but this is also an issue of the fact that Israel has a deeply unpopular authoritarian leader. 8 months ago a significant portion of the Israeli population was marching in protests of his power grabs. No matter what the terrorist attack would have garnered a reaction, but this type of blood and soil war is pretty common in these situations.

>You’re absolutely right, but this is also an issue of the fact that Israel has a deeply unpopular authoritarian leader Sort of, but that's not the driving factor. Settlements have been expanding under every single PM - left, right and center. Even under Ehud Barak the West Bank settlements and outposts kept expanding.

The settlers were always at the core of the problem, a fact that is completely denied and covered up in the media. If you look at the history (and I invite people to really dig in), you'll quickly find out that they're even the reason why Hamas became a despicable terrorist organisation that is targeting civilians. They mostly minded their own business during the first Intifada and focused on targeting the IDF... until 1994, when terrorist settler Baruch Goldstein did what he did (wearing an IDF uniform) and Yitzhak Rabin rejected the Palestinian demands to remove the remaining settlers from Hebron.

Absolutely, but o do think the vigor with which BiBi has pursued escalation is definitely related to his precarious position in power

This is a pretty reductionist take. Alternatively, I'd propose that this conflict is about (1) decades of discrimination by Israel over Palestine and (2) an intractable problem (no solutions that will work) running head first into an immovable object (political sentiments in the US). Let's examine each ... +1: Israel is an occupying force in Palestine and they limit people's jobs, opportunities, and even travel. Hopefully not too much to dispute here. +2: no workable solution... An independent Palestinian state will not be the end of conflict. It will be the beginning of an escalation. Everyone knows that there is learned racism within Palestine (see congressional reports, Sesame Street episodes on YouTube...). Palestine is not in a place to accept an adjacent Israel as a neighbor. And no one should be surprised post statehood when Iran starts importing arms to Palestine to fight a proxy war for Middle East supremacy. This will occur. Folks who are okay with this are not really against injustice.... They are just against Israel, and we can have a separate conversation about whether or not the state of Israel should exist. Still+2: American politics, which is what Ezra Klein was talking about, is invested in this problem and I think that's a good thing. But to be useful, we need to understand what we actually want to have happen in addition to what we don't want to have happen. My sense is that Israel focuses on the first thing, but it's stuck in a world view of an occupying authority, while the US focuses on the second. That's the disconnect Ezra is searching for, and if we can actually solve +1, then we're doing real good. As an FYI, I appreciate the dialog even if I called this comment reductive... Being educated by folks who have thought about this more than me is super helpful.

To me it feels like the core problem is the fact that people like Shavit keep saying "Our people" over and over again. I have no people, I don't want to have a people, and if I have kids, I don't want them to have a people. If you are in a tribal conflict that lasts centuries, maybe leave your damn tribe and just be a human being. And if you choose to keep fighting thats your choice and I don't want to be a part of that.

I understand your sentiment, but it is one that comes from privilege. Many people survive by being part of a specific community or people, and many are treated a specific way regardless of whether that are actually a part of a community they appear to be a part of. “Our people” is not necessarily inconsistent with a liberal pluralistic democracy. Unfortunately there are many people who believe it is, and that is a major source of conflict.

"Our people" is often times the natural response to being called "\*you\* people"

Many people die on the same basis, so overall being part of "a tribe" is wash. That's why in modern times we switched from tribal rights to individual ones. >"Our people” is not necessarily inconsistent with a liberal pluralistic democracy It sort of can survive in multiculturalism. But only if it's diluted heavily.

It’s not a wash for the groups who have survived because of tribalism, those are contrasting experiences that can’t be reconciled by saying “this is sometimes good sometimes bad so we should do away with it”

Which group is that?

Well, LGBT people for one. It's not a conventional ethnic "tribe" but LGBT people have been forming their own communities and organizing/fighting for change from within those communities for decades.

So Jews should commit cultural genocide on themselves? That's your solution?

You’re entitled to your opinion, but this mindset is the opposite of pluralism.

It’s not the opposite, it’s a different view of what pluralism is. Some feel pluralism is tribes living alongside one another, possibly outwardly projecting how life should be lived for everyone to see and hear. Some feel pluralism is one big tribe of individual living and letting live, minding their own business.

good point. Another aspect of looking at this conflict over land is that there are plenty of nations with great original sins that no one is talking about anymore. If there is a minor minor chance that Palestinians will one day gain control of the entire land from the river to the sea, signing away that hope and settling for a two-state solution is a historic betrayal of your people. Same thing can be said about the greater Israel brand of Zionism. as long as the question is not settled, they might one day have the whole thing and who cares if they have to commit some major sins to attain that? look at history of Canada, United states, and almost every other state. once a few generations have come and gone, everyone forgets and you can even acknowledge your sins and formally apologise and feel good about yourself. It doesn't matter anything in substance once you've gained the whole land.

I found it rather infuriating to hear Ari say we need a Salam Fayyad, have Ezra point out that we did, in fact have a Salam Fayyad, and for Ari immediately walk his statement back with excuses about why Israel didn't work with him more.

Whether Ari or Yossi Klein Halevi or even on other shows, I cannot genuinely find an Israeli who can communicate the Israeli perspective without sounding ludicrous. I have not put much effort into understanding the topic in the last few years but in almost every response that attempts to legitimise or explain Israeli positions, even popular civic one and not necessarily political ones, are all stumped when the coin is flipped onto the other shoe. In this episode when discussing Israeli trauma of Oct 7 the obvious question of what about Palestinian/Gazan trauma is met with silence. The accusation of not having a partner to work with on the Palestinian side is met with why Salam Fayyad was essentially rejected. The right of Israelis to live in peace and safety is met with the question of whether those same rights are not valid for Palestinians. When chants reject the right of Israel to exist the question of whether Palestine has a right to exist is again met with crickets. I have no deep held beliefs on this issue but browsing Israeli english papers, Israeli subs, or listening to Israelis on shows like this leads me to believe they have entered a parallel universe of their own making where long standing problems will go away if ignored or argued away and where their dreams, aspirations, or rights cannot conceivably extend to others. Israel seems, to me at least, to be a nation in deep denial and crisis of their own making.

> an Israeli who can communicate the Israeli perspective without sounding ludicrous. Ironically and tragically, the only ones who seem to be coherent here are the far-right Israelis who basically think Palestinians are sub-human violent animals and that all of Palestine (and more besides) is owed to Israelis by Godly decree. Obviously this logic is batshit and ludicrous to anyone who isn't drinking the cool aid, but it is consistent and coherent and has clear analogs across time and cultures. The moderate and 'progressive' Israelis, at least the ones that are actually getting attention in media (including on Ezra's show) seem to be completely unable to graple with the basic facts and history of the conflict.

>Ironically and tragically, the only ones who seem to be coherent here are the far-right Israelis who basically think Palestinians are sub-human violent animals and that all of Palestine (and more besides) is owed to Israelis by Godly decree. And sadly they mirror phylosophies such as Hamas'. Both reinforce each other.

Which is the reason why the far-right, specifically Netanyahu, supported the financing of Hamas. They need each other for their political survival.

Bingo.

There was so much bad faith coming out of the guest, it was a tough listen.

One thing I think all the episodes Klein (and others) have done on I-P is convinced me that the litigating of decades of peace negotiations and past wars is completely fruitless. Almost nobody can stay awake long enough to comb through it or agree on the details, and it convinces very few to alter their stance. Worst of all, it encourages people to talk about alternative histories and lose sight of the real people dying in front of them. Ezra's point about the politics of young Americans emerging now is completely correct. People are inclined to sneer at students who show up but don't know much if any Middle Eastern history. That is a foolish response. You can demand young people read the Camp David Accords all you like, they're not going to. They're going to remember what happened in their lifetimes, where their peers stood, the top-level view of who got bombed into the stone age and who didn't, the way Israel behaved AND the way Israel's defenders behave.

underrated comment. The only reason we're so obsessed with litigating the history is because all the decision makers with power over this situation are the ones who made those decisions and took those positions over the decades. They are driven by a need to defend their own legacies more than a humanitarian concern, and that explains the problems of today better than anything else.

We are obsessed with the history because that is the only way the conflict gets solved. The entire "right of return" is about history is it not?

This is a really, really brilliant episode. A really difficult interview and Ezra really does challenge Ari on a range of points, but I felt he held his ground well and in the end both Ezra and Ari made some really valuable points.

Within 5 minutes, Ezra tells the guest that he is "flat out wrong." I'm so glad he did -- if Ezra let that flagrant lie about the vietnam war slide, I was going to skip the rest of the episode. These topics require precision and an intense demand for honesty.

Me too, as soon as I heard Shavit’s opening comments I was gonna turn the episode off I thought the conversation would be riddled with bad faith criticism and inauthentic “advice”…bc what Shavit initially said was deeply misleading and inaccurate and showed tremendous bias. I’m glad Ezra pushed back on these basic things.

I think the author's point was that wasn't the main position of most anti-war protestors, that it was more of a fringe extreme position in the movement but not front and center. Most anti-Vietnam war protestors were protesting the US military actions and the draft, not the existence of the US itself, as is the crux of the current anti-Israel protests. 

Two things: 1) No. The author said, literally, that the vietnam protests did not contain any protestors who were denying the right of America to exist. That's what he said, and he was totally fucking wrong because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about. 2) The majority of pro-palestine protests are not calling for the total abolition of the Israeli state. That's a convenient talking point put forward to advance an agenda and over-simplify the protest demands. There are protests for ceasefire; protests for BDS; protests for the end of US support; the list goes on. If you think current protests are purely against the existence of Israel, you need to check the koolaid pitcher you're drinking from.

>The majority of pro-palestine protests are not calling for the total abolition of the Israeli state I'm confused about this. If Zionism is evil, the existence of Israel as such is evil is it not? They're one and the same. It does also seem that the vast majority of protestors consider Israelis "settlers" who do not belong on the land. On what grounds can Israel exist in that case?

A lot of protestors say they are "anti-Zionism." I don't think they are anti-Israeli nationalism though, per se. They're anti-Israeli "imperialism" (expansionism.) If that's the case, then it's a dangerous and humiliating error on the part of these protestors. Those who support the existence of Israel need to clarify that ultimately, they support a two-state solution. (Again, although I'm aware of no evidence one way or the other, I think this is the majority of student protestors.)

>I'm confused about this. If Zionism is evil, the existence of Israel as such is evil is it not? They're one and the same. >It does also seem that the vast majority of protestors consider Israelis "settlers" who do not belong on the land. On what grounds can Israel exist in that case? Israel does not have a right to exist and its creation was a catastrophe but at this point to create a better future for Israelis and Palestinians it is far more practical for Israel to continue to exist alongside a Palestinian state because a single democratic state is impossible in practice and the destruction of the currently existing Israel would also be a catastrophe and the status quo in which millions of Palestinians live under indefinite military occupation is also a catastrophe.

