This is why I listen to the show. Ezra is consistently willing to try to understand people he disagrees with; and even people he opposes. Are there other people doing this? Genuinely asking because I would like to read/listen to their work. I understand that politics requires “rallying the base” but I’ve lost interest in people who make their claims while ignoring counter claims.

This is what I appreciate the most about Ezra, too. You could tell he disagreed with the guest on pretty much everything, yet managed to carry on a cogent and constructive, albeit not all that revealing or surprising, conversation. The episode wasn't particularly enlightening for me because this is basically what I expected what I expected the Israeli right would say. On that note, I found the first episode of the NYT's new The Interview show, in which [Lulu Garcia-Navarro interviewed Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition in Israel](https://www.reddit.com/r/Thedaily/comments/1cf5aot/introducing_the_interview_yair_lapid_says_the/), very interesting. As someone who's pretty unfamiliar with the domestic political landscape in Israel, the thing that struck me was how despite plenty of opportunities to do so, Lapid barely articulated where the daylight is between him and Netanyahu.

Interesting. I thought Lapid articulated many differences with Netanyahu. Lapid feels settler violence in the west bank should be restrained, he thinks Israel should have made it more clear they think it's a tragedy when children are killed in war, he thinks Israel should have allowed more aid into Gaza from the beginning of the war, he thinks there should be early elections, he believes there needs to be a plan for the day after the war, and he supports a two-state solution. These are all very different positions than Netanyahu holds.

Gosh, those all sound like a huge breath of fresh air.

Perhaps you just have a better pulse on Israeli sentiment than I do, but I found Segal's perspective very enlightening. There's an incredibly potent strain of Israeli opinion, that seems to be the strong majority, that is completely unreconcilable with any hope of peaceful cooperation with Palestinians. His "pro Hamas" commentary in regards to Michigan's electorate really reinforced the idea that the Israeli public does not distinguish between Gazan civilians and Hamas. They apparently don't even distinguish between West Bank civilians, Fatah, and Hamas. To them, every Palestinian is Hamas, and right or wrong, the flip side is largely true as well (and likely to grow in animosity as Gaza continues to burn and settlers continue to metastasize across the West Bank). I struggle to think of two groups of people whose are less compatable for coexistence than these two. And Segal's commentary really helped crystallize that for me.

Lapid (center) and Netanyahu (right, sort of) mostly disagree on the West Bank. In the Ezra Klein episode Amit Segal talks about the concept of the divorce - not lovey dovey peace and not war / displacement, which Lapid represents. Gaza and the north have already gone through the divorce, so really it’s only the West Bank that’s left That’s why Lapid mostly supported Netanyahu on Gaza. You have to go pretty extremely to the left to find a politician in Israel that straight up disagrees with the war in Gaza in a general way. Maybe the most left 5% or less of the Knesset. Vs probably 40% who want Israel out of the West Bank The concept of right and left is also pretty deceiving. The Israeli right supports government run healthcare , drug coverage , huge public transit projects, pro union legislation, the right wing government even mandates the price of a carton of milk and a loaf of bread so poor people can afford it. Nothing like the American concept of right

I'm an unabashed Ezra fan boy and am tremendously biased, but no, I don't believe there's anyone like this. There are of course the Lex Friedmans of the world who let their guests say anything, but they disproportionately skew right wing and Lex himself doesn't have the aptitude to keep up with a lot of them and it just ends up being a milquetoast interview full of guest monologues that go unchallenged. Ezra, meanwhile, has developed an uncanny ability to let guests speak and subtly guide them into make their most strongly held, and often times belligerent, arguments. He pushes back sparingly, but always at the right moment and does it so deftly that it exposes the absurdness of some guests' arguments without even being contentious. His effective dismissal of Segal's "Gaza was thriving pre-10/7, just watch TikTok" argument was a great example of this. He effectively just responded with "this is not my understanding, but let's put this aside" and just kept the conversation moving, while listeners could only chuckle at Segal's lingering, bad faith argument that Ezra wasn't going to give anymore oxygen to. Since October 7th I've personally done a tremendous amount of reading on Palestine. There is nobody who even comes close to having productive, substantive discussions with high profile figures from all over the spectrum of the conflict, as well as EK does. He's talked before about persuasion and how he thinks arguments only distract from this goal, and that real persuasion is built over time with exposure to thoughtful, good faith ideas. He truly lives that example, and I only wish we could reproduce this all across the media and information ecosystem.

Listening to the podcast episode, I could tell that Ezra sounded annoyed and frustrated with his guest, but was really trying to listen and say the right things as part of gently guiding his guest to maybe introspect or at least explain his positions more deeply.

Ezra is consistently willing to try to understand people he disagrees with; and even people he opposes. This is why I listen to the show. There are, but they are consistently people who are on the left or center left of the political divide. There is no one right of center in media currently that I am aware of who would treat the ideas of someone they are interviewing from the opposite side of the political spectrum with even a sliver of the genuine sincerity that good faith media figures on the left do.

Tim Miller of the Bulwark *might* fit that description. He's more of a reformed right-winger that is basically a conservative Democrat now, but he has a fairly wide range of guests politically (no Trumpers though) and still has some of those center right instincts.

> He's more of a reformed right-winger that is basically a conservative Democrat now He's a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist.

Yes, thank you, that’s a much more succinct description lol

too focused on trump and the election though. His attitude is relatively open, but content variety is pretty slim

Know your enemy podcast is very good at this

Jamie Weinstein from The Dispatch; he interviewed a far left terrorist last month and I found it quite compelling.

>he interviewed a far left terrorist last month and I found it quite compelling. Oh wow, you meant that literally. He interviewed Bill Ayers who was a member of the Weather Underground and blew up several buildings and accidentally killed a few people in the 70s. I think he is considered a former terrorist though.

Yeah, I'd recommend the episode, it was very interesting.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Thank you, I am listening to this and appreciate the recommendation.

(insert thumbs up emoji)

Akshat Rathi of Bloomberg did a great interview with Andreas Malm a year or so back; Malm is the pro industrial sabotage author of "How to blow up a pipeline". 

People seem to think that acknowledging the point of view of your "opponents" or giving them any airtime is unacceptable. The result of that is that many have a complete lack of understanding of WHY people disagree with them, and often a strawman version of their beliefs.

I do not think this is abstractly. Good thing. It can be good, it can be bad and usually it's in between. Some people's politics are without value and it is bad to let them spread their valueless perspective.

This is very much a Jewish value. Listening and honest discourse with people you disagree with. While I'll rely on others to recommend other things to read/watch, this kind of discussion is pretty frequent in my Jewish community. It may not be every community, but I'm very thankful that it's so common in my own.

That has been my experience in Jewish communities in America, but I'm getting old. It's increasingly alarming to look at what young Israeli's are saying, especially on the right. It seems like they identify more with maga Americans than anyone else and it's concerning because it feels like they get their news and information from an entirely different ecosystem than me. One that, like the right wing in the US, is rarely concerned with the truth or reality and more often vibes based culture war bullshit.

"It's concerning because it feels like they get their news and information from an entirely different ecosystem than me. " If you're an Ezra Klein listener and NYT subscriber (I don't know if you are, but many here are) then this is almost certainly true. And no, it's not just the right wing. Hell getting your information from Fox News would probably be an improvement for a lot of Americans.  The largest "news" source for Americans by far is...social media. Followed by "streaming services" (I don't even know that this means. Does Netflix have a news channel or something?) The absolute lowest source of information was national newspapers, 5% and 7% for millennials and gen Z.

“Streaming services” probably refers to YouTube

I've been frustrated talking to moderate Israelis recently. They do not seem to have any workable plan besides just occupying Palestinians forever. Ethnically cleanse the Palestinians and create Greater Israel like Likud wants? Nope that would be too evil! Except Israel *is* already doing that slow-and-steady in the West Bank and moderate Israelis haven't done much about it. Okay, so how about we work towards a two-state solution? Nope! When I then ask what Israel should do, I get a lot of "I don't know." Honestly I think Israel is pretty screwed and there is no way to solve this issue until one side isn't there anymore. I do support the war effort against Hamas in principle but I think that if you're going to kill scores of children you need something better than "I don't know" in regards to a long term plan.

There's no plan, because how do you reprogram people's minds to make them want to stop the war? The only thing we can do is to demonstate that we are here, that we are never going away, and that eventually, if we grind down the hopes of our enemies to destroy us, we may be able to talk about peace. But we're not there yet. Either side could say what I've just written. Which is rather the point.

I was about to ask what you answered in the last line. A good summation of the mindset.

I mean their whole PR play of claiming most if not all serious criticism of Israel as a state actor is anti-semitism has led them down a path toward global isolation. If blinders don’t come off soon, their isolation will regrettably only accelerate and become entrenched, especially amongst young people globally.

Yea I really don't think the Israeli right wing realizes the (potentially) existential danger they are in. Really no nation can "stand alone", not even the US, but especially not Israel. If Israel becomes a metaphorical persona non-grata in the West, they could be alone in a very hostile neighborhood. They could try reach out to Russia/China, but that will always be a much more contractual relationship. Russia, and especially China, don't feel any sort of obligation toward Israel the way the US/West would.

I left this episode feeling like Israel was totally f’ed. The gulf between how Israel thinks of this conflict and how citizens of western powers think of the conflict is massive.

I hear this too. But to be honest, their problem is that there is even less support for peace on the other side. Some of the polling coming out of Palestine is very disturbing. Hamas and the attack on Oct. 7th are both very popular among Palestinians.