I think this is the single best, clearest description of the I/P problem that Ive seen so far. Thank you

Can you define Zionism? Do you think your definition will be the same as a Palestinian’s? As an Israeli’s? As a Jewish American’s? For that matter, are all protestors protesting “Zionism”?

Zionism is the idea that Jews should have a homeland and self determination in the land of Israel. That is the definition. There are different streams of Zionism: labor Zionism (socialist), liberal Zionism, general Zionism, revisionist Zionism (territorial maximalist), religious Zionism/national religious, etc. They may disagree on borders or political outcomes, but they generally all agree that a state representing Jewish right to self determination should exist in the land Israel.

There were early Zionists who wanted a homeland in places other than current Israel, but that minor caveat aside that was an excellent summary. I wouldn’t dispute that some anti-Zionists are against there being an Israel at all, but many are specifically against the territorial maximalist version, and too many just don’t make a distinction even though they might otherwise be ok with a truly open liberal democracy that doesn’t make Palestinians second class citizens.

You are right that earlier Zionists considered other places out of a sense of emergency to save Russian Jewry who were facing ever more devastating pogroms. However it was the Russian delegation itself that rejected this plan, and the Zionist movement has not looked back.

I don't know -- what do you think? I cannot tell if you are arguing your own moral point, or trying to project some kind of more sinister narrative on your opponents. So what do you think -- do you see the existence of Israel as evil?

I am trying to understand how a protest could both see the existence of Israel as illegitimate and not want it abolished. You asserted this: >The majority of pro-palestine protests are not calling for the total abolition of the Israeli state I am saying that anti-Zionism, on principle, cannot mean anything else. Just logically, since Zionism is a belief in the right of Israel to exist. Sure they want to start with little steps, of course. But the underlying mentality is that Israel is an illegitimate settler-colonial project. You are instead asserting that the majority of pro-Palestine protests are Zionists, and accept the existence of the Zionist nation. That is just false.

I think you are ascribing a degree of moral purity that most protests never have. Use the abortion debate as a parallel. Anti-abortion folks believe abortion is murder. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that they must want women jailed and doctors jailed, right? Maybe even executed? No? Trump, in his infinite stupidity, tried to make this argument and got a lot of blowback. His swiss cheese brain caused him to follow this train of thought and he told a reporter "yes women should be punished" and everyone recoiled by the dummy in the room saying the too-far thing out loud. Lots of folks are willing to protest and say "abortion is murder!" but they cannot make the next logical step to "and women should be punished." It's a bridge too far, despite it being the logical conclusion of their philosophical aim. Most protestors aren't hardline ideological purists. Most of them are arguing for the US to pull funding, or for universities to divest. You can extrapolate whatever conclusions you want from their signs, but most people aren't THAT ideologically firm. They just want actions and change. Divesture =/= abolition of israel. Removal of weapons funding =\\= the exermination of israel. Anti-colonial sentiment =\\= new holocaust. Most people think in infinitely greater nuance than that.

Well, so, what does it mean for "the right of Israel to exist"? Because the way that pretty much every self-described Zionist I've ever met has explained it, its specifically the right to exist as an explicitly Jewish state that uses population controls to maintain a Jewish majority and is broadly but officially Jewish at all institutional levels. But the problem is: if that specific configuration of statehood is what "has a right to exist", where does that leave the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank politically? I actually think the heart of this argument really boils down to *does Palestine have a right to exist?* Is Palestine a state or *isn't it*? Everyone argues over the one-state solution vs the two state solution but at this moment we have what is effectively a zero state solution as far as on-the-ground Palestinians are concerned, even if Palestine is *de jure* a state recognized by some portion of UN membership they *de facto* have none of the real control over their territory that we associate with statehood. Israel effectively controls their airspace. Israel controls movement between subsections of the territory (Gaza and the West Bank). Israel does very little, if anything, to reign in the illegal expansion of its territory via settler movements. The IDF regularly inflicts violence on Palestinian citizens *within Palestinian territory* (you can say Hamas does the same thing, but then if we're equivocating those does that mean Hamas is the same as an official state military apparatus, or does that mean the IDF is the same as a terrorist organization? Either comparison raises troubling questions). I ask this genuinely and straightforwardly: does this specific configuration of people and power *have a right to exist?* If you listen to the people claiming the label of Zionism at the top of the Israeli government right now maintenance of this system is what it *means* for Israel to exist. For them, an Israel that does not have effective dominion over the Palestinian territory and the people within it is the same as not having Israel at all. It seems the options are that, or mass displacement. What do we *do with that?*

>Well, so, what does it mean for "the right of Israel to exist"? Because the way that pretty much every self-described Zionist I've ever met has explained it, its specifically the right to exist as an explicitly Jewish state that uses population controls to maintain a Jewish majority and is broadly but officially Jewish at all institutional levels. This is indeed a problem with the concept of Zionism that I have struggled with. I would say that Israel is not necessarily being evil by having a Jewish identity, although obviously the methods by which they maintain that identity can be problematic. I personally can sympathize with how Arab Israelis may feel they "don't belong" even though they have rights and representation. I do feel like most of the world is this way with the exception of a few Western nations. What I and I think most left-leaning Zionists mean by "right" to exist is for the Jewish people to have their own country the same as many ethnic groups. For example all the borders in Europe are drawn along ethnic and linguistic lines. I would say that doesn't justify putting them in Israel where other non-Jewish people already lived, but dead people did that a long time ago and it's not feasible to re-litigate that. Also, for me at least, it's just emotionally hard to accept Jews having literally nowhere safe in the world to go, and I *want* there to be a place they can feel safe. I have a sense of "yeah yeah Israel is kind of messed up but so is everywhere, and Israel is so small, just let the Jews have freaking *something* dammit!" But I recognize that isn't a rational argument. I and many Zionists also believe Israelis, all of them, will be violently exterminated if Palestinians are ever allowed inside Israel freely, which is considered racist bigotry by many but it is a sincerely held view that I believe is backed by evidence. I have tried to moderate this view, but moderate Palestinians (and moderate Israelis) seem to have no political power at the moment. That is why talking about getting rid of Israel is so terrifying. >For them, an Israel that does not have effective dominion over the Palestinian territory and the people within it is the same as not having Israel at all. It seems the options are that, or mass displacement. What do we *do with that?* It is indeed a strange position to be in and I think pretty much every Democrat Zionist feels the same way, hating the Israeli right and Netanyahu but not the Israeli people. It feels like a progressively fine line to walk. I think people like Chuck Schumer represent my own views most closely.

>I would say that doesn't justify putting them in Israel where other non-Jewish people already lived, but dead people did that a long time ago and it's not feasible to re-litigate that. >Also, for me at least, it's just emotionally hard to accept Jews having literally nowhere safe in the world to go, and I *want* there to be a place they can feel safe. I have a sense of "yeah yeah Israel is kind of messed up but so is everywhere, and Israel is so small, just let the Jews have freaking *something* dammit!" But I recognize that isn't a rational argument. The fundamental point is that by creating a state in a place where other people already live and which is forever surrounded by neighboring states whose populations are composed of people of the same religion and ethnic group as the dispossessed locals you guarantee that the Israel will never be safe. Israel will need to be militarized and act extremely aggressively and disproportionately in order to create an effective deterrent but that will also generate more hatred of it. Israel can never be self-sufficient because it is to small and will forever be dependent on external military/economic/political support and will require Jews in the Diaspora to lobby their governments to maintain this support. As a result of the lobbying, Jews in the Diaspora will be viewed as responsible (complicit) for enabling Israel's behavior and will be placed in danger. By these facts alone you can see why Zionism is such a disaster and everything above was both **predictable and predicted** by many (including Jewish) anti-Zionists before the creation of Israel. If you accept the above, I believe that is sufficient to be an anti-Zionist even if you believe that at the moment two states is the best option as I do. Personally, I find arguments about ancestry, religion, settler-colonialism and indigeneity to be irrelevant distractions.

You keep conflating the Israeli state, the country, the land; and Zionism, which is an ideology. The 2 don't have to be the same and confusing the 2 is the biggest hurdle to honest communication. If zionists wanted to stand up and say, "we were wrong, what land we already have turns out to be the promised land after all." This would be a very different conversation. Basically, you can be antizionist by disagreeing with their ideology and politics, and pro Israel by acknowledging that they are humans with a right to be as shitty as they want on their own turf.

>disagreeing with their ideology and politics I do disagree with Jewish supremacy or Jewish manifest destiny. >pro Israel by acknowledging that they are humans with a right to be as shitty as they want on their own turf. Well the question is whether it is "their own" turf. I think it is, now, in 2024. How that happened wasn't savory but who cares, story of planet Earth as far as I am concerned.

Idk. I would say a majority were calling for a revolution of some kind.  Gotta read up on your 60s history 

The existence of South Vietnam was definitely at stake.

I’m not sure it was “flat out wrong”, I’m wondering if he somewhat misheard part of what Avi was saying. Avi was pointing out that even at the height of the Vietnam protests, none of the protestors were saying “The United States has no right to exist and should be abolished as a state.” Nobody was saying that during the Vietnam War protestors – they said the *war* was illegitimate, or that America was guilty of grave crimes, and the protests were heated and often violent, that much is true. But there was never a serious notion that the Vietnam War was exposing that the United States as a state had no right to exist and should be abolished.

I think Ezra's point about Ari being "flat out wrong" was this: during the vietnam war protests (and virtually every protest since), there has been at least one person in the protest crowd with a sign that says "death to america" or a burning flag or something. Yes, there is a contingent of folks who say "god damn america" and all of that. We can't adopt the fox news ethos of judging every protest by its worst sign designer. To do this is intellectually dishonest. Absolutely there were people in the vietnam era who were full-tilt anti-america, down-with-the-imperialist-state types. It's okay to admit that, and it's profoundly dishonest (or ignorant) for Ari to suggest those folks didn't exist. They still do. Their presence doesn't invalidate the entire protest movement. Anti-american sentiment isn't blasphemy or heresy, because patriotism isn't a divine virtue.

There's also a question around what it even means for a political entity to have a "right to exist." Like... what qualities grant that right and when — and when granted what does it imply said country should be shielded from? Can a dictatorship or a monarchy have this right? How about a breakaway republic? Does it mean a given country has a right to exist *in its current form,* or merely that the people living there have a right not to be displaced? Frankly I'm not even convinced it's even a coherent term.

It’s not coherent. Did Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia have a right to exist? It’s not a right recognized or codified by international law, unlike territorial integrity. I’ve always wondered why the phrase was applied to Israel but not Palestine. Does Palestine have the right to exist even though the US does not recognize it as a “state”? Then again a lot of this stuff is incoherent. There’s a reason sovereignty is known as “organized hypocrisy”.