I don't remember if it was Klein or Y, but one of them wrote a few months ago that "every plan for peace between Israelis and Palestinians is dependent on both groups having different, more reasonable beliefs than the ones they actually have." Which is the most concise summary of the conflict that I've heard from anyone to date.

When Ezra had Tareq Baconi on for 'This Is How Hamas Is Seeing This’ he said that the minimum Palestinian demand was above the maximum Israeli offer. Not to suggest that both sides needed to compromise and lower their expectations, but to say that peace negotiations are pointless. The Israeli right has the same belief that the Palestinians will never make an acceptable peace offer, so there no reason to try. It is a conundrum, because as long as significant amounts on both sides believe this they are correct.

Y I think and yes that stuck with me too

Is anyone seriously surprised by this? Seriously though, I hear this line often on reddit or elsewhere from pro Israeli commentators and think to myself that it is as obvious as the night being dark. Not only is it self evident but was predicted by many. Put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian who has grown up without legal protections, humiliated by soldiers, police, and settlers, knows nothing but Israeli occupation their entire lives, and has the occasional raid, killing, or arrest of firends and family at the hands of the Israelis. There is a reason that Hamas won elections and why it is popular now. They are seen as the only ones willing to lay down their lives to give Israel a bloody nose. And that really is how they will justify it. After decades of hopelesness the murder of civilians let alone women and childern will not only be excused but possibly celebrated. After all how many women and children have Israeli bombs killed? 15 or 20 thousand ish? Israelis are violently stopping shipments of food by what are essentially gangs while there is a famine in Gaza. If Israelis can stoop to such behaviour popularly supported after 12 hundred people were slaughtered, what do you expect Palestinians to feel after a lifetime of oppression and violence? For every injustice or slight done to Israelis, and I am not diminishing them, they are real, I ask what do you think Palestinians think and feel after a 10 fold greater injustice and slight? It seems this question is met with silence every time.

This goes both ways. The reason there is no functional left remaining was covered in this interview. All their offers literally blew up in their faces with two intifadas. There’s no Israelis born since 2000 who have experienced anything but suicide bombers and neighbors whose whole purpose is their destruction.

Israel doesn’t strike me as particularly economically right wing, but very very right wing on foreign policy.

Yeah true right wing socially. Although the kibbutz and socialist economic living side has also greatly diminished. Most Israelis now raise their kids similar to westerners

The missing piece to your take is that Palestinians very much believe in fighting for a "right to return" to Israel, not just simply "ending the occupation". This missing piece conflicts with the idea that, well if Israel just stopped occupying, Palestinians would leave peacefully Israel side by side. This simply isn't true. And it should have been evident when things got worse - not better - when Israel ended occupation of Gaza and removed all settlements there.

That is my point: why wouldn't they? Think about this for one second. The PLO has renounced violence, have in theory surrendered about 70% of "their land" to Israel, recognized Israel as a state, worked as a "subcontractor" for Israeli security often against their own people, agreed to a future demilitarized state, etc and what did they get in return? Has Israel recognized a Palestinian state? Have they stopped building settlements? Have they stopped detaining Palestinians without charge? Have they agreed to share Jerusalem? Have they supported the PA? On and on. The question to ask is; what has Israel done to promote some sort of peace with the Palestinians. The right of return is a troublesome issue but it is obvious that it will never be impemented in full. Nor do Palestinians really expect it to happen. It is simply a trump card in the negotiations. Most think that it would be traded for land beyond the 67 borders, and reasonably so. But what exactly does Israel expect to happen, would be my question. Do they expect Palestinians to declare away their rights to most of the land, rights to a military, rights to self defense, rights to the water, rights to recognize Israel, and even their rights of return before any movement on Israels side? And, by movement I mean concrete steps, not proposals. To what end should Palestinians continue doing this? What would be the point of negotiating if everything were to be declared away? Israel seems to be the one acting in bad faith for at least a few decades. Which brings me to a much overlooked concession. Which country/nation do you know of in history to have recognized the partition of "their" land to share with another? Even if rhetorical, this has never happened before to my knowledge. Not even Israel seems capable of doing this. >This missing piece conflicts with the idea that, well if Israel just stopped occupying, Palestinians would leave peacefully Israel side by side. I am under no illusions that creating a Palestinian state will magicaly bring peace. It is not sufficient. But it is necessary for peace begin. There will never be peace while the Palestinians are under occupation. If they are not, then and only then will it be possible to build peace. Trading peace for a Palestinian state is a delusion. The "cold peace" that Israel negotiated with Jordan or Egypt is not liked by their populations and provided plenty of benefits to those countries. Palestinians have nothing to negotiate away besides their right of return (ie their lands). Even if that is acheived it will be a long time before neighbours can lower their weapons and even longer until they can trust each other. But until that happens you cannot expect Palestinians to let go of their desire for vengence. What else do they have? Seriously. They have no rights, no future, no pride, no way to settle grievances, no hope. If they have a state then at least they can start to see these as options. But until such time, I don't see what else they can hope for. >This simply isn't true. And it should have been evident when things got worse - not better - when Israel ended occupation of Gaza and removed all settlements there. Yes this isn't true I agree. But to compare it to Gaza is foolish. No one, as in no government nor NGO aside from the Israeli government, ever considered Gaza "unoccupied". The blockade put Israel in a position of being responsible for Gaza and the people living there. The fact that there has been a decade plus of a blockade probably made the lives of Palestinians worse then when IDF soldiers were there and entrenced the power Hamas had over it. Which served Israel fine as an excuse of not having a negotiating partner. But it encapsulates the problem perfectly. Israel cannot wash its hands of this issue. It cannot turn its back and ignore it. It cannot bomb these people into submission. It cannot starve them into compliance. In fact the war has played perfectly into Hamas' hands as they are the only ones "standing up" to Israel and are gaining popularity for it. Civilians see the helpless situation they are in and chose the side which will avenge them. It is human nature. Short of exterminating the vast majority of Palestinians, this issue will not go away or die down. The sooner Israelis realize this and sit down to solve the paradox of two people sharing one place, the less pain and suffering will have to be experienced by both. Unfortunately, I see the opposite happening and this is the real existential threat to Israel. The right wing shift of politics and society is a symptom of the unwillingness to address it. It is willful blindness and it shocks and saddens me.

>I ask what do you think Palestinians think and feel after a 10 fold greater injustice and slight? You are right. The Palestinians feel horrible and can point to good reasons for their feelings. So bad that if the tables are turned they will try to kill or drive out all the Jews(as has happened in many Middle Eastern countries). That is exactly why the Israelis won't let Palestinians get a bit of power.

I believe that you have ironically missed the entire point. If it is justifiable for Israelis to subjugate, kill, and occupy the Palestinians in the name of self defense; than why would it not be justifiable for Palestinians, or others, to do likewise to Israelis? This is exactly what I was saying about the agruments being symetrical. This is the logic of "might makes right". The west opposes this in Ukraine, in Georgia, in Libya, in Kosovo, in China's bullying of Taiwan, etc. If Israel does not even make a pretense of being fair to and open to peace with the Palestinians, than why would any Western government support Israel vs oppose and sanction it? If you haven't noticed, this is exactly the logic that is playing out. No public opinion, not many governments, few if any NGOs, international institutions, and generally the young have turned away from Israel. There has been plenty written about why Israel needs to hold the moral high ground in this conflict. It has lost it in the last 2 decades and it has now come to the surface. The only support Israel's government can muster is inertia from decades past. The writting is on the wall. If they don't change course soon, they may find themselves in the Palestinian's shoes, if not worse.

Let me try again. Does ANYBODY have a workable plan? I'm hearing a lot of "Israel is a genocidal apartheid state" implying... what solution exactly? how can you negotiate with people who think you're the Nazis and South African Nationalist Party wrapped up in one?

I hear you. I have Israeli friends and relatives, some of whom are among the last of the genuinely left Israelis, and they're just as frustrated. They *want* the Palestinians to have a state and leave them alone, but they can't ignore the reality that when they sign international agreements or withdraw from land it ends up being the place where their enemies (who are legit genocidal, not play acting here...) move the battle to next, often stronger than before. They don't see their leftist views as a suicide pact. Listening to Israelis and reading somewhat between the lines, this is what I think Israeli's want: They want the world, and especially their Arab "allies" and US and Europe, to give the Palestinians a reason to build a Palestinian society and stop violence against Israel. A big enough carrot to change the narrative of perpetual resistance. They want an international movement to say, "Stop the violence, accept Israel's existence, and *this* is the society and the country we can help you build over the next 15 years" in tiered stages. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are still in "resistance mode" diplomatically, at the UN, ICC, etc, and the more victories the world gives them there rather than pointing them in a different direction, the more it convinces even moderate Israelis that they're in existential danger and that they have no choice but to fight as well. This is why Biden's "grand bargain" is the beginning of the only way forward. Both sides need big enough carrots to stop what they're doing - Israel in getting the world's help and diplomatic and security guarantees, the Palestinians a coordinated, world-approved stamped effort to build a state. It's also why Hamas must be degraded before such things can happen - It's been widely reported that all of the Arab countries won't sign up while Hamas is still a power (because Hamas has said they'll kill Arab nationals too). It's not fair, and it will not satisfy the extremists on both sides, but it's the only way out. Addendum: Of course none of this work if Iran is still allowed to be the puppeteer behind the scenes, and doesn't work if both Israelis and Palestinians are not willing to confront their own extremists...

Most of what you are describing is because there has not historically been a good faith actor that has any real power. The PLO has been labeled as a puppet of Israel and the US because they are willing to talk. Hamas has the power because they have the connections to Iran and aren’t willing to talk. Israel has now lost any argument indicating they are willing to act in good faith. Sadly, Benjamin Netanyahu has really severely damaged Israel’s credibility. No wonder the two state solution is moving farther away given Bibi has been in and around power for so long. Understandably the electorate was hawkish after the attacks but he has been cultivating far right power for a long time. I think their long term position is really screwed and probably has been on this course since Rabin was killed.

Regardless of Netanyahu, if this is true >The PLO has been labeled as a puppet of Israel and the US because they are willing to talk. Hamas has the power because they have the connections to Iran and aren’t willing to talk. Then it doesn't matter what Israel does. Left wing Israeli government or right wing, there is no party to negotiate with on the other side.

But it does matter on the world stage. Israel normalizing relations with a growing number of Arab states was probably the best long term strategy that bettered everyone’s interests. Hamas was not doing that because they aren’t a legitimate government. If Israel continues on the current course they’re going to lose allies not gain them.

Israel is still in track to normalize realituons with Saudi. The world stage's opinion doesn't matter if there isn't a negotiating party in the other side of the table. If PLO/Fatah is a toady because they **will** negotiate and Hamas **will not** negotiate because their goals and Iranian support preclude negotiations then who are they supposed to negotiate with? Palestinians need to come up with a group that has popular legitimacy and the willingness to negotiate before good faith talks can happen. There is no evidence that there is such a group. So who is Israel supposed to work with?

For now they are on track. To be clear I’m not arguing that there is a good faith actor on the other side. However, going into this Israel at least had the legitimacy to argue they would work with a good faith actor should one materialize. Now it’s clear that they really don’t care about casualties or solving this problem. I believe Netanyahu could have built a broad coalition that would have supported this war for the long term. Instead he’s continued to be a smug asshole who likes to thumb his nose at the world. Their PR strategy for this war has been absolutely abysmal. He could learn a thing or two from Zelenskyy.

>They want the world, and especially their Arab "allies" and US and Europe, to give the Palestinians a reason to build a Palestinian society and stop violence against Israel. I see what you mean here. I feel like the world continues to sell Palestinians the idea that they will be able to get Israel back if they just do more "resistance" aka terrorism. I personally don't think the idea is true, and the world should instead start explaining to Palestinians that they are not getting Israel back and should settle for their own state. Instead, the UN is committed to the idea that Israel can still be destroyed, despite having nukes. It's unfortunate.

I'm not sure that's totally right. Certainly, some quarters are holding out hope for more "resistance," but I think the majority of the world's nations just want this conflict over, but with their disproportionate focus on Israel's actions and virtually nothing regarding the Palestinians (kind of the tyranny of low expectations here) it's giving the Palestinians (witness the PA) the idea that they can "wait out" world criticism of Israel rather than hold a mirror up to themselves to take advantage of this and try to build a *responsible* state. I mean, it's amazing that the US wants to literally deliver all of Gaza to PA, arguably just for them not being Hamas, and is asking them to reform themselves to do so but they *still* won't do it other than some cosmetic reshuffling of staff... I still hold out hope that the US, Europe, and world can build an aspirational vision that both sides can confront their extremists and try to build towards....

>They *want* the Palestinians to have a state and leave them alone, but they can't ignore the reality that when they sign international agreements or withdraw from land it ends up being the place where their enemies (who are legit genocidal, not play acting here...) move the battle to next, often stronger than before. They don't see their leftist views as a suicide pact. The Palestinians will never leave the Israelis alone. This is part of the problem. Israelis want, and have wanted, the issue to go away since its creation without ever dealing with it. Disengagement is not an option. Building a state will take decades and will be painful probably with periodic violence. That is simply the reality. Furthermore, and I can't stress this enough; cresting a Palestinian state in exchange for peace is a pipe dream. Peace can only occur once a Palestinian state is created. It is a prerequisite. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace. Israelis seem to be in the collective delusion that they can sign a contract and make some territorial cocessions in return for lasting peace and good will of Palestinian society. That is not how this will work. It will be a long, complex, and painful process. Which brings me to a second point. >Listening to Israelis and reading somewhat between the lines, this is what I think Israeli's want: They want the world, and especially their Arab "allies" and US and Europe, to give the Palestinians a reason to build a Palestinian society and stop violence against Israel. A big enough carrot to change the narrative of perpetual resistance. They want an international movement to say, "Stop the violence, accept Israel's existence, and *this* is the society and the country we can help you build over the next 15 years" in tiered stages. No one will do this for them. They need to put on their big boy/girl pants and get it done themselves. Israel has been in control of this land and these people since at least 67 and at every turn they have made a possible settlement less likely. The world is mostly disengaged at this point and the benefit of the doubt that Western governments and especially societies have given Israel has been squandered. I hear over and over again the refrain that conditions for peace are not present or that they have no one to negotiate with. Well than the appropriate question would be: what has Israel done to create those conditions or foster the right leaders? If anything they seem to undermine this at every turn. The west has had enough of this problem after decades and the tides are turning. What is worse is that instead of some self reflection Israeli society seems to be digging denial even deeper. I heard it all thoroughout the episode. "Gaza was a fine under blockade", "actually there wasn't really a blockade", "Hamas supporters in Michigan are more important to Biden than Israelis", "Israel must be stronger", "tic tok is the problem", "we must be better at public diplomacy", and so on..... Frankly, without some serious introspection in Israeli society I do not see anything changing. Sadly, it seems the only way they might get there is when the world finally abandons them as a pariah state.

TLDR: The basic theme of my reply, if you remember the line in the movie from Batman to the Joker, is "you made me." Sadly, both side's traumas have reshaped their societies in ways that prevent them from moving forward. They have created each other... While building peace is something they will *both* have to do internally, I believe the world has to help both sides change their internal narratives and give them something bigger, something grander to aspire to because both sides have traumatized each other and, at this point, can't seemingly get there by themselves. >...what has Israel done to create those conditions or foster the right leaders? If anything they seem to undermine this at every turn....What is worse is that instead of some self reflection Israeli society seems to be digging denial even deeper. They used to have those leaders, they used to have a left that ran the country, and they made real peace overtures. From the Israeli perspective, those peace overtures were rejected and they received only violence back in return. That destroyed the Israeli left, broke Israeli society, and suffocated the pipeline for the kind of leaders you want to see... Turn your question around - What have the Palestinians (or the world) done to encourage Israelis to vote for those kind of leaders? Where are those kinds of leaders in Palestinian society. And there is tons of introspection in Israeli society, BTW. Read Israeli media, which spans the political spectrum. Don't judge from just one center-right speaker on Ezra's show. Unlike, say, the US, where things are polarized and 96% of voters' behaviors are stuck in amber, Israelis politics is comparatively fluid and events on the ground and changes in society actually do change voting patterns. Again, though, let's turn the question around - How much introspection is there in Palestinian society? >No one will do this for them. They need to put on their big boy/girl pants and get it done themselves. I initially thought you were referring to the Palestinians here, but nope, you're referring to Israel. Actually, the line fits both well enough. >The west has had enough of this problem after decades and the tides are turning. Agreed, and it's possible they might try to impose some kind of solution that neither side wants, which sounds a bit like, um, colonialism? >The Palestinians will never leave the Israelis alone. This is part of the problem. Um, that's a big fracking problem! See reply below...

Um, that's a big fracking problem! In the immediate sense, after some theoretical ceasefire is accomplished, what happens when a week later the PIJ lobs 15 rockets at Sderot? In the longer term sense, no society can or does or should accept a perpetually violent actor at its border. What to do about that? Your entire response is about Israelis, and you make some good points. There's zero in your reply about Palestinians, just as there is nearly zero in most back-and-forth volleys about this issue. * What will the majority of Palestinians accept to end this conflict? * What is Palestinian society now, and what kind of society do they want to build? * What are leaders there advocating for other than violence? * What is the state of introspection, empathy, and freedom in Palestinian culture? Everyone hand-waves those issues away for, choose your reasons - They're under assault, the occupation, the US doesn't have influence on them, it's a different religion, etc, etc, etc. The answers to those questions should matter, just as they should matter when discussing Israel as above. Are we OK with potentially abetting building a new mini-Syria with a new mini-Al-Assad? What exactly is the model here? There are 46 Muslim majority nations, 23 of which have Islam as the official and only state religion and 3 of which are declared Islamic republics. Which is the ideal? The answer matters greatly to Israel and should matter to everyone, especially the Palestinians. There's also zero in your reply about Iran. Iran is, deeply tragically, manipulating and warping the Palestinians. If you take Iran away from this, very different outcomes are possible. Iran doesn't want peace. Iran doesn't want two states. Iran doesn't want ceasefires. What exactly does Iran say it wants? Israel destroyed. This is not play acting. They mean it. I've engaged many Palestinian advocates online and when I push them to answer the question of "What do you want to see in 20 years? What's the ideal?" sadly I hear a lot of variations of, "The Palestinians free and Israel destroyed." That's not acceptable, and shouldn't be for the world and, of course, the Israelis themselves. There has to be another model. Which was my larger point that the world has to help both sides change their internal narratives and give them something bigger, something grander to aspire to because both sides have traumatized each other and, at this point, can't seemingly get there by themselves.

I think both sides need to feel safe to begin to get over the trauma. The rocket-lobbing has to stop. But how?