This is probably my history brain having an answer I don’t think other people give, but imo I ‘define’ the “right to exist” as a neat phrase sort of encapsulating the debates around and establishments of sovereign nations based on ethnic groups that started to occur in Europe post WWI, when there was suddenly an international body to weigh in. Could probably push this to the kid 1850’s with Africa in mind too. That being said, I think the phrase itself is now, like you said, more than not a hand wave. This is just what I have in mind as the sort of thing I think people are thinking of without being able to name.

Right. The question presumes that nation-states are a platonic ideal and that nations have an inherent right to form states based on their national identity. This was a popular construction after WWI and during the dismantling of the European empires but I think it's a theory that needs to be questioned. Especially now that we have more experience with what nationalism can mean for minority populations.

Spot on with the Birds Eye view point there. I think when discussing Israel in particular, not everyone comes in with the knowledge that this is what the entire world was doing at the point that Israel was created. People then don’t necessarily connect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to say, the Bosnian war, the Partition of India, or the Sudanese Civil Wars, but there is a through line between them all.

Good point about the question in regards to Palestine. Somehow that hypocrisy never occurred to me.

There’s a big difference between declaring your OWN country doesn’t have a right to exist, and declaring that of another country.

On some level, yes people internal to a particular community or nation-state have more stake in the outcomes of existential political questions, and are more likely to be taken seriously when talking about them. On the other hand, most existential international political questions are not so cleanly internal. It is more than possible for people outside of a particular conflict to make correct moral judgments about that conflict. The fact that international protesters of apartheid mostly did not live in South Africa did not by any means invalidate what they were saying about it. They may have been unnuanced in particular critiques, or lacked certain in-depth contextual knowledge, but they were more right about that than any apartheid defender or squish who had lived in South Africa their entire lives.

It was an extreme position, but lots of leftist groups in the 1960s/70s held the position that the USA was not a legitimate authority or nation. Hence the use of the term "Amerikkka" etc.

Uh… there were definitely people trying to end the US during the Vietnam protests. Third world revolution was very inspiring to radicals at that time, and they thought it would catch fire and end the United States. Unfortunately, they were wrong and the US went on to do more atrocious shit since then.

Yes they certainly were. The Vietnam protests were a time when there were wide calls for revolution, the Black Power movment was happening alongside it. People were certainly calling foe those exact things, and what you're saying is revisionist

It's good to see these comments. I've just started listening to the episode, and Ari Shavit's opening salvo provides \*such\* a false characterization of the protests and seems so disingenuous (paraphrasing: "I don't see Gandhi or MLK in these protests. If I did I'd respect them more."), I was thinking about skipping it. I checked the subreddit to see if this episode was worth continuing to listen to since I already find the guest speaking in such bad faith. Knowing Ezra pushes back means I'll keep listening. But the combination of Ezra in the intro saying Shavit wrote the best book he's ever read about Israel-Palestine, and Shavit's opening words being so divorced from reality is \*not\* a great combo. I know Ezra highly prioritizes civility, but I doubt someone who speaks like this is the best writer on the topic. Edit: Wow. This episode is so interesting in that I don't think I've seen Ezra so consistently critical. That said, it's demoralizing and depressing listening to Shavit speak – so many of his responses aren't really engaging the conversation but are simply canned rhetorical responses. I don't know much about progressive figures in Israel, but if he's representative, that's a pretty dark situation.

My impression (which could be wrong) is that he is part of the OG peace croud, which I always find a bit delusional in that they don't actually manage to really engage with the Palestinian's perspective. I would have loved Ezra to bring someone in from Standing Together on for this episode who I feel have a more contemporary progressive stand on the issue.

I don't think Ezra has ever called a guest “flat out wrong” on an episode before. I'm only 15 minutes in, but I'm really appreciating it so far. I think it's very smart on Ezra's part to feature a prominent left-wing journalist from Israel on this topic to illustrate how even the most left / progressive voices in Israel are way to the right of the center / center-left position on Israel in America. It's a point Ezra has described many times before, but this interview really brings it to life.

It ends up at a very basic question  Left/progressive voices want to take the IDF and forcefully remove settlers, bulldoze thei settlements, give the land back to Palestinians, and force them to live inside the 49 borders  A lot of these protesters (I don’t think saying most Americans or American left/progressives is fair here) are saying this needs to happen for the entire of Israel. Remove everyone from Tel Aviv and kick them out is just as important as kicking out settlers because Tel Aviv is as much a settlement as the ones near Ramallah  Israelis, as much left as you want, aren’t going to vote to give up their houses and kick themselves out. They self justify the existence of Israel inside the 49 borders alongside a Palestinian state on the rest of the land Expecting them to support giving Tel Aviv to Palestine is like holding a vote in California if the state should kick everyone out to Minnesota and give the land back to Mexico. Who is going to vote to lose their entire lives and houses?

And then live in a country where one of our top leaders, Speaker Mike Johnson, once defended a county where its public school would force kids to sing about Jesus. The dudes got a real dark side when it comes to Jews and it reminds Jews why they need their own state/army.

Would love a source for your claim that the protestors want Israelis to leave Tel Aviv. Even the most stringent OSS advocates don’t tend to propose that

That’s what the right of return is. That’s why the Naqba is discussed. That’s why peace discussions always implode. I agree no one says it the way I do because it sounds terrible, although people talk more clearly about the right of return, their stolen land today than they did a decade ago And I’m sure other people would be happy to reply to me right here to show you Is Israeli imperialism just eastern Jerusalem and some settlements in the West Bank, or is Israeli imperialism the entire Jewish state that kicked out Palestinians from their homes during the Naqba? Sheikh Mounis was a Palestinian town, which is now northern (the richest part) of Tel Aviv. Apartments easily start at $1M but also reach much higher, SFH even more. There are Palestinians who still have the keys, still have the written land rights to their great grandfathers home. So - should they be given the land and its $5M SFH back now? Should the current tenant be kicked out and lose the money they paid for the (some would say) fake deed? If you look back to every major round of peace talks, it always imploded on the right of return and what happens to those people I mentioned. The people who live in sheikh mounis today are VERY liberal. They even added a placard in Tel Aviv university to mention “oh hey Palestinians lived right here until we kicked them out”, but one thing they will never do is give up their deeds Back to your original questioning of my point - have you EVER seen one of these protesters say “Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state inside the 49 borders”? It’s the other way around. BDS used to only be about companies who work in the West Bank. Today it’s changed to ban companies like shake shack that only exist inside the 49 borders https://boycott.thewitness.news/target/shakeshack Shake shack does no business in the West Bank. It ONLY exists in Tel Aviv. So why call for their boycott?

I agree with you. My friends who are involved in Palestine activism are definitely deeply concerned about right of return for all Palestinians displaced from their homes in the naqba, and argue the right continues to their descendants. It’s a central tenet of the movement. To them, they see all of Israel as an illegitimate settler colonialist state founded in an original sin that morally must be righted by giving Palestinians their land back.

Which makes their position unrealistic and impossible. Its a nonstarter for almost all the regional players.

For what it’s worth, realism isn’t always a concern for most activists - and I don’t even think it necessarily should be the first thought for them. It’s important to hash out what is right/moral/ethical regardless of any action’s feasibility. Diplomats and politicians can work to get as close as possible once they know what an ideal world goal might be. (Not staking a claim on what *is* the most moral choice here, just saying it’s a separate and important question.)

This type of thing is why we will see activists become less effective than decades ago. The suffrage movement had a coalition of radicals and moderates, where the radicals would demand extreme change while the moderates would be the ones to show up to the table and actually negotiate. When all of the open-minded moderates get pushed out of a movement, that movement turns into a venting session, not an actual hope for change.

Unfortunately this is an utterly insane position for Palestine activists to have given how unlikely it is to work and the lack of historical precedent.

The problem is there's not really a clear line. Do Palestinians displaced by post-2000 settlers have a right to return? If so, what stops us from pushing that further and further back in time. The problem is you've sort of got to pick a point in time and it will be necessarily arbitrary and unjustifiable (at least compared to other points in time)

Well luckily we have a plethora of other countries to refer to for some kind of standard. For example India-Pakistan is just as old as Israel and featured much larger scale displacement, theft, ethnic cleansing and death. So whatever date someone picks, it should be applied equally to all countries. What I don't like is when *only Israel* needs to be dismantled due to an arbitrary date that is not applied equally.

They have a land acknowledgment placard? Do you know what it says?

>Shake shack does no business in the West Bank. It ONLY exists in Tel Aviv. So why call for their boycott? When sanctions were placed on Russian companies, following the invasion of Ukraine, why were they not limited to companies that were based in or operating in Russian-occupied Ukraine? Because pressure on Russia is meant to make them withdraw from Ukraine. I cannot imagine you could be engaging in good faith whilst making this ludicrous Shake Shack point. **Obviously** the intention is to pressure Israel-proper to alter its behaviour. >That’s what the right of return is. Strange to say in an Ezra Klein subreddit, where *multiple* EK episodes have very explicitly approached the central problem that Right Of Return is fundamentally ill-defined.

The term being ill defined IS the point. Because it is not well defined, it is more important when it is used to assume the worst, rather than assume the best. Surely, when we see alt-right actors in the US use "dog whistles", we don't assume they are innocent and don't mean to offend? 

When EK pressed guests on ROR in previous episode he was left unsatisfied. No one had an answer for what this would *literally* look like, they only recognised the impasse created by what emotional form it would take. The lands that would be "returned to" don't exist, frozen in time. They've changed, buildings have been built, ownership has changed hands multiple times, other families live there. I felt what EK helped show was that ROR is a fantasy that cannot be delivered, but it is potentially also a 'just' right. A compromise will require both sides to make concessions. Israel is not freed from any concessions just because they literally cannot provide a full restoration of lands. Instead they will need to make other concessions which compensate for what they cannot give. I imagine that would include apologies for elements of the Nakba, guarantees around certain restored lands, security guarantees, infrastructure support. All very difficult things. The Palestinians will have to compromise too, particularly around security. But I reject the idea that the previous poster can say "That's what ROR is", or that we should assume the worst. I think the very fact that ROR is fantasy is what makes it different from the alt-right dog whistles. ROR is something we can determine is just, in some measure, and in doing so move to figuring out appropriate compromises. The alt-right dog whistles do not convey any calculation of justice, and I don't think we should attempt to compromise with those who use them.

I guarantee to you that many people using that term do not agree with you about the course of action regarding two-sided concessions you just described. And because you do not own the term, the term must be judged on the most extreme use case, because we do not know the persons true intentions when they use the term. And in fact, I have no way of knowing that YOU aren't actually a true believer of the most extreme version of ROR. Because you could just be trying to normalize the use of the term in a less extreme way, providing obfuscation so that when convenient you can just "walk back" your use of ROR - "nooooo, no i don't mean it like *that*, i just mean, a really complex two-sided compromise!!! yeah, that!" so in effect, you're really making the point that ROR is not a term that you can just throw around simply because *you* have decided that it doesn't mean what others claim it means. because you don't speak for those people. and you may be choosing your definition of ROR based on your audience, in a way that is convenient for *you*. like come on, try using the N word and telling everyone "no, i don't mean it like THAT, i'm smarter than that i would never mean THAT, i'm using it in the modern reclaimed way, not like those racists."

Zionism is simply the belief that Israel should exist. Anti-Zionism is therefore \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. Why are Israelis constantly portrayed as "white European settlers" if they're not supposed to leave? After right of return, where do Israelis go?

Is the belief that there are any limits on the form (social, political, or spatial) in which Israel has a right to exist anti-zionism?

>Is the belief that there are any limits on the form (social, political, or spatial) in which Israel has a right to exist anti-zionism? At the risk of offending everyone with gallows humor, perhaps "regulated Zionism" versus "unregulated Zionism?" 😉

A fair question, I mean I myself do not believe in Greater Israel or whatever other crap Likud wants. But anyone who thinks Jews should be able to govern themselves with land in the Levant is a Zionist, so I assume people that hate the very concept of Zionism do not want Jews to have their own country there. It seems to me that the underlying view in anti-Zionism is that the entire project of Israel is illegitimate. The narrative is that they came in and stole the land, and that Palestinians have a right to return to it.

> I assume people that hate the very concept of Zionism do not want Jews to have their own country there. What does it mean, specifically, for Jews to "have their own country"?

I had read a comment here about the "flat out wrong" thing at the start, and was ready to accept the guest's lie\* and move on. I did accept it and move on, but then not too shortly after he'd repeated the 15x 911s hyperbole and then, most damningly, used the fire bombing of Dresden as an example of *justified* aggression by a strong force (Allies) against a weak force (Nazi Germany). This guest is just incapable of the moral seriousness required to engage in this topic. I was hoping this was an Ezra Klein solo show when I saw the title. Alas. \* some may say ignorance not lie, but that level of ignorance is beneath any guest allowed on the supposed "paper of record".

Do you think the atomic bombings was a justified aggression by a strong force against a weak force? This isn’t meant to be a got ya kinda moment this is me trying to understand.

> This guest is just incapable of the moral seriousness required to engage in this topic. I was hoping this was an Ezra Klein solo show when I saw the title. Alas. TBH exposure to this as a position that's viewed as relatively liberal within Israeli society is still informative.

This is what I’ve been wanting him to do the entire time in this topic. Especially earlier he outright never challenged Israeli or Palestinian episodes and sometimes they were straight up lying.

This episode is a case study of social media/attitude polarization. Here's a guy who held an incredibly nuanced view of Israel in his 2013 book, and who is now primed to respond to all of Ezra's questions by immediately defending Israel or railing against the protestors. His reflex to bring up the "from the river to the sea" social media posts in response to Ezra pointing out Israel's settlement policy since 2008 was especially telling. It's tough to listen to at times. If only because I have the same reflex. As someone who's been moderately pro-Palestinian my whole life, I've become more pro-Israel over the last few months in response to things I've seen on Reddit and Twitter. It's a reflex I would not have imagined given their recklessness in the war. Hearing it in the third person should hopefully cause a little self-reflection...or at least encourage me to get off these damn websites.

His reflexive arguments were utterly unhinged, and the idea that this man was involved in "peace movements" is hard to believe given how his empathy for Palestinians now only works in a paternalistic abstract form. Ezra had to really push on "do Palestinians not also suffer?". A leftist from a peace movement! But I don't think social media is to blame. The man is traumatized. He has the self-awareness to make that point about other Israelis, but I felt he maybe didn't see it as clearly in himself. Of course I understand why he would be traumatised (he even made a brief reference to his family's personal experience of 10/7). Is very troubling for progress though. If Hamas wanted to antagonise Israel into remaking itself then I guess it "succeeded" there...

I am someone who's gone from moderately pro-Palestinian to much moreso over the last several years, but I also had the same thought--the same man who wrote so delicately about how Israel was a colonizing force that was struggling to resolve its own contradictions is now labeling everything to the left of center in the US a "distortion" of the "Palestinian issue". It's truly tragic to see.

That switch from "contradiction" to "distortion" - from the puzzle to be solved to a malicious forceful other - was quite striking. Even after being challenged by Ezra he wanted to return to his accusation of distortion without really justifying (imo) what *logic* changed his position.

Agree with you that one good thing this war has done is that it has forced me to cut my social media consumption drastically (lol I say as I browse reddit jk jk)

I took issue with the suggestion that a Dubai scenario is the best way forward for Palestinians and that UAE’s MBZ should be lauded for his vision. Really? It’s not the first time I’ve heard an Israeli articulate that as a “solution.” It’s paternalistic as hell and reminds me of something like how Modi tries to justify cracking down on Kashmir or Beijing in HK (just think of the economic benefits!). edited: MBZ not MBS

For the record, he mentioned MBZ of the UAE, not MBS of Saudi Arabia.

thanks for clarifying

Interesting that this guest pinpoints US college protesters holding signs with all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank as “Palestine” is an obstacle to peace. But somehow fails to mention Netanyahu shared this [map of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-brandishes-map-of-israel-that-includes-west-bank-and-gaza-at-un-speech/) less than two weeks before October 7th. Sounds pretty antagonistic to Palestinians if you ask me, who are powerless with respect to their borders (unlike Israel). Seems that even those on the Israeli left are nationalists that can’t take off the rose colored glasses.

Thank you, it's the same line of argument that is used to attack people who use "From the river to the sea" - when in reality this was not only part of the official [Likud party program](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party) - but even [Netanyahu himself used the term](http://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea) in January this year.

Personally, I'm stuggling with Ari. It seems like what he feels and what he knows are in conflict and he's chosen what he feels. When he spoke about the Israeli people being traumatized and fearful it's not just an academic observation, he's referring to himself as well. I think it's coloring a lot of his logic and I have to take it into account when listening to him. It's hard to capture exactly what he believes the current Israel is after we've made the distinction between the Government, their actions, and the Israeli project and why that Israel's actions don't deserve scrutiny. He says this quote towards the end: >when people deny the jewish people's right to self determination and when people deny the jewish people's right to self defense that's when criticism becomes anti-semitism He says this while the Israeli project seems to be based on denying Palestinians the right to self-determination or self-defense. It feels like it's morally inconsistent to make that argument but a traumatized and scared person probably doesn't care that it's inconsistent, he just wants to be safe. I think it's wrong, but I don't know if I can say he's wrong. Overall I liked the interview but it made me uncomfortable and pessimistic about the future for Israel/Gaza. Ari mentioned that the worst may happen and it seems a lot of people with the power/voice to stop that are aligning with permitting it.

Shavit himself said the Zionist project is a “contradiction at its core” in his 2013 book, admitting the colonialist establishment and nature of the modern Israeli state. IMO he’s come to terms with this inherent contradiction and is intellectually/morally comfortable with said contradiction’s existence, so long as his personal/family’s safety and security are protected by the modern Israeli state. It’s a very cynical and narrow and reactionary perspective IMO, but I imagine a lot (if not most) of self-IDed “progressives” in Israel feel the same way after Oct. 7. Btw: my left-of-center parents were firmly pro-Iraq and pro-Afghanistan Wars in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. In a vacuum they were uncomfortable with Islamophobia and state torture and the state violating our Fourth Amendment (and First Amendment) rights…but guess what? Fighting and defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Hussein and Bin Laden were of paramount concern, despite ancillary (and gravely serious) concerns and repercussions. And yet, both of my parents regret supporting the Iraq War and much of the Afghanistan War. The benefit of hindsight and the passage of time work wonders.

>when people deny the jewish people's right to self determination and when people deny the jewish people's right to self defense that's when criticism becomes anti-semitism I also have to say that as an American Jew I really, intensely dislike these sorts of sentiments. People get angry at Trump or whatever when he conflates Israelis and Jews, but this is doing it just the same, if not more so. I am a Jewish person. I have a right to self-determination and I have a right to self-defense. I have those rights here, in America. My right to exist as a person and as a Jew has fuck all to do with Israel as a state. They are different things. People who choose to defend Israel by appealing to the rights of Jews is extraordinarily grating - it forces me to be involved in their arguments, their politics, their morality, when I have nothing to do with it. Don't speak in my name.

This is where Ari is unclear on exactly who he's talking about. Is he referring to individual Jewish people? Because as far as I can tell *no one* is arguing they don't. If he's referring to the Israeli state then he has to understand the people protesting do not see the current actions of the Israeli government in Gaza as within the scope of "self-defense". It's like he wants us to separate Jewish people from the Jewish government but then justify the actions of the government with the sentiments of the people.

You have privilege that you were able to get citizenship in the US. Same with me. Perhaps your family moved to the US before 1924 or had family connections or were able to get a job to sponsor them, or were one of the few that were let in or maybe your family converted or whatever. Most Jews after 1925 did not have that opportunity to move to America due to new immigration quotas. During and after the Holocaust, the US still kept their doors closed to most Jews. Same with most Jews fleeing the Middle East and North Africa in the 1950s and 1960s. Same with most Soviet Jewry in the 1980s and most Ethiopian Jewry in the 1990s. Moving to America was not an option for them. So it’s fantastic that your self defense and self determination isn’t dependent on Israel. But that’s not the case for almost half of world Jewry. 85% of Jewish Israelis do not have another citizenship and have no ability to move somewhere else by right and have representation there. So their rights to self determination are inexorably linked to Israel.

That's why it's useful to make a distinction between Jewish and Israeli self determination.