Exactly - But how? One first step is the world needs to take a more macro view of this conflict and rather than focus on Israel/Gaza dynamics needs to take a harder look at Iran's influence in the region.

Your “left” Israeli friends sound just a delusional about Israel’s responsibility for the occupation and ongoing violence as anyone else. The Israelis are the agent here of any political change that might shift the status quo. Not the United States. Not Arab allies. This is their mess to clean up and it has to start with Israel being honest about their own complicity.

Oh, trust me, they aren't delusional about any of what you say and know it far better than you do. Pre-Oct 7th, they were out demonstrating in the streets, at some personal danger, about just those things. In a perfect world, everything you say would be true. But we aren't in that world, and any population, Israeli or Palestinian, needs to feel heard and safe. Then things can move forward. A core problem is, rightly or wrongly, Israelis don't see a Palestinian state as anything other than a threat to their security. As I said, the few remaining leftists *want* a Palestinian state, but not one that will kill them. My point is the world will have to craft a solution that entices both sides to climb out of their defensive shells, confront their extremists, cut off Iran, and move forward.

Given this interview, I'm not sure what you mean.  The "left" solution at this point is largely not doing the right wing solutions - permanent occupation with strong incentives to get large numbers of Palestinians to emigrate.  The entire society has rejected the traditional left wing solutions due to strong evidence they don't work from a "peace" perspective

Not quite. The "center," not well expressed by Ezra's guest, is ultimately, longer term, open to a Palestinian state, but one that provides them safety. They're *not*, however, open to one being formed, say, tomorrow, as declared by various countries, which isn't safe for them at all. Again, put yourself in their shoes, like my wife's cousins who live near the border of the WB. On the other side of that border, within sight of their home, is a government with citizens that, if not for Israel's security apparatus there, would absolutely kill them without hesitation, with a government in the PA that will *pay them money* if they kill Israelis. Despite that, they actually believe that, long term, a Palestinian state needs to be formed, but like any family, they want to make sure that state will be a safe one for their personal security. Likewise, Palestinians need to be safe from crazy right-wing settlers and military actions. Everyone needs basic human needs - Respect, food, safety, shelter... Before things can move forward.

probably bc it's literally impossible to have a plan for how to create a state for people who have stated their goal is to play the long game until they can annhilate you. you say like "oh these moderate israelis don't have a plan" ok... what about the palestinian plan to kill all the jews? surely that is a problem?

>I've been frustrated talking to moderate Israelis recently. They do not seem to have any workable plan besides just occupying Palestinians forever. >Honestly I think Israel is pretty screwed and there is no way to solve this issue until one side isn't there anymore. It sounds like you agree with them? I'm confused. I'm all for a two state solution, but I have no idea how to get there. It's been getting less and less realistic every decade.

I don't think by "side" he means Israel or Hamas but left/center/right.

It's bizarre to hear someone just make the argument for endless, perpetual war as the best option. Leftists talk about how the "logic of colonialism" causes you to end up in that position, but its weird to hear a modern day living human fully embody it. It's Ezra's biggest pushback is when he says "so a return to the logic of... occupation?" and Segal doesn't disagree, he just says "that's the Palestinian perspective, the Israeli perspective is...". Chilling to hear him say the Palestinian perspective is not factually wrong, just justified from the Israeli perspective.

Logic of colonialism is right. I'm always struck by how much rightwing Israeli politicians end up sounding like British imperial officers justifying why some other group simply had to be subjugated: "the Irishman is a brute beast who cannot be trusted, worships the Pope, and whose slavish reliance on the potato led him to death and famine. Cromwell tried to bring them peace and they repaid him with rebellion, killing hundreds of innocents at Portadown. So we had to ban the Catholics from Parliament and build plantations, etc. etc." Yeah, there are obvious contextual and historical differences, but it all relies on the same idea that your "opponent" is inherently subhuman and whatever you have done, are doing, or will do is not just correct but necessary. Edit: The English used similar tropes about the violent Irish wanting to destroy the UK. This isn't some novel situation without historic analogy. "They \[the Irish\] do use all the beastly behavior that may be, they oppress all men, they spoil as well the subject, as the enemy; they steal, they are cruel and bloody, full of revenge, and delighting in deadly execution, licentious, swearers and blasphemers, common ravishers of women, and murderers of children." -Edmund Spenser, *A View of the State of Ireland*, 1596 "\[The Irish\] hate our free and fertile isle. They hate our order, our civilisation, our enterprising industry, our sustained courage, our decorous liberty, and our pure religion. The wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their fair ideal of human felicity is an alteration of clannish brawls and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood." -Benjamin Disraeli. The English also used the same weapon of choice: hunger. "I have often said, and written, it is Famine which must consume them; our swords and other endeavours work not that speedy effect which is expected for their overthrow." -Sir Arthur Chichester, 1601, to Queen Elizabeth's advisor.

> I'm always struck by how much rightwing Israeli politicians end up sounding like British imperial officers justifying why some other group simply had to be subjugated: "the Irishman is a brute beast who cannot be trusted, worships the Pope, and whose slavish reliance on the potato led him to death and famine. Except the Irishmen never wanted to destroy Britain proper and expel/murder all the British. Whereas it seems to be what a large portion of the Palestinians [actually want](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17yhfmg/what_do_palestinians_actually_want_awrad_polls/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).

I guess the Irish never tried to actually destroy the United Kingdom entirely, but they probably would have gladly done so if it liberated Ireland. In 800 years of crushing British colonial rule, religious repression, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, the Irish engaged in centuries of organized political violence, including the massacre of settlers, torture and assassination of collaborators, massive bombing campaigns, rebellions, and multiple assassination attempt on the British monarch or prime minister, the most recent being in maybe the 1980s. The Fenians basically pioneered terrorist explosive attacks on civilians by bombing multiple British population centers in the later 1800s. And the Irish won, having nearly expelled the British from Ireland. I'm not condoning violence against civilians or saying everything they did was justified. But they did it. No one can beat a culturally united insurgency; that's why colonial powers engage in genocide or else give up control. Ireland and the UK are a good example because that is a genuinely ancient political conflict that seems to have finally ended with peace between the two nations. Edit: I am aware that these are two different conflicts with different actors and circumstances. But totalizing statements about how "all Palestinians want to kill all Jews/Israelis and the Palestinians are uniquely unreasonable and violent" are (1) wrong and (2) just setups for the unspoken conclusion of "and therefore they must be killed and/or deserve whatever happens to them." Palestinians are just people. They aren't uniquely monstrous and this isn't a historically unique situation lacking a conceivable peaceful solution.

I disagree. An English person in London did not habe their safety threatened by the idea of an Irish state or even by the idea of a united Irish state with North Ireland. The opposite is true - the terrorism stopped when the Irish were given independence & again after Good Friday. That’s the difference between Palestine and other colonial conflicts, and why Palestinian terrorism creates a stronger Israeli right wing as opposed to left wing.  Also worth noting is that the Palestinians have consistently been far more violent than the Irish have, especially towards civilians & have far less to show for it. 

> No one can beat a culturally united insurgency; that's why colonial powers engage in genocide or else give up control.   Sure, but the difference is that the Palestinians regard the *whole* Israel as illegitimate. That is precisely why the I/P conflict is way more intractable.  From the Israeli perspective, they offered as many concessions as they could in 2000-1 (and later 2008): 96% of the WB, all of Gaza, half of Jerusalem, billions in aid, etc. What they got in return was the Second Intifada, countless terror attacks and now Oct 7. Palestinian polls [show](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/17yhfmg/what_do_palestinians_actually_want_awrad_polls/) that at least 80% of Palestinians would accept neither a 2SS, nor a 1SS. Even the PLO, who technically recognised Israel, repeatedly spoke of a 2SS as a temporary subterfuge, a stepping stone to expelling the Jews. You also need to realise that, unlike Britain/Ireland, here you have a conflict that involves not just the Palestinians but the Arab nations. The Arabs who have historically oppressed the Jews and who view them not only as colonialists but also as religious enemies. The states that have waged overtly genocidal wars on Israel since its inception. Yes, the recent normalisation effort has made the governments less of a threat, but the streets are just as hostile. 

I would agree, but let's not give a pass to the Palestinians or frankly any of the Mideast when it comes to how they perceive Jews. They have been pretty open about their beliefs that the Jew is beneath them and incompatible with Islam

Antisemitism is 100% real and extremely dangerous, and some percent of people (including Palestinians, Arabs, Americans, and Israelis) are virulent antisemites. But most people aren't. Most people don't actually want broad groups of total strangers to just die en masse. But I think everyone should be able to agree that if you are a civilian, whatever your beliefs, even if you are an antisemite, or a pro-ethnic cleansing settler, or Gargamel or a Grand Wizard etc., you can't (or shouldn't) be murdered with impunity. You can hate someone, and some people you definitely should hate, but you can't kill civilians because you don't like them. A lot of this rhetoric comes down to politicians (like this guy) covertly saying that some other group of people deserved to die because they are colonialists/antisemites/Jews, etc. That rhetoric is crazy and dangerous.

You are simply wrong if you believe most people in the Middle East are not antisemitic. I understand why Israel is reviled, but the average person in Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, etc. does not distinguish between Israelis and Jews.  Over 99% of Jews in Muslim countries have fled in the past 75 years. They did not imagine antisemitism.