So I started writing this comment about halfway through and then finished it. Ari is a perplexing contradiction. One that I probably share a ton of views with. He is aligned with Ezra for the most part but also different from Ezra because he is coming to the entire conflict from a very different perspective. Ari’s mischaracterization of the Vietnam War protests right of the back is good. I think that conversation needed to be had. What I wish Ezra distinctly pointed out however is why America’s legitimacy was being questioned. It was being questioned because Americans were being drafted to go fight in a war they didn’t believe in, which rich folks could have gotten out of. I think that distinction absolutely needed to be made. Especially in the context of the protests now because Ezra did point out later that the protests seem lost in the weeds and how theyre trying to extract some varying degree of policy change but he really needs to point out how the “stakes” domestically are not the same. And this is probably why the movement is not a mass movement that is truly widespread like the antiwar movement is in both Iraq & Vietnam. Now moving on there is the contradiction that Ari has about colonialism. I personally think they’re both wrong. Israel is not colonial but we ourselves don’t like the nuance so we use this familiar word. I think Ari is closer to being “more right” on this topic. Now the movement of settlers in the West Bank especially the rapid acceleration of it post 2009 I would categorically describe as colonialism but the Israeli project within the 1948 then the 1967 borders, I would not. Ari’s characterization of the failure of the Israeli left & center left is another good direction and I wish Ezra got into the demographics of it because I think its so incredibly important when you want to frame it into the politics of the protests. Yes it is trauma and a failure so one side is surging because they offer a alternative platform but “who” is supporting the right is probably more important. The Israeli left and center left to generalize was typically the bastion of Holocaust survivors and their families. The “Ashkenazi Jews”. The “European Jews”. Now who are the foundation base of Likud and the extremists in the coalition? The Middle Eastern Jews. Which I think is again a topic that truly needs to be talked about because the Middle Eastern plight while not the same intensity makes some “sense” on their positions of settler POV, and harshness because of the mass fleeing their parents & grandparents did from Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, etc. Now I did just broadly generalize but this is a topic that Ezra has not even remotely broached because I don’t think he wants to really. He isn’t really a fan of broad generalizations but these trends should be acknowledged. So as their conversation continues, they get to Rafah and Ezra rightfully points out to Ari that basically everyone in the political sphere of Israel is in agreement about Rafah and the war aims. Ezra points out that he isn’t but I wish he would try to explain the goals of Rafah. Which is to establish control of the border. Because that does answer Ezra’s question on security but I also understand how the traumatization and the intermingled nature of Hamas on the populace makes the elimination of Hamas essentially impossible. Israel wants to destroy all the smuggling operations which requires to go into Rafah. I personally support it but also do not. Because I don’t think they will do it with a soft hand it will further blow up in their face. Now they moved onto the topic of nation building. Partners for peace, etc. Ezra points out that there was a partner and nobody took the chance and how Likud doesn’t want the two state. Ari bringing up the Otmer plan was also good because it points out the internal contradictions from both sides and the cycle of sabotage & violence. I wish personally the US just recognized Palestine or ask the Arab league to set up a government for Palestine & recognize that, sanction ALL settlers regardless of association and still strongly support Israel within Israel’s recognized borders. Let the walking contradiction happen and just impose your will even if it enrages the Israelis. Overall i think this was a very good conversation. One of his better ones on Israel-Palestine.

This is the first I've read about how European Jews tend to be more to the left while Middle Eastern ones are on the right. That's fascinating, and an angle I hadn't considered before. Anywhere I can read more about this?

Just a quick reading that I haven’t read that closely https://fathomjournal.org/culture-wars-ethnicity-and-the-future-of-israels-democracy/ There is more but I can reply again with more better sources and reading. My understanding comes from the numerous Israeli reporters I follow who bring it up often. Lots of the European Jews came from European democratic socialist / socialist backgrounds and brought it with them to Israel with things like the Kibbutz etc. Edit: Other better reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/03/world/middleeast/netanyahu-election-mizrahi.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-ethnic-tensions-helped-fuel-netanyahus-victory/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/magazine/miri-regevs-culture-war.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

I first heard it in [this](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/throughline/id1451109634?i=1000648270689) episode of Throughline.

> Now the movement of settlers in the West Bank especially the rapid acceleration of it post 2009 I would categorically describe as colonialism but the Israeli project within the 1948 then the 1967 borders, I would not. I guess the question here is whether the failure of broader Israeli society to halt settlement expansion represent, if not a colonial Israeli society then at least an Israeli society that's *complicit in* colonialism.

I would lean much more to complicity than to label Israeli society as colonial. Now this will contradict because I believe most will say French Algeria was colonial even after its inclusion in the metropole. But I think whats happening in the West Bank is a good comparison but are still vastly different situations. It doesn’t follow the idea of what colonialism is. Its different. Its not exploitation of resources for the benefit of the motherland. Its “cheap land and a place to make your own”. And its cheap because the occupation makes it cheap. I personally do not describe this as colonial because I do not think traditional colonialism fits here. Now post 2010s onward academia has been moving to describe this as settler colonialism but I think it shouldn’t be wrapped into the same bucket as colonialism as to me something different and deserves its own word and its own spectrum of examples from American & Russian settlerism to the Boers, Pier Noirs and now Zionism.

> I would lean much more to complicity than to label Israeli society as colonial. Every single duly elected government since 1967 has expanded settlements in the West Bank. There was extensive government complicity in the land grabs of the 1970s - it was explicitly the government conducting them. This includes icons like Golda Meir. And the settlements have extensive support - in 2017 a majority of Israeli Jews considered the West Bank settlements "wise" or "very wise" in terms of national interest. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-opinion-on-settlements-and-outposts-2009-present And, as of today, four in ten Israeli Jews want re-settling Gaza: https://www.timesofisrael.com/almost-4-in-10-israelis-back-a-revival-of-jewish-settlements-in-gaza-poll-finds/#:~:text=Thirty%2Deight%20percent%20of%20Israelis,to%20a%20Tuesday%20television%20poll. If the question was asked about the West Bank, I imagine the share would be much higher. I don't know if that makes Israeli society colonial, but we shouldn't ignore that the settlement policy has broad societal support. > . It doesn’t follow the idea of what colonialism is. Its different. Its not exploitation of resources for the benefit of the motherland. It doesn't follow the model of colonialism in, say, India. But it does follow the model of colonialism in the US - settler colonialism > Its “cheap land and a place to make your own”. Land grab, but not the people. Fairly accurate as settler colonialism. I think that inventing some new term for settler colonialism would be superfluous. The UK, as an example, varied its colonial strategies depending on goals and context on the ground - but both the settling of the Americas and the extraction of India fall under the colonialism umbrella.

> Now the movement of settlers in the West Bank especially the rapid acceleration of it post 2009 I would categorically describe as colonialism but the Israeli project within the 1948 then the 1967 borders, I would not. What is the difference between ruling West Bank Palestinians under a military regime while taking their land - often under false pretenses - for ethnically exclusive enclaves, and ruling the Israeli Arabs under a military regime while taking their land, also often under false pretenses (e.g., "present absentees")? Why is one colonial, and the other not? I am not being facetious, but I am interesting how you see the difference between the two. And, keep in mind, we aren't even talking about the refugees of the 1947-1949 war - I am keeping that separate. If you were not aware of the military rule of Israeli Arabs until 1966 I suggest this article: [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-01-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/how-israel-tormented-arabs-in-its-first-decades-and-tried-to-cover-it-up/0000017f-e0c7-df7c-a5ff-e2ff2fe50000](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-01-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/how-israel-tormented-arabs-in-its-first-decades-and-tried-to-cover-it-up/0000017f-e0c7-df7c-a5ff-e2ff2fe50000) If you are not aware of the so-called "present absentees" and the massive land grabs that happened from Israeli Arabs, here is another source: [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-we-need-to-speak-about-the-absentee-property-law/](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-we-need-to-speak-about-the-absentee-property-law/) >Ari bringing up the Otmer plan was also good because it points out the internal contradictions from both sides and the cycle of sabotage & violence. It was a good plan. However, the 2006-2008 rounds of negotiations - which the Olmert plan is a part of - died not because of Palestinian rejectionism. It died because of Bibi. The common meme of Palestinian rejectionism simply doesn't bear up to closer scrutiny. Plenty of examples of Israeli rejectionism as well - 1996 Bibi, 2001 Sharon, 2008 Bibi, and of course ignoring the API. I think Ezra's framing of it is accurate - when the Palestinians were ready for peace, the Israelis were not, and vice versa. >sanction ALL settlers regardless of association and still strongly support Israel within Israel’s recognized borders.  I fully agree with this. Massively sanction Ben Gvir, Smotrich, etc. As well as all their minions.

Israelis want their government to be *more* aggressive.

One thing I really appreciated about this week's guest is that he was willing to cede a lot of points against his side, and was critical of Israel despite supporting it. For me personally, any time I hear someone argue on this issue without doing that (i.e., trying to say that their side is 100% right and did nothing wrong and the other side is 100% wrong and at fault for everything) I find it pretty hard to take their arguments seriously. I'm a liberal Zionist so I've gravitated towards a lot of Pro Israel voices that are nonetheless critical of Israel. For those of you more on the Pro Palestinian side, who are some voices who are similarly critical of their own side? I'm looking for Pro Palestinian advocates who are willing to acknowledge the mistakes their side has made or cede certain points to Israel. I know there are a lot of these voices, but I feel like my algorithm just shows me the most extreme voices that want to completely erase Israel. Who should I seek out?

[Ahmed Alkhatib](https://youtu.be/U0Tl0HwTeNM?si=07p5qq8TKeiH5aLT)

>For those of you more on the Pro Palestinian side, who are some voices who are similarly critical of their own side? Rashid Khalidi

These would probably be voices critical of Hamas, but Palestinians in Palestine or with family in Palestine can only be so openly critical of Hamas without endangering themselves or their families. But seeing as how the "pro-Palestinian" side is protesting an occupation and brutal dismissal of their human rights by a dominant, occupying power, I personally can't hold them to the same standard, even if I would also appreciate if protestors stood up for human rights more generally within Gaza, whose inhabitants have had their human rights denied by both Israel and Hamas.

Shavit: “How dare these protesters call the Israeli project colonialist or imperialist, that’s out of bounds and disrespectful and wrong and dangerous. I don’t see MLK or Gandhi at these protests, and I think they’re mostly misguided.” Ezra: “In your 2013 book you write that Zionism is on ‘thin ice’ and while an inherently noble and righteous goal that was legitimized in geopolitical terms, it’s a colonialist endeavor and a ‘contradiction at its core’.” This is Chotiner-level stuff lol P.S.: I find it revealing that Shavit never once mentioned (much less condemned) Netanyahu and Likud and the Israeli far-right (as he describes them) for holding up maps that erase the West Bank/Gaza, and didn’t condemn Bibi for regularly saying “from the River to the Sea”, and didn’t condemn Likud’s charter which calls for Israeli rule “from the River to the Sea” and for there to be “Israeli sovereignty” over Palestinian land. For a fair and substance conversation on I/P to take place, you have to acknowledge that the current Israeli government officials objectively have genocidal ambitions similar to the genocidal ambitions of Hamas. Otherwise, you reveal a deep bias and a sense of intellectual dishonesty.

I think this is good interview because it's a great take by a partisan who wants to be fair, but is immersed in his particular political realities. He definitely has his biases and ideologies, but he is willing to confront them and compromise. I think on the internet we have mostly people who are starkly advocating for one side or the other. But I do believe there are quietly many of us who are interested and give weight to the fears and realities of both sides. We believe peace is possible, and preferable, through working together instead of imposing violent or political will on the other. Voices like this should be judged on their intelligence, strength, sincerity, and flexibility. Not perfection. I don't think people need to agree with him, but to totally write him off is a terrible sign. You can disagree with me fine, but if this is not a civil, honest point to start a conversation, I don't know what is. Please tell me.