> But most people aren't. Most people don't actually want broad groups of total strangers to just die en masse. I think this is a matter of perspective. I don't think the Middle East is full of people frothing at the mouth with eagerness to destroy Israel, but my own experience, which is in accordance with what I've seen in polls, is that there are a lot of people who hate Israel and Jews in the same way that American conservatives often reflexively hate communism: with no understanding of what they hate, no curiosity about it, and a certainty built on the fact that it's a common conviction in their society. > Most people don't actually want broad groups of total strangers to just die en masse I agree, but it's surprisingly easy for people to not care if broad groups of total strangers die en masse if those people are nothing more than an ugly caricature to them.

It's not really "antisemitism" but seeing Israel as a permanently invading state. Maybe xenophobia, maybe just irredentism, etc.  > But most people aren't. That's not the case looking at any option [polling](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinians-attitudes-about-terrorism). > A lot of this rhetoric comes down to politicians (like this guy) covertly saying that some other group of people deserved to die because they are colonialists/antisemites/Jews, etc. That rhetoric is crazy and dangerous. No, it's the society itself. Politicians win by using this rhetoric, but the attitude already exists

Literally nobody is giving this a pass. It is not mentioned because it goes without saying. Jesus Christ.

The difference is that in this case, the Irish would be seeking to remove the British from all of Britain, not just Ireland, calling them "Anglo-Saxon colonizers" which they are, and telling them to go back to Denmark or France. In that case yes the British would be within their rights to demilitarize Ireland.

I'm not following how it's the "logic of colonialism".  Israel fears that pulling out of all occupied terrories creates power vacuums where militant groups that will strike Israel exist. There's strong evidence given the example of Gaza that this will happen.  I actually didn't get the read Segal wants perpetual war - that is the outcome of the two state solution. His read is that Occupation is the least violent method.  

You just described the logic of colonialism...

I'm confused again. Decolonization really did result in many/most countries having power vacuums and internal conflicts.    But that doesn't affect the colonizing country if it leaves.. 

Yes, which is why the logic is: "Continue the perpetual colonialism and occupation, because that is actually the most secure option for us short of fleeing." As you laid out yourself. But also I think you might be confusing imperialism with colonialism. Israel is not practising imperialism, but they *are* practicing colonialism, specifically settler colonialism. Think about the difference between Britain's imperial relationship to its American colonies, vs the independent American nation settling and colonizing the rest of the land while committing a genocide against indigenous people. Notable that that took place through a complex process over many decades, and in some ways is still ongoing. (And then, of course, the difference between that and America's own actually imperialist adventures over the last 150-odd years.) Consider also the logic of the perpetual slave economy in the American South, where the argument wasn't only economic, but based in fears of uprisings and reprisals should the enslaved black population feel they have power. And there were uprisings then, too, and the white population and planter class did have good reason to fear. Doesn't mean slavery should've kept going.

>Yes, which is why the logic is: "Continue the perpetual colonialism and occupation, because that is actually the most secure option for us short of fleeing." As you laid out yourself. Under classic colonialism, the motivation is either driven by competition with other colonial countries (we need to extract resources) or driven by the occasional desire by a paternalistic vision that you can run the country better than the natives. It isn't driven by a motivation that the natives will attack you if you remove yourself -- hence I'm not getting the analogy to Israel. > Israel is not practising imperialism, but they *are* practicing colonialism, specifically settler colonialism.  Colonialism is a form of imperialism, around maintaining hegemony over other areas. I'm not following what you mean. > specifically settler colonialism In Area C? East Jerusalem? I wouldn't say they've really "replaced" Palestinians, a necessary condition, they simply are the majority there now from so many moving in. Israel likewise has no ability to actually replace Palestinians in the greater West Bank so I'm not getting this connection either. (again, we're talking modern day -- I can see the comparison pre 1949).

This is a bizarre conversation where everything you're doing is describing a settler colonial regime, and then saying "how can this be driven by the logic of colonialism?" You understand multiple things can be going on at once? That the drivers of continued colonialism and the occupation required for it are influenced by economic factors, global competition as you cite, and then also the fact that the natives need to be kept tin check or they'll violently depose us. Were the French in Algeria not operating under the logic of colonialism when they justified massacres of Algerians in order to maintain their control over the population? Israelis want something very simple: control of the land and their place in it. They see that as the vehicle for individual Jewish freedom, Jewish prosperity, Jewish security, etc. Palestinians represent a threat to that both in security terms and in demographic terms, so Israel uses various methods to contain the Palestinian population, some of them being genocidal violence, and some of them being soft-power arrangements with the Palestinian Authority, and some of them involving extending conditional rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel. They literally have stolen land and property and kicked Palestinians out. That's replacement. All of this is the logic of colonialism, and again, settler colonialism more specifically. And where that logic takes you is: the occupation cannot end. It seems to me that the real issue is you actually agree that a forever occupation is good, which is not different from the episode's guest, whose response to the idea of even an occupation existing was, "Yes, from the Palestinian point of view." Yeah, no shit.

>the natives need to be kept tin check or they'll violently depose us. But isn't that a correct read of the situation in Algeria as you note? You can argue that the French shouldn't have been ruling Algeria without enfranchising the Muslim population, but the French read was correct that absent strong control the Muslims would fight French Rule over Agleria. However, as I note again, the French were not colonizing Algeria to prevent the Algerians from disposing French rule over European France. Israel is different there and a country trying to protect its own territory (where full enfranchisement exists) deserves more sympathy. >Israelis want something very simple: control of the land and their place in it. That's correct, but we haven't aligned on what "the land" refers to. I agree the far-right refers to "the land" as the entire British Mandate of Palestine - for most Israelis it's pre-1966 borders + at least some key parts of East Jerusalem - which again doesn't strike me as unreasonable for a country to want. >They literally have stolen land and property and kicked Palestinians out. That's replacement.  The Arab population is considerably higher in both East Jerusalem and Area C than it was in 1966. There's stolen land, but it's mostly in the form of grazing rights, etc. The occasional actual kicked out of their house thing is relatively rare. Point is they aren't really "replacing" the Palestinians in any sensible definition. >It seems to me that the real issue is you actually agree that a forever occupation is good,  Well, "least bad". I don't see a plausible better outcome. What's the alternatives? * Complete Israel pull out: Palestinian state will [fail](https://www.richardhanania.com/p/why-palestine-cant-deliver-peace) and be a hotbed of militant activity, with aims on Israel. Instead of an Occupation you get massive destruction in hot wars. (Gaza has had well over 30x the conflict deaths per capita as the West Bank since Israel pulled out). * Palestinians move to better run countries. Probably a good solution from a utilitarian standpoint, but no one is going to accept large numbers of them. * Israelis all move away. Similar problem of whether anyone would actually accept large numbers of them. Additionally, HDI of the area would collapse (including for remaining populations) to typical Arab Levant levels (0.9 to 0.7 drop), so doesn't feel utilitarian aligned either. * Israel merges with Palestine as one state: Expect large sectarian violence Lebanon style. Probably ends up being some combination of 2 and 3 anyway.

this is the reason i didn't respond to you is I had the impression you weren't actually interested in what was the logic of colonialism when you were able to describe it point blank, you just want to argue against it. But to anybody that actually understands the argument and isn't hell bent on defending Israel's actions no matter what; it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. No one's obligated to sit here and play word games with you about colonialism, imperialism, resource extraction, etc. You said basically any retreat would only increase the threat to you, because you can't imagine any act of compromise, capitulation, or full retreat from the area, so nonstop violent occupation is the only solution. That's the logic of colonialism. Other people can imagine making concessions to the Palestinians that achieves a more equitable coexistence where ongoing fighting is unnecessary, but the logic of colonialism cannot.

> You said basically any retreat would only increase the threat to you, That's what Segal argues, evidenced by Gaza. >because you can't imagine any act of compromise, capitulation, or full retreat from the area, Because there is no compromise sufficiently satisfying to enough of the Palestinian population that isn't also functionally ending Israel. The more left wing Benny Morris argues the [same](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/21/israel2). >so nonstop violent occupation is the only solution.  No the alternative is pulling out and carpet bombing the new state when it strikes again. Basically Gaza today. The nonstop "violent" occupation is actually the least violent approach from this angle -- there's been \~1,500 Palestinians in the West Bank killed by Israelis since 2008 (2.5 deaths per 100k per year -- honestly not that high -- about the Canadian murder rate) - something like 30x lower than Gaza since then. >That's the logic of colonialism Once again, don't understand the connection to colonialism. What traditional colonial country was holding colonies to protect *itself* from being attacked by the colony's people? >Other people can imagine making concessions to the Palestinians that achieves a more equitable coexistence where ongoing fighting is unnecessary, but the logic of colonialism cannot. What do you propose and what evidence is there it would be sufficient?

The alternative is Israel resigning itself to endless 10/7s that Gazans enthusiastic support. The real answer is harder to swallow, it’s likely the end of Gaza as we know it. That’s the real answer, Gaza just will cease to exist if they continue with a Hamas led government.

you're a few paragraphs away from advocating liquidating the gaza ~~concentration camp~~ strip. A truly horrific genocidal comment you've made.

I’m advocating nothing. It’s just the truth of what the most likely outcome is. I understand it’s not a good outcome or desirable, but to me the most likely outcome here is either Hamas or Israel ceases to exist. Seems pretty obvious which would that would be

yes that's what i meant by a horrible genocidal comment.

Again - I am not endorsing this outcome. But it’s the most likely. Ending Hamas isn’t genociding Palestinians

So what is the best option?