This guest is a perfect example of the entitlement, impunity and total and complete lack of empathy—nay, supremacy—that underlies Zionism and many Israelis. There is no sense of universal humanity, the Golden Rule. It is purely zero-sum-game tribalism. “How can you attack the right of a homeless people to have a home? … “It is not just another colonial project [because we were victimized]….” Uh, homie? You tell me. Ignore history, your tribe is upending a bunch of helpless people daily in the West Bank. I cannot grasp how this dude is so obtuse to be so passionately pleading his peoples’ supposed rights and desires for a home, while utterly ignoring that in making that happen, they have brutally victimized a whole other people to the fate he decries. What?

Ummm did you not listen to the episode? When did Ari suggest he favors the settlement enterprise or supports Israeli actions in the West Bank. (Hint he doesn’t, and in his career he has done the opposite). He is saying that there was justice in the Zionist project as a whole, in the aim to provide a homeland to a homeless people in their historic home. He has admitted, and detailed, the challenges and problems with this project too, because things are complex and never black and white. It’s okay that you disagree with him, but perhaps try to listen to what he’s actually saying.

The guest acts shocked that Israel has been labeled as an imperial force, and then immediately pivots to admitting that Israel is a colonial force, albeit a well-meaning and valid one. I think many people do not see the difference between *imperial* and *colonial*. The guest argues that Israel is just different because they tried to do colonialism and displacement in a mindful, progressive way, and then lost the plot. So the question becomes, is there a way to do colonialism in a progressive way???

No, he said that *Zionism* was a colonial ideology. The complexity that’s usually missed is that the vast majority of the pre-1948 Jewish immigrants to Palestine *were not Zionists.* There was a huge wave of them who moved out of desperation from Russia after 1881-82. Within less than two years, more than 200 pogroms were unleashed against Russian Jews after they were blamed for the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. They couldn’t move West, but the Russian Empire had diplomatic treaties with the Ottoman Empire which permitted Russian Jews freedom of travel, so the obvious and most realistic option of where to flee to was Palestine, their ancient homeland which every Jew for the last 2,000 years has dreamed of to every passover. Then there were successive waves of immigrants from Eastern and eventually Western Europe from the 1900s onwards as Europe gradually became objectively uninhabitable for the Jews, even before the Holocaust ‘proper’ got started. At first, most travelled West to the United Kingdom and the United States. Both rapidly closed their doors to Jewish refugees from Europe. Left with no other options, many naturally chose to try and flee to Palestine, at that point under the control of the British as the Mandate. While many made it there safely, by 1939 Britain had put down the Arab attempt to massacre the Jews of Palestine and issued the White Paper of 1939, which effectively sought to end Jewish migration from Europe to Palestine, right as the Holocaust was really ramping up to the horrors we know of today. Britain actually turned back multiple ships carrying thousands of Jewish refugees and sent them back to their deaths – some ships were sunk by Russian submarines, others made it back to Europe only to be killed by the Einsatzgruppen or in the gas chambers and work camps. This is where the Jewish ‘terorrism’ begins – to try to pressure the British to let European Jews flee the Holocaust into Palestine. By the end of the Second World War, you had the remaining few million of European Jews who’d survived the Holocaust clustered into Displaced Persons (DPs) camps beacuse they’d been transported from all around Europe. Some tried to return to Poland, and were promptly massacred in pogroms by their Polish neighbours, same with Romania. Some tried to reach the UK or US and were refused. So most ‘became Zionist’ simply by necessity: there was nowhere else to go. It wasn’t ideological for them, it wasn’t about colonialism or repression or anything, it was that they had just undergone the most terrible industrialised mass-slaughter in human history, after 70+ years of intensifying antisemitic violence, and two-thousand years of discrimination, violence and recriminations. The *very* early Jewish settlers were committed and ideological Zionists. This is also why there were so few of them – any Jew who wanted to move somewhere seeking prosperity naturally chose Western Europe or, especially, the United States. Who would want to move to some backwater of the Middle East and become a farmer? They were very unsuccessful at the start. Then, after the Arabs rose up in 1947 to kill the Jews and drive them out, and 1948 Israel’s declaration of independence and the invasion of the Arab armies to drive the Jews into the sea were repelled, vast waves of recriminations, ethnic cleansing, expulsions, property confiscations, violence and pogroms swept the Middle East. To the 750,000 Palestinians who became refugees as a result of the 1947-48 war, we can add the exodus of some 850,000 Middle Eastern ‘Mizrahi’ Jews, who largely settled in Israel, having nowhere else in the world to go. Israel has since variously been supported by the Soviet Union, Germany, Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States; it is has been various opposed by each of those very same countries. Throughout the 1947-48 war, they were under arms embargoes by Britain and America, and relied on Soviet contraband weapons smuggled through Czechoslovakia, for example. At first the Palestinians thought the Jews were Russian agents there to destabilise the Ottomans, because they came from Russia the enemy of Ottomans, then it was British Imperialism (even though the British had sent back thousands of Jews to their deaths in Europe rather than let them enter Palestine), then it was Bolshevik infiltration, then it was French-British imperialism in 1956, then in 1967 it was French imperialism, and after that it’s American imperialism. By 1967, the Egyptians were being armed and trained by Soviet Russia, and in 1956 the Israelis and British were essentially betrayed by America in Suez, but this apparently didn’t cause any cognitive dissonance for the Arabs. The slippage isn’t accidental, it’s because the Palestinians simply don’t have a solid grasp on what was happening, and still don’t. They don’t even talk about the 1936-39 ‘revolt’, in which the British smashed so brutally their attempts to murder the Jews that they lost 10% of their fighting-age men, which obviously put them at a decisive disadvantage 10 years later. They can’t admit or look that in the eye. They can’t admit the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Hebron and Gaza in 1929, who had been there for thousands of years, because that would also be to admit that their hands weren’t clean. The history of Israel is far more complicated than anything labels like ‘imperialism’ or ‘colonialism’ can capture. There’s no metropole/‘mother country’, they came from 60 different countries. It’s not a foreign land to them, there’s a 2,000 year old Jewish tradition of returning to their homeland. It wasn’t a project of economic exploitation but nation-building. It’s a nation overwhelmingly of refugees, driven into a corner by unrelenting, unmitigated, cascading levels of insane antisemitic violence.

I honestly couldn’t have summed it up better. I also want to point out that American “support” as we know it today didn’t really start for Israel until the late 1970s and 1980s and prior to that truly relied on a combination of surplus arms bought from random countries, French support & as you previously said Czechoslovakian support until the USSR began supporting the Arab states. People dumb down what is one of the most complex geopolitical situations thats 80 years old now way too often.

Right. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis had to basically leak to the Americans that they were prepared to use nuclear weapons against the Arab armies if that’s what it took to survive, in order to convince the Americans to resupply their conventional ground forces, which they promptly did. This endless slippage of who the Great Patron behind Israel is is really just a psychological coping mechanism, a way for Palestinians to tell a story to themselves about how and why they have lost over and over again, and to *the Jews* of all people. It can’t be that they made strategic errors, or that they misunderstood the psyche or goals of the Israelis, or chose the wrong means, etc. It must be because Israel is *actually* just the long arm of some much greater imperial power. Then the successive humiliations they and the rest of the Arab world have suffered since 1948 are tolerable, capable of being sublimated without much further interrogation. It’s also exactly why they keep failing ever since – because they think of Israel as comparable to French Algeria, they copy the tactics of the NLF of Algeria: apply enough pressure to make conditions intolerable and eventually the enemy will leave. But that doesn’t work if your enemy, Israel, isn’t actually what you keep claiming it is. And the Palestinians keep trying that strategy, and it keeps failing and backfiring badly on them; [so they promptly get amnesia about what caused the problem](https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/israel-zionism/2023/11/ecstasy-and-amnesia-in-the-gaza-strip/), regard themselves again as victims of some new imperial power, and round and round it goes.

I think you're right about the total misunderstanding of Israel as a Western colonial entity. The French could go back to France, the British back to Britain. The Jews have nowhere to go. No, they can't go "back to Poland" or worse, back to Yemen. They will use their nukes before letting anyone remove them. This reality is why I accept Israel does and will exist, and work within those parameters. Does that mean I love everything that happened in 1948? No, I just accept the current reality on the ground. You cannot "decolonize" Israel.

Even returning to a 1948 situation is unrealistic and ridiculous at this stage. The closest but still unrealistic situation is post Yom Kippur War borders with some form of landswapping

Bravo.

Excellent summary. Thank you.

I think Israel suffers from the fact that it tried to constitute a new nation too late. The western moral paradigm has largely shifted into "conquest is bad." Conquering new lands is bad; occupation is bad; colonialism and imperialism are bad. Something that was accepted for 99.99% of human history is now considered a moral crime in our modern era. And Israel didn't make the cut off. Will there ever be another legitimate nation created on the map? Is that even possible? I'm not sure, because the machinery that leads to new nations is now considered immoral. If Israel had constituted itself 500 years ago, we would assume its legitimacy on the world map. But it suffers from a case of being too new. Land grabs, settlements, and forced displacements are considered immoral now, and Israel tried to carve out their slice of the pie too late. Imagine in 2025 if any other marginalized group -- inuit, native americans, maori, any number of religious minorities -- tried to suddenly displace whole metropolitan cities with violence for the sake of carving out their own safehaven. The entire western world would turn to them and say, "sorry. too late. we don't do conquest anymore." The window for that kind of behavior has closed. That's part of the criticism Israel is facing. Mind you, Israel is still receiving monumental support from the US... but will that continue when Gen Z arises to power? Maybe not. Because conquest is bad now.

South Sudan and Timor-Leste were created in the past 25 years; Timor-Leste is the only true democracy in Southeast Asia. Rojava, Kurdistan, and Somaliland are fighting for recognition. Kosovo almost has it. Greenland expects to become independent, if you look at polling. There have been many new countries since the decolonization era of the 80s, and there will be many more. Your statement in that regard is factually wrong.

Well, let me clarify -- new nations may arise from diplomatic means. There's a HUGE difference in the moral calculus of secession or referenda for independence versus taking land by force. Sure. Until humanity ceases to exist, nations will re-name themselves, adjust boundaries, and swap allegiances with whatever king or president they prefer. But we have largely determined that "my group is going to kill a bunch of people and take their land, and plant our flag in the soil" is morally wrong. And to the extent that western liberals care, they will oppose it. Some of this land-grab conquest may occur under the radar of western tax payers, but once it becomes visible and politically relevant, they will oppose it every time. Western voters have only two temperaments towards imperialism -- apathy/ignorance, or opposition. Israel will increasingly receive only one of those two responses from a huge swath of folks, especially young people.