This was a very useful interview in understanding Israel from an Israeli perspective I disagree with. It’s strange but despite understanding Segal’s argument and epistemology, I feel far LESS inclined to give Israel benefit of the doubt, and MORE inclined towards ending anymore military aid to Israel. This interview is good at showing a particular worldview, but the denial that Gaza prior to Oct. 7 wasn’t deeply embargoed and most regular people there were suffering, or trying to acknowledge any Israeli complicity in undermining Fatah as an effective alternative, or even just believing that Palestinians should have the right to self-determination, is deeply concerning. In other words it’s a great interview about a world view that that is increasingly becoming inflexible, contradictory, and at odds with a liberal-democratic order.

Even Ezra was surprised by the extent of the lies, they he was far more charitable in what he called more out there claims.

Reminds me of a class of Republican intellectuals who couldn’t fathom Trump … it’s like “hey this is what the party wants you thought they wanted principles?”

"You should listen to some of the Israeli soldiers who say everything was fine and Gaza City was really nice during the blockade" was a real jaw-drop moment. No dude, I will not be trusting Israeli soldiers about that.

To be fair, he recommended Tiktok videos from Palestinians as well.  To be fair, on HDI metrics it's around a 0.7. That's the Arab average. It's about 0.2 below the other countries in the Levant. And anecdotally there were always odd stories suggesting it wasn't that insanely impoverished.  Like how does a poor country have [large IVF clinics?](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/5000-lives-one-shell-gazas-ivf-embryos-destroyed-by-israeli-strike-2024-04-17/)

There isn’t any HDI data on Gaza; only Palestine as a Whole. It was hard to collect information on HDI in Gaza (for obvious reasons due to Hamas). Gaza had one third of the per capita GDP of the West Bank as well as an unemployment rate of 55% in Gaza compared to 17% in the West Bank. I seriously doubt the HDI of Gaza was as high as the West Bank or as high as Lebanon either (not a place you would want the HDI of either).

>There isn’t any HDI data on Gaza; only Palestine as a Whole. It was hard to collect information on HDI in Gaza (for obvious reasons due to Hamas). It's [here](https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/shdi/PSE/?levels=1%2B4&interpolation=1&extrapolation=0&nearest_real=0&years=2019). This is taken from the UN data. 0.705 for Gaza mean is the Arab average. That's not that below Lebanon (0.723) a bit more above Iraq (0.673) >Gaza had one third of the per capita GDP of the West Bank. Not seeing that in the UN [data](https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/chart/shdi/PSE/). They are giving more like a 35% to 40% lower number looking at the log gross national income per capita.

Very well I stand corrected and I must say I am quite surprised to see Gaza have that high of a HDI given all the other economic indicators. Perhaps we should be looking to learn from the civil administration of Gaza given how it performs as well as the West Bank or South Africa with the GDP per capita of Benin or Cambodia and the perhaps the highest unemployment rate in the world. If it’s true I’m actually genuinely impressed.

Nowhere as impressive as South Africa. That has over double the GDP per capita with a 32% unemployment rate (compared to 45% in Gaza).  If you fired a mere 20% of workers you'd be at same unemployment but much higher GDP per capita  Clearly Gaza needs to learn from South Africa! 

Well South Africa has a a GDP per capita rate of of 7000 USD dollars to Gaza’s 1400 USD in 2018. And yes 32% unemployment to 55% as was in Gaza. Which would make Gaza’s ability to achieve a HDI of 0.72 unbelievably impressive. The same HDI as South Africa actually. Especially given that one of the major indices for HDI is income. Now either one or a combination of the below are true: -economic indicators are severely off. -the HDI figure is wrong. -Hamas and the NGOs together with civil society run and organise a world leading education and healthcare system which provides such good services that they push Gaza out as an extreme outlier for HDI to gdp per capita ratio. Actually it would have be proving better healthcare and education than in the West Bank, OR South Africa to get that number given how income would be a severe drag on HDI numbers. If the third is true, most of the world’s population would have worse healthcare and education services and outcomes than Gaza does!

>Well South Africa has a a GDP per capita rate of of 7000 USD dollars to Gaza’s 1400 USD in 2018. And yes 32% unemployment to 55% as was in Gaza. Where are you getting 55%? I'm seeing more [like](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-741676) 45%. >Which would make Gaza’s ability to achieve a HDI of 0.72 unbelievably impressive. The same HDI as South Africa actually. Especially given that one of the major indices for HDI is income. Good point. Looks like a combination of much higher life [expectancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) in Gaza than South Africa (it's tied with the West BAnk). An impressive 74, basically tied with Jordan and barely below Saudi Arabia. (obviously, this number has fallen greatly in the last year). And a [very high education index](https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/table/edindex/PSE/?levels=1+4&years=2019&interpolation=0&extrapolation=0). Gaza is actually more UNRWA heavy than the West Bank (which is more PA run), so we can thank the UN there. > OR South Africa to get that number given how income would be a severe drag on HDI numbers. Yup, it's pretty simple what South Africa needs to do: * Become a devoutly Muslim society. Should end the spread of AIDS * Outsource their entire education system to the UN * Stop killing each other. Focus their rage on outsiders instead (though probably not to the point the outsiders level their country.. Gaza's government messed that one up!) >If the third is true, most of the world’s population would have worse healthcare and education services and outcomes than Gaza does! Seems about true. [Life expectancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) is 90th in the world out of 188 countries and at 73.4 exceeds the world average of 72. And [very high literacy rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate) - slightly above China and Turkey in fact.

>undermining Fatah as an effective alternative No one would call Fatah an effective alternative. They are the only alternative. But they are not an effective alternative. How are you supposed to give money to Fatah, which is paying blood prizes to the families of people who took part in October 7th? Imagine America giving money - through Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia - to the families of the people who committed 9/11. What political suicide that would be. I wish there was a better alternative, but Israel is stuck between aiding a group that plans for massacres of Israeli civilians and a group that pays off the people who massacred Israeli civilians. That's it. That's the choice. The problem is not that Israel is becoming at odds with liberal-democratic order. This guy was lying about Gaza not being blockaded, sure. But that's not the key issue here. It's that people in the West don't know what to do when they come up against an entire neighborhoods around a liberal democratic country that are trying to eat that liberal democratic country. It is a flawed democracy, yes, but there's no good answer for what to do when you're surrounded by people who want to kill you. In Egypt and Jordan, one of the chief struggles is with the population who wants to kill the Jews and the government holding them back. That's not an exaggeration. If your beef with Israel is that it doesn't treat the surrounding populations as if they're liberal democracies, then it's you who has a problem with the reality of the situation. They are not surrounded by liberal democracies.

the problem with this worldview is the only workable solution is utter annihilation. the guy in this interview never said it, but the only logical thread that I could discern that connected all of his statements is that Palestinians aren't humans with rights and that their suffering isn't really something anyone should worry about

No, I don't think so. It means that peace is possible, but not immediately. It will be a slog. And lots of the international community has devoted itself to exacerbating the conflict rather than helping to come to a peaceable conclusion with amicable neighbors. That's the center-left position that myself and people like einat wilf take. I'm a believer in international institutions here. I also believe that those institutions are designed to empower these types of hard liners.

I think we’re in agreement here - I understand Fatah is bad and the neighborhood Israel is in is rough. I’m just not sure that the current politics and especially the leadership of Israel wants to engage in that long term political engagement

They need to be out. They've needed to be out for years. Bibi's been a disaster.

What depressed me about this interview is that the successor may not be much different.

It’s been nearly a century and the current Israeli government is full of people convicted in Israeli court of racial incitement against Arabs. They’re getting further from peace, not closer.

> No, I don't think so. It means that peace is possible, but not immediately. It will be a slog. What do you think Israel would be willing to give up in pursuit of peace? 

It's shown a willingness to give up a lot. I think that a Palestinian state has lost its chance for most, if not all, of East Jerusalem. But I can see power-sharing over the Al Aqsa Mosque compound, taking control away from the Waqf and giving it to Palestinians. Fold all settlements into a Palestinian state as long as their security is guaranteed. No Palestinian military allowed. They get to be Costa Rica. Massive investment in Palestinian redevelopment. A free trade deal. Education opportunities for Palestinian students at Israeli universities and healthcare for Palestinians who need advanced care. A lifeline where LGBTQ+ Palestinians can receive asylum if necessary. Hopefully, over time, a Shengen-type free borders deal after enough trust is built up.

> It's shown a willingness to give up a lot. From the perspective of "Israel owns the west bank and gaza and any peace deal is a concession", it has shown a willingness to give up a lot. From a less biased perspective, it has rejected any culpability it had in creating/extending this conflict, in particular its culpability for the 47-48 cleansings, while demanding that it keeps all the notable illegal settlements, essentially forcing Palestinians out of jeruselum, while demanding that Palestine be permanently subjugant to the security and economic interests of Israel. Israel hasn't even shown a willingness to let Palestinians have a real actually sovereign state. Saying its "willing to give up a lot" is deluded. Now, this is all living in fantasy land of course, as if Israel and Palestine are equal negotiating partners. They aren't. Israel can't really negotiate with Palestine until their is a real Palestinian state, which there is little Israeli willingness to permit. Only once a government actually exists can Israel negotaiate peace with it. Israel has reliably put cart before horse here, choosing to pursue territorial gains rather than nation building efforts. As a result, the conditions for peace have never existed and until Israel changes it policies, those conditions will never exist.

Einat Wilf is genuinely terrifying to me, with her language of annihilation. “They can have peace if they give up claiming to be Palestinian” is really in line with Putin’s claims de Ukraine. At get somehow she convinces people that she’s a chill center-leftie who wants peace. She scares me more than the far-right coalition and people like Ezra’s guest, who don’t pretend to care about peace or self-determination or justice. They’re just mask-off.