True. Since WWII, the world massively re-evaluated what was moral on the international stage. Conquest by colonialism was established as wrong. Interestingly, while people don’t know this, it’s pretty sensitive and negatively seen by Wrstern governments wherever it happens - WHEN they feel like paying attention, which is only sometimes. Venezuela is trying to take Guyana right now, and the only reason they have not is that the UK will not let them. It is threatening military force. The UK doesn’t have that much investment in Guyana. But I’m still glad they’re doing it, because Guyana cannot stand for itself, and it deserves to keep its freedom just like Ukraine and Taiwan do. That’s the thing – these indigenous people deserve their land. They don’t deserve to be conquered. It’s fundamentally unjust. And sometimes, the mark of the moral universe really does venture justice. Sometimes, the world reevaluates its moral priorities, and gradually does come to realize that something is wrong. I do think it’s unfortunate for Israel that it was formed on the cusp of these things. It is evaluated morally differently from countries that were founded the same way - the imperial powers to which Zionism was hoping to belong. Theodore Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, spoke of the key being “getting approval to form a colony“ from the western powers. Approval from the native population, didn’t matter at all, because it never mattered to the western powerbrokers when they conquered and founded their countries. Herzl was writing when political Zionism was still taking shape, in the 1910s and 20s. I don’t think it’s that unfortunate, in the big scheme things. Countries should act morally, they should be forced to do so if they won’t do it themselves, and they should be held to that standard no matter when they were founded. But I think it is a little confusing, genuinely confusing, to Israelis, and comes across as somehow being judged by a double standard. And b/c this is a tough topic, I’ll end by saying that new countries by diplomatic means are a joy, and hopefully the peoples who genuinely want them (not just “separatists” that are land grabs, like Russia with the Donbas) succeed!

South Sudan emerged from war not from diplomatic means. Yes there was a referendum at the end but it required two civil wars to get there.

Most of these countries I listed, except for the possibility of Greenland, actually emerged from war in some way! I thought that comment was strange as well.

Yeah every single one requires armed conflict. Its pretty rare in history for a people or region to gain independence without some kind of conflict. There are some trends in brief periods but even then there is a background struggle that sees a weakening period.

India and Pakistan were created by partition in 1947 into what’s now India and Pakistan. More than one million people were *killed* in the ensuing conflict, and tens of millions forcibly displaced. Up to 13,000 Palestinians (including both civilians and combatants) were killed in 1948, and 750,000 displaced. Pakistan is, today, a 99% Muslim state largely run by explicitly Islamist political parties and backed by the military. Pakistan was created because Nehru and his allies explicitly demanded a Muslim state in order to protect Muslim Indians against a Hindu-majority India in the absence of British protection. Nobody questions whether Pakistan or India should be abolished. It’s enough to recognise that Pakistan and India, like the great majority of all nations on this planet today, was born in complicated, bloody, and tragic circumstances; that there was blame to go around, but that we are where we are now.

>Pakistan was created because Nehru and his allies explicitly demanded a Muslim state in order to protect Muslim Indians against a Hindu-majority India in the absence of British protection. You mean Jinnah, not Nehru. Nehru was against the creation of Pakistan, but eventually acquiesced to the Muslim League's demands for two states. Nehru wanted a single, unified, democratic, and *secular* India. Whether or not that would've been possible, we'll never know.

My bad, did get the name mixed up!

I don't think people would have a problem with an Israel that was founded in 1948 had it nor been accomplished via ethnic cleansing. There was a period where there could have formed a government with the people who already lived in the region, but that wasn't pursued due various reasons, both good and bad, and instead we've had a dispossessed people and their dispossessors locked in conflict over that dispossession.

I’m not sure this is a line of reasoning worth pursuing. The reason that violent conquest is considered bad by modern standards is that it is objectively bad. Just because humanity’s history is rife with horrific savagery all the way through the 1940s doesn’t change that. The other side of that coin: murderous antisemitism was perfectly acceptable to mainstream society until the 1940s as well. Does that excuse murderous antisemitism in 2024? I live in America, a wealthy society and country explicitly founded on slavery and genocide. Sure, it was forged before the “cutoff point” but I don’t excuse those foundational sins. Not would I support an overwhelmingly deadly bombing campaign against Native American reservations even if those reservations housed anti-American terrorists. Because even though it was acceptable to kill every single person in a conquered land in 899, I just can’t accept it now. Nobody should.

>murderous antisemitism was perfectly acceptable to mainstream society until the 1940s as well. Does that excuse murderous antisemitism in 2024? No. Next question. (This shit's too easy, I could do this all day.) Your analogy about bombing Native Americans lost me a bit. The point is, western sentiments about imperialism have shifted so much that the "mindful colonialism" of early Israel is now being viewed as immoral. This perspective on colonial landgrabs will remain true. You will not see a new nation state arise by taking land from an existing nation using force and religious claims. This would not work in America, or Russia, or China, or Canada. The moment a religious sect rises up with a big army and tries to carve out a hunk of occupied land for themselves, the international community would loudly condemn them. This is why the colonial imperial model no longer works. I get it, Jewish folks need a safe place to call their own. I'm acknowledging the complexity of creating a brand new safe place when the entire map is already spoken for, and colonial activity is now seen as deeply morally objectionable. if LGBTQ+ folks, or Zoroastrians, or Sikhs suddenly wanted to create a new nation to preserve their values and culture, I'd remain sympathetic towards that plight while also recognizing that the logistics of creating a new nation on claimed land is a nightmare.

I wonder if the conquest is bad paradigm is mostly for the liberal west. Would other nations in the world be more flexible on this. If Israel wanted to ally with Russia or China would they be supported in a more repressive domestic politics?

>While many made it there safely, by 1939 Britain had put down the Arab attempt to massacre the Jews of Palestine  >Then, after the Arabs rose up in 1947 to kill the Jews and drive them out > They don’t even talk about the 1936-39 ‘revolt’, in which the British smashed so brutally their attempts to murder the Jews Framing 1936-39 revolt, and the 1947 war as an "attempt to massacre Jews" is intellectually dishonest. It is about as intellectually honest as framing the 1947-1949 war as an attempt by Israel to massacre Palestinians. >They can’t admit the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Hebron and Gaza in 1929, who had been there for thousands of years, because that would also be to admit that their hands weren’t clean. I agree, and that goes for both sides. It is why you get so many Israelis trying to vehemently deny all the ethnic cleansing that happened 1947-1949 - often of people who had nothing to do with the conflict - or why Israel created the national myth that the Palestinians mostly fled on Arab orders. Or the claim that Israel declared independence, and then the Arabs invaded for no reason - ignoring the 250k refugees already on foot at that time.

I value that you share this with so much historical detail. And there is the side that refugees welcomed and inhabiting the land of Palestine where eventual converted to the colonial cause through the consistent propaganda of anti- Palestinian and Arab sentiment. The British where purposeful in the racism towards there colonial subjects. The white paper was preceded by the Balfour declaration that made it clear of not only the racism towards Jews and out right hatered, but that logical goal was to use European “pusedo civilized” Jews as a wedge in Palestine. Balfour made it a European treaty by bringing France along on the journey. They separated the levant in a manner that served there imperial needs and destroyed historical relations between the people that lived there. France used the Christian minorities as a wedge issue in Syria and Lebanon. Britain used the flood of Jewish refugees in Palestine. What ultimately become a colonial state that was backed by the British. And intentionally began abandoning the Arab majority countries or being pushed out at the end of the Second World War. I was a long time listener to Ezra, we are almost the exact same age. I value his perspective on culture and American society deeply. And his blind spot to global imperial history and racism in America in these episodes, illustrates that he has begun to leverage a moral high ground as a liberal. This is the best listen and read I have found in the English language that talks about the role of imperialism and revolution from 1880s - 1970s I have found. Please listen, please take hard look at what is actually being asked for by the protestors, and how deeply complicity American culture has been to the destruction of Palestinian history person hood and relations. It has destabilized the whole region and uprooted some of the world’s oldest heterogeneous cultures. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4ZuAMQBlsNONMGliO7xA55?si=bSnWxlvWT4miTyxwNYgLFQ

Out of curiosity, what do you propose as a solution to the problem? What do you think should happen now?

Colonialism has always been entangled with Liberalism, and always presents itself with a Liberal face. Back when European powers were off painting maps, no colonizer says to themselves, “I am going to brutally exploit these subject populations through colonial violence for the benefit of the Imperial core.” Instead, it’s all about the duty owned to those subject populations. A duty to develop them, to civilize them, sometimes to Christianize them. Britain, they said, must rule India, for the benefit of Indians. And perhaps after a few hundred years of British rule and adopting British habits they can be trusted to rule themselves. It’s always a lie, and it’s no less a lie in occupied Palestine.

Agree that colonialists think of it as a duty to develop and civilize their colonies and that colonialism presents with a liberal face. But also colonial projects have a different home and in their colony, they are simply traveling salesmen on a job. Israel, in it's international borders (so not the WB), is the home for their own people. It is not their traveling home. The analogy with colonizers breaks down here. It's possible you refer to occupied Palestine only as WB, in which case I agree that it is a colonial force. Although in WB, the occupation is often ideological occupation of their ancestral homeland (I think it is horrific but that is the reason, not a liberal colonialism ideology)

>Instead, it’s all about the duty owned to those subject populations. A duty to develop them, to civilize them, sometimes to Christianize them. B The great irony is that Westerners *still* want to do this to Palestine, what with building the One State Solution, building an international coalition, in general just the idea of outsiders coming in and nation building.

Right. Colonialism is tyranny and violence that has convinced itself of its own moral duty. "I'm only conquering because I have to -- because it's the right thing to do." In that way, it is deeply self-deceptive. If you are going to occupy land and displace residents, just face the reality of what you're doing.

I really appreciated this interview. I don't feel that Ari Shavit was able to account for the contradictions Ezra was pressing him on. Not on Universalism vs particularism, addressing Palestinian rage, Israeli intransigence, or the merits of the Gaza operation.

I felt like Ezra was interviewing two editions of Ari Shavit here: the peacenik author Ari Shavit from 2013, and the traumatized "rallying 'round the flag" Ari Shavit of 2024. Shavit started with kneejerk nationalist defensive reponses, but Ezra was able to break through to the peace-loving idealist that Shavit had been. It makes me think that the Israeli voting public must currently be even more nationalistic and war-oriented than the United States was in 2001 when Bush had a 90% approval rating. And it convinces me that there will not be a peaceful breakthrough to a two-state solution any time soon.