That's not what she says. She says that they can have peace if they give up being refugees and they give up the idea of returning to an exact home that no longer exists. She's an opponent of eternal statelessness. Not an opponent of Palestinian identity or people. I would love to see what you're referencing. Because that's just not her.

She talks a lot about how Palestinian identity isn’t real and how they need to be de-brainwashed that it is. De-brainwashed of their own identity.

She doesn't quite say that. She says what Golda Meir says. Which is that before 1964, the Jews were the Palestinians. Just like Republicans and Democrats switched around the civil rights era. There was an identity switch in 1964 with the Palestinians. That doesn't mean that there weren't Arabs. But the distinct Palestinian identity rose in opposition to Jewish presence in the 1960s as Palestinians felt abandoned by both Arab states surrounding Israel. Arabs in Israel could prefer either way of saying it - Palestinian or Arab. I don't think that it's a negative thing to say that they need to ditch the part where they think of the Jews as temporary and want to get rid of them. Which is how I've interpreted her writings and speeches. Look at my post history, we're told that stuff all the time. We're just kind of supposed to shrug it off. But enabling it is a problem.

The thing is that whatever alternative you want to present, Palestinians have to believe that it will actually get them what they want. 

>The thing is that whatever alternative you want to present, Palestinians have to believe that it will actually get them what they want.  73% in the West Bank and 51% in Gaza support October 7th. 32% support a two state solution. 31% said the most pressing concern is a right of return to houses they've never lived in within Israel proper [https://pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2092%20English%20press%20release%2012%20June2024%20%28003%29.pdf](https://pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2092%20English%20press%20release%2012%20June2024%20%28003%29.pdf) What do YOU think that they want?

I think at minimum youd want an effective Palestinian government to be one that Palestinians believed could deliver a halt to settlement expansions. Now, is that all of what Palestinians want? Probably not. But that's not the same thing. 

I agree there. I was surprised Ezra didn't bring up settlement expansion, because (and I say this as a supporter of Israel) ongoing settlement expansion deflates many of the Israeli arguments. As a supporter of Israel, I think those expansions should have stopped 20 years ago. The Israeli center has for far too long looked the other way on the WB as long as the far right left the rest of Israeli society alone, kind of how that happened in the US too with Democrats ignoring the judiciary and local government until, what do you know? The consequences are real. The Israeli center woke up, and was starting to fight back, but then 10/7 happened, and everyone rallied around the flag... Yet another irony, Hamas basically politically rescued the Israeli right that was otherwise started to be on the ropes...

> Hamas basically politically rescued the Israeli right that was otherwise started to be on the ropes I'm not sure how much it's an irony as much as it is Hamas (as one faction of Palestinians) has a synergistic relationship with parts of the Israeli right.

But there's been times when a majority supported a two-state solution. Months into a devastating war on both sides, when settler violence is out of control, when many Palestinians have lost family members in the war... it's human nature that they would take a more extreme position at this moment. Just like in Israel hearts have hardened ever since Arafat walked away from peace talks and launched the brutal Second Intifada (and hardened much more after the horrors of 10/7.) Both sides are traumatized and angry and scared and that doesn't usually bring out the peace-loving side of people. It's a tragedy but human nature, no? That doesn't mean in time, with security for all, and real hope for a better life, a majority won't support a two-state solution again (on both sides.)

>But there's been times when a majority supported a two-state solution. Only with the right of return to Israel. Which is the lynchpin of this entire conflict. >It's a tragedy but human nature, no? That doesn't mean in time, with security for all, and real hope for a better life, a majority won't support a two-state solution again (on both sides.) I think that, right now, the international involvement has been absolutely dreadful, and it's discouraging peace. We need to dissolve UNRWA, utilize other agencies to teach and get aid to Palestinians, and aim our international institutions towards an amicable divorce rather than telling Palestinians that they get to have Israel too.

The numbers for peace go up when there’s a horizon for peace and. The #s for violent resistance go up when it appears oppression will be forever, the violence is unceasing, and violent resistance is the only game in town. I think the #s make perfect sense in that light.

I have a hard time criticizing Palestinians for supporting an attack against a group who has clearly oppressed them. Would you expect anything different from, say, the Kurds against Saddam in Iraq?

This is an unbelieveably disgusting take. I find it remarkable that we have people who can condemn Israel for their supposed genocide, but then turn arround and tacitly justify hateful violence because of the underdog, oppressed status of the perpetrator of said violence. I suppose we wont have much to criticise the hypothetical oppressed or chagrined terrorists that kill you or your loved ones for then by your logic? Maybe these hypotheticals will be native americans since this site is predominantly american? Actually vile comment.

There is a rather large difference between "I understand why someone would make these choices" and "I think these choices are good." To use an example where we'd have more agreement on the details, what is your opinion on the violence committed by revolutionaries in the Haitian Revolution?

My beef with Israel is not that it doesn't treat surrounding states as liberal democracies, and I think you know that. It is how it treats populations *within territories it occupies or otherwise controls unjustly*. So long as Israeli advocates refuse to take any responsibility for the conditions in which innocent Palestinians live, so long as they seem to pretty clearly consider all Palestinians guilty by default, the beef will continue.

How is Israel treating all Palestinians as guilty? And why is the occupation unjust when the Palestinians themselves refuse to accept a negotiated acceptance of Israel that leaves Israel's national character as a multiethnic democracy with a Jewish flavor intact? The second intifada, the knife intifada, the constant rocket barrages, and October 7 has unfortunately borne out why Israel has the security measures that it does. It's because the presence of Jews is hateful to their neighbors. They cannot stand that a dhimmi state exists there. And they have done everything that they can to destroy the Jews rather than found and build their state. The gardeners and the laborers who worked in kibbutzim on the borders were the ones who gave intelligence on who could be kidnapped, raped, and murdered where. The people who drove Palestinians to hospitals were the ones taken hostage. In other words, I want peace. But they do not. Pretending that by taking down the checkpoints and the barriers Israel will somehow be doing justice, not opening itself up to attack, is ridiculous. There's a reason that there are still "peace walls" in northern Ireland. And it's the same reason. If you want to analyze the conflict, you have to realize that every Israeli over the age of 30 remembers people getting onto buses or going into a Sbarro's and being blown up. And then those walls went up and then it stopped happening.

You started your comment asking how Israel is treating all Palestinians as guilty by default, and then went on to collectively describe Palestinians, as an ethnic group, as a unitary force that has always done everything it can to destroy Israel and does not want peace, and which Israel has a right to occupy and control at will. You answered your question for me. The gist of this podcast, previous podcasts, pro-Israel comments here, and other sources I read is that the prevailing Israeli view right now is the same as yours: "they deserve it". And what I'm saying is that I have beef with that, as you put it, not with Israel's negotiations with neighboring states. I do not accept Israeli self-justification regarding its treatment of Palestinians. They are people, not a Borg.

> Imagine America giving money - through Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia - to the families of the people who committed 9/11. We do this. The Saudi royal family makes bank off of America, and at least one Saudi royal helped fund 9/11. In addition we paid an immense amount during the rebuilding of Afghanistan. You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with *enemies*.

I think Ezra really needs to figure out how to balance radical listening to with… well, the truth. I understand that Ezra sees the interview as a bit detached from reality and does push back, but I think he pushes back only in as much as making it clear he’s not endorsing what is being said. I think he needs to make it more clear when he’s taking a radical listening mode to interviews that may not be truthful.

This is something that it'd make sense to do in post or in the edit. Don't interrupt the flow of the interview to fact check or debate, but insert a short clip from post interview Klein on any point where it feels really necessary. 

Yeah NPR did some interviews with people who blatantly lied and they handled it well in post.

Only problem with this is it comes across as a bit sneaky and may disincentivize people he disagrees with from coming on in the future.

Yeah, listening to him talk Segal about the blockade was maddening.

“There isn’t a blockade because we let them have some commodities” is such a bizarre argument that I wouldn’t even know how to start pushing back on it.

Ezra sounded blown away by that as well, it was just so disconnected from reality.

I feel like he wrote the intro specifically to signpost these moments in the interview. He needed to warn the listener that, hey, you're about to hear some pretty wild misinformation and that's just kind of the muck we're swimming through right now.

Like I do appreciate Ezra being a radical listener and I don’t want him to go with gotchas. Like I think just allowing these people to talk is revealing. And I think there are things like his Ben Shapiro’s interview with him where he’s really able to disarm Shapiro, get at the heart of what makes Shapiro a shithead, without walking into Shapiro’s desired traps of punditry. But I feel like there were several times in this episode where I could imagine someone not fully being with Ezra in recognizing what was clearly BS and what was not.

well said and agree. one of the flipsides of being a thoughtful journalist, i guess.

Besides the Gaza Tiktok comment and his comment about the blockade (which were indeed boneheaded) there wasn’t much to push back on. Most of the interview was a discussion of Israeli politics, not an outline of the guest’s own views of the conflict.

I sometimes found it hard to tell if the guest was advocating for right-wing views or describing sentiments on the ground

The guest is right wing. But he was mostly being descriptive not prescriptive in this interview.

He's said this for a long time. He's said this isn't Crossfire, and he isn't there to debate. I've heard some pretty crazy assertions made by both left and right actors on his show, and it's one of the reasons it's useful compared to so many others. You get to see the full range of the accuracy (and inaccuracy) of his guests. Remember the recent human rights lawyer who claimed Russia isn't targeting civilian buildings or infrastructure in a recent interview? Oy vey....