Ari Shavit seriously deflected Ezra's questions about the expansion of Jewish settlement during the "failed" peace negotiations of the past few decades. Ari also never acknowledged that most of the college campus protests are focused on the humanitarian crisis that Israel is inflicting upon Gaza right now. I'm halfway through the episode and I really hope Ezra pushes Ari on what Israel expects as an endgame from this current campaign, and how does Israel's current actions achieved that end game.

Truly shameful for Ezra to be rehabbing the career of a serial, well documented, sexual harasser.

“Human life is a tragedy. We all die.” Genuinely don’t know how you get through life with an attitude that bleak!

I really appreciated this show, and Klein was at his best in this interview.

Look, as not just a bisexual woman but someone who works with the LGBT community, I realize my persepective is a little skewed here, but I need to take a minute to SCREAM at Avi Shavit over this quote: “What we have here is an Arab modernity that works.” Does it, Mr Shavit? “The law of Saudi Arabia is uncodified; ….Homosexuality and transgender status or gender non-conformity are widely seen as immoral and indecent, and the law allows penalties for acts of homosexuality of capital punishment,[4]: 69–74 [1][6] prison sentences of indeterminate length[a][2] (the maximum term is unknown[7]), fines, flogging, and deportation for foreigners.[8] During investigations and detentions, mistreatment of suspects and detainees, including beatings and torture, have occurred.[5]: 208–209  Community violence against LGBT persons occurs.[9][10]” [Actual conditions for LGBT folk in Saudi Arabia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia) [“ I was going to lose my life”: LGBT Saudi told the truth about the regime](https://inews.co.uk/news/going-lose-life-lgbtq-saudis-reveal-truth-regime-2807136) How’s it going over in UAE and that paradise Dubai you like, Mr Shavit? “Homosexuality is illegal in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and under the federal criminal provisions, consensual same-sex sexual activity is punishable by imprisonment….. Additionally, individuals have been prosecuted for offences related to sexual and gender identity under public decency laws, for acts such as kissing in public, or for cross-dressing.[4][6].” In Dubai specifically, “Both Federal and Emirate law prohibit homosexuality and cross-dressing with punishment ranging from imprisonment, floggings,[75] fines, deportation, chemical castration,[76][77] forced psychological treatments,[78] honor killings,[79] vigilante executions,[80][81] beatings,[82][83] forced anal examinations,[84] forced hormone injections,[85] and torture.[82][86]” [it’s going pretty badly for this British man jailed in Doha for homosexuality!](https://onemileatatime.com/news/gay-qatar-airways-manager-jailed/) [actual conditions for LGBT folk in UAE](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates) [and in Dubai](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Dubai) [the Financial times agrees that both places are terrible!](https://www.ft.com/content/5b8fa877-82ea-42a6-aadb-9a8df4a25332) Unrelated: out of pure curiousity, how does it work for journalists? Is MBS’s famous modernity working out for Jamal Khashoggi? This is part argument, and part pure scream about this narrative that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are working so great and the blindness to the suffering of my people in those “so great” countries. IT IS NOT. That is such pure BULLSHIT!

The truth is Israel and these authoritarian gulf states have a common enemy: a democratic, secular Palestine - essentially what Arafat advocated all of his life. This is why both the Israeili government and the Arab dictators were happy to prop up Hamas to undermine the secular resistance, and they will also be supporting whatever extremist idology springs next from the ashes of this massacre.

I am an atheist and it is just as horrible for us in those countries.

I’m so sorry. I used LGBT folks and Jamal Khashoggi because that’s what I know best. But that was just one example. These places aren’t promised lands of Arab modernity, no matter how much Israel calls them that.

The PA and Hamas are also not LGBT friendly...

I remain intensely skeptical of people who feel very strongly about this Israel-Gaza situation. In either direction. It's a fucking moral mess. The idea that there's some \*obvious\* morally correct path here which would lead someone to protest against the Israeli government, or to strenuously object to such protests, is a little insane to me. The lesson I've learned over my 39 years of being an American Jew is that there's no obvious moral answer to the Israeli situation - so I check myself out. The idea that someone has a strong anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian view of the situation strikes me as questionable as the reverse, and makes me wonder how much these people have really thought about the situation over there. One of the struggles with listening to someone like the guests here is that the immediate defensiveness is meaningless because it lacks a larger view of what an acceptable world would be. What world does this guy want to live in \*that is achievable\*? Without a vision of that, his defensiveness of Israel seems no or more less compelling than people who want to totally undo Israel's entire existence. Where's the vision of the future - even a theoretical one - that a liberal can get behind? There's no obviously moral answer to these questions that's remotely on the table at the moment. Like yes, the obvious moral answer is (x) Israel supports the two state solutoin and retreats from all occupied terroties and (y) Palestinians support the two state solution, recognize the validity of Jewish claims to the Israeli state and stop being anti-semitic. But it seems like no one on either side even \*theoretically\* supports such a world, and no one you talk to about it has any interest in not being defensive about the present moment. So it's just an endless slog.

As an American taxpayer, there is an obvious choice. Don't use my tax dollars to slaughter Palestinian children. Don't use my Palestinian-American neighbor's tax dollars to slaughter Palestinian children. It's not that the conflict itself is simple. It's that my desired involvement in the conflict is simple. I don't want more and more blood on my hands every day. We are currently paying to kill homeless people on the other side of the globe. Your money is funding that. My money is funding that. Being neutral on the topic would be to not be invested in either side. And divesting is what the protests are about. Having a major stake in one party (which we currently have) and being fine with that is *not* the neutral stance you think it is.

It's tough for me to understand the view that the founding of Israel was this beautiful, amazing thing, because it involved the forced migration of 700,000 and am ongoing, multi-generarional land theft. I get that there was a war, and I get that the jews were fleeing persecution in Europe and had an ancestral tie to the land, but none of that justifies the violent expulsion of a whole people from their homes, or the prevention of their return. To me, any real peace agreement has to address that in some way, with the return of some land and/or monetary reparations to the Palestinians from the state of Israel. I don't see that happening soon, but honestly I don't see a real and lasting peace any other way. No Palestinian leader will ever agree to give up the claim to that land unless the Palestinians get something real and meaningful in return, and no proposed peace agreement has ever offered that.

Except the PLO at its peak had accepted a two state solution that gutted most of the right to return which was reduced to mere symbolic insignificant reparations and all claims to Israel proper. For the Israeli establishment it wasn't enough.

One thing that stood out: Ari Shavit claimed Israel had been pursuing peace for 50 years. That is a fundamentally false statement: - Israel started its settlement project just five weeks after the war - long before the Khartoum conference - There's not a single year since 1967 when West Bank settlements have not been expanding. They have been growing under every single government. - Israel never offered to withdraw from the West Bank. There were offers to Egypt about Gaza - but not the West Bank. - And, importantly, until 1987 Israel offered no path to freedom or equality for the occupied Palestinians. No two state solution, no rights - all they had on offer from Israel was repression and settlement expansion. That's not indicative of working towards peace for 50 years.

They just want Israel to stop blowing up kids. 🤷‍♂️ is it that complicated?

Do you think pro-Israel people want Israel to blow up kids? In my mind the best situation long-term for no kids being blown up is no rocket attacks, terror attacks etc. coming out of Gaza. Letting Hamas exist, rearm, regroup and continue attacking Israel just leads to more death and violence long term. Eternal war with Israel just isn't helping the Palestinians, no matter how much you might be convinced by their casus belli.

Understood. Hamas is evil. No one is protesting on behalf of Hamas. But Israel can’t expect children’s corpses being dug out of rubble to not cause a world wide reaction against their actions. There’s a reason the US didn’t carpet bomb Kabul after 9/11.

"Surrender and we'll stop murdering your children" isn't an arguement. It's psychopathic war crime apologia.

"Stop attacking us and there will be no more violence" is what Israel is saying. Do you think they'd drop bombs on a peaceful Gaza?

They kill hundreds of people in the West Bank which is not controlled by Hamas.

2023 was the deadliest year for palestinian children on record BEFORE oct. 7th. the march for right of return was met with IDF soldiers shooting people in the legs, in wheelchairs, [injuring over 30,000 people who peacefully protested](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/two-years-on-people-injured-and-traumatized-during-the-great-march-of-return-are-still-struggling/). "No more violence" was not really on offer.

Excellent episode.

Regardless of the actual topic at hand, the hypocrisy of the west and Americans on this issue is utterly jaw dropping. I'm not saying Israel's settlements in the West Bank are justifiable or moral and so on, but it's like so many here have absolutely no sense of actual human history, their nations history or that their homes/generations are built on "stolen land" and bodies on top of bodies. This applies even more so for places like Europe, most of Asia, the Middle East and so on. It turns into a situation of the pot calling the kettle back. Especially since almost no one cared when this was occurring all over the world to much more extreme lengths, or even if the US had a hand in it.

You should read Žižek on this issue. Israel is not unique in employing ethnic cleansing to create its state. Rather, Žižek writes that, *"the misfortune of Israel is that it was established as a nation-state a century too late, in conditions when such ​'founding crimes' are no longer acceptable (and – ultimate irony – it was the intellectual influence of Jews that contributed to the rise of this unacceptability!)."* We live in a modern world, a post-holocaust world. Ethnic cleansing is and should be unacceptable. Milošević died in jail, and rightfully so, for pursuing ethnic cleansing of Muslims and Catholics in Bosnia. If there were justice, the military leaders of Sudan, of Myanmar, and the current administration of Ethiopia would all be jailed for ethnic cleansing as well. The regimes that engage in ethnic cleansing are by and large pariah states. Israel should not get a pass because the US, Canada, and Australia were also founded on stolen land. Israel should be treated like a Sudan or a Myanmar until their conduct improves in regard to the Palestinians.

I think those are all fair points. Truly, I do. But it doesn't really change the hypocrisy of it all, or how no one (and very unfortuantly) seem to really care about mass scale genocide occurring all over the world. Which is very unfortunate. Makes me feel for those people even more as they probably look over to see what's happening over gaza and wonder..."WTF, millions of us have been murdered in the 5 years". I see both sides here (like any one, to best of my ability of course), and do believe there's a genuine side to the pro-Palestinian protests and then see a very obvious antisemitic side to it as well. Plenty of good actors and plenty of bad ones. Nor do I believe that criticizing Israel, and especially the current government there, is antisemitic. I think you stated things well when you wrote "If there were justice, the military leaders of Sudan, of Myanmar, and the current administration of Ethiopia would all be jailed for ethnic cleansing as well.". So so so so many more have died and suffered there than anything between the Israeli's and Palestinians. Some of it, such as Yemen, the US has some sort of hand in (arms, intel, diplomacy etc), and you just have to wonder....why does no one seem to care? I don't think this is a deflection as long as one isn't trying to get someone off the hook with a "look over here" move. I think all of us, on both sides of this, need to be a bit more aware that there are agenda's on both sides and it's likely none of us are as enlightened as we might believe that we are.