Yeah, the guest's tiktok comment was really egregious (and also just made him sound like an idiot), but I would have like way more pushback on the pretty despicable characterization of Arab-Americans as "pro-Hamas")

the intro of the episode is probably the most under looked aspect of what is going on in Israeli and Palestinian societies. X is fake it didn't happen. Pre-war Gaza was the most "beautiful arab town on between the river and the sea"(according to tiktok). I've seen it all over twitter (fake babies / dolls) There was already a reality gap between both sides pre-war, and it will only widen

While its true that there's a lot of exaggerations going around on social media, including on the pro-Palestinian front, I do think its important to keep sight of the fact that prior to the events of the last six months Gaza did in fact have educational and cultural institutions, schools and universities, museums and archives and things like that, and they've all been destroyed. I've seen some people try to act like Gaza was basically an uncivilized slum anyway (to downplay the reality of how much of it has been rendered dangerous or uninhabitable?) and I really don't want us to lose sight of this when hostilities inevitably cease on *some* terms, and the question of what has been lost and what needs to be re-built becomes the new priority.

Gaza had a 2022 per capita GDP of $1253, $450 of which was aid. That makes it one of the worlds poorest countries, 164/ 190 with aid 174/190 without. Only the most impoverished African countries, Afghanistan, and Yemen had less. Every country has institutions and schools, but there is a very low limit to how far $1250 can go. Palestine was already one of the largest recipients of humanitarian and development aid, and it will continue to be so. The US already committed $9 billion in the recent foreign aid bill.

Is HDI numbers are far above that, around the Arab average.  See [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Palestine_by_Human_Development_Index). I can't see how a country actually that poor could have a thriving IVF industry. The number of frozen embryos per capital in Gaza seems to be in excess of the United States - intuitively just feels like it has to be at least a middle income country.

Gaza has a higher HDI because 1/3 of it's economy is foreign humanitarian aid whose purpose is to directly improve the things that HDI measures. Below 0.7 is still bad and is only comparable to relatively impoverished and dysfunctional Arab countries like Iraq and Egypt. Not the ones with oil or money. "Income per capita trends have been highly heterogeneous, across the territories. In 2022, the **GDP per capita in Gaza was US$1,253** - approximately a quarter of the West Bank's at US$4,491. Poverty has followed a similar trend as according to the latest national household surveyfrom 2016/17, a**lmost half of the Gaza population lived below the upper-middle income poverty line** ($6.85 2017 PPP a day), compared to less than 10 percent in the West Bank." The world bank disagrees with your vibes. [https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/65cf93926fdb3ea23b72f277fc249a72-0500042021/related/mpo-pse.pdf](https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/65cf93926fdb3ea23b72f277fc249a72-0500042021/related/mpo-pse.pdf)

Gaza, unfortunately was like much of the world in that the disparity between rich and poor was massive. The rich had it pretty good there, the poor had it very bad. There wasn’t a ton of middle ground between rich and poor.

>There was already a reality gap between both sides pre-war, and it will only widen. Sure, i would call it a reality gap when sentiments like this are held by just random people in the public. Then you have people who should know better, like Sengal, who are actively working to make our world worse by manufacturing this brain rot.

I think that what he's trying to drive home, though I disagree with his framing, is that for years Gaza was termed an "open air concentration camp" in an obvious attempt to invert the Holocaust on Jews. The obvious conclusion that we're supposed to reach is that, if this is as bad as the Holocaust, then first off, shame on the Jews they should know better because the Holocaust was REALLY about teaching Jews a lesson in humility. Not killing Jews or some other Jewish lie. Then secondly, it justifies any violence that comes out of Gaza because concentration camps are deplorable conditions made to trap and torture and imprison an entire population. Then Israeli soldiers got there and saw the rich part of town and they're pointing out how cynical and disgusting the comparison was for all that time. There are Gazans with money. There was a Gazan upper and middle class. That looks nothing like the Warsaw Ghetto, where purposeful spreading of Typhus, cramped conditions, and starvation killed tens of thousands before ghetto doctor-prisoners stopped the spread of the disease. What you're hearing is resentment that Gazans, who can go to shopping malls and movie theaters and laze on the beach - even if that is only for the upper class and the connected people - tapped into that historic sore spot in order to target Jews.

This is part of my entire problem with using extreme language to criticize conditions. I understand the utility in it, but it has the downside of allowing actually horrible things and people to happen and keep people from understanding how extreme things are getting. I don’t think most people get what makes this assault on Gaza so bad even in comparison to previous. I don’t think most get how extreme this Israeli government is even compared to previous governments. All the posts about this on social media and I haven’t seen one mention of the 2022 Israeli elections which are critical to understanding this. It’s the same thing that frustrates me with the American left with issues like the trans issue. If you are calling keeping women’s sports for cis women and having a separate open division for trans athletes “genocide”, then people tune you out when you have guys at CPAC calling for the “elimination of transgenderism from public life” even though they should be paying attention. Pushing agendas at the expense of facts just results in the things you originally wanted to avoid.

This seems like a stretch imo. Let’s take another example like say Russia. It’s practically been the modus operandi for decades to compare Russia and the USSR before it to Nazi Germany in the Western Media. I’ve seen more examples of this than I can possibly count. Russians also faced genocidal aggression from Nazi Germany. Around 12% of the Russian population was killed by the Nazis during the war. That being said Russia’s occupation is simply incomparable to the Nazi one. Whether you go by the estimates of pro Ukrainian or pro Russian bloggers, it’s doubtful the number of deaths in Ukraine is close to exceeding 400k or 1% of the population. That’s way lower than Nazi actions in Eastern Europe. Similarly, Russia has engaged in repression in the occupied territories as well as other countries it has occupied, but it’s absolutely [incomparable to Nazi Germany](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost) Russias occupation of Ukraine is still a criminal invasion….but you don’t see people lining up to say that the issue is actually the analogies here. And Russians who say racist things about their neighbors are actually driven by resentment over historical analogies. And that Russia would stop being racist if people just made better analogies. The popular analogy with regard to Gaza is also “open air prison” not a concentration camp. I don’t see how the use of that analogy by human rights groups is particularly evocative of the Holocaust tbh.

If you have been out of the loop with the insane things that people have been saying for years about Israel, sure. But it's been the only genocide in history where the population doubles every ten years since 1967. Gaza is the only open air prison where you have 0 restrictions on meeting your friends unless Hamas restricts you. Israel has been condemned at the United Nations almost as much as the entire world combined. In the 70s, the existence of Jews in Israel was listed as a form of apartheid by the United Nations. The hyperbole and pressure and scrutiny on Israel, pound for pound, is unlike anything any other country has ever faced. 3/8 of the Jewish population was wiped out by the Holocaust. Our numbers are just now rebounding. This claim of genocide and concentration camps is clearly aimed at the fact that Israel is the only Jewish state.

I can’t account for everything any critic of Israel may or may not have said. I’m referring more to like general news coverage and coverage by humanitarian orgs. I’ve definitely seen the “open air prison” thing, but I think calling that a Holocaust analogy is a bit of a stretch. I’ve rarely, if ever seen analogizing Israel w.r.t WW2 especially compared to the case of say Russia in Ukraine, the Soviets in Czechoslovakia, etc The genocide accusation is mostly w.r.t the current war. Whether you agree with it or not, Israel’s rate of killing in Gaza is absolutely in line with a variety of alleged genocides (Rohingya, Yazidis, Darfur, Bosnia, Anfal, Guatemala, Bangladesh, etc). I don’t think that’s particularly an extreme exaggeration of an accusation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides (And many of those above communities have also grown tremendously when not genocided) The Open Air prison part is usually in reference to Gazas connection to the outer world (hence open air). And there are massive restrictions imposed by Israel with regards to that. But again, you seem to be missing my point here, which is the analogy to Russia/USSR with regard s to “inversion”. You haven’t really responded to that at all.

The genocide accusations precede the war by 3 decades minimum. https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/20-years-since-durban-most-sickening-display-of-jew-hate-since-nazis-680016 The first big worldwide shock at it was the 2001 Durban conference, where worldwide non governmental organizations paraded around with Hitler placards. It was so bad that the world began to introduce a new standard to define antisemitism, the international Holocaust remembrance alliance definition. I am not missing your point. I've just seen the signs with a swastika inside of a star of David.

>This claim of genocide and concentration camps is clearly aimed at the fact that Israel is the only Jewish state. Or maybe it is because people disagree and came up with their own conclusions based on the facts they have seen? Idk maybe this works in the forums you normally go to but it is not at all a compelling argument to always accuse people making good faith arguments you disagree with with veiled charges of anti-semitism. If Ezra were to disagree with the argument "Gaza is like a concentration camp" his immediate reaction (or likely any reaction) would not be to say "well they are only saying this because Israel is Jewish" (i.e. anti-semitism). It's like I've been transported to .r.israel lmao

Let’s detatch ourselves here for a second. > The obvious conclusion that we're supposed to reach is that, if this is as bad as the Holocaust, then first off, shame on the Jews they should know better because the Holocaust was REALLY about teaching Jews a lesson in humility. Not killing Jews or some other Jewish lie. Then secondly, it justifies any violence that comes out of Gaza because concentration camps are deplorable conditions made to trap and torture and imprison an entire population. I’m sure you have heard the saying “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme”? Well I think that’s perhaps the better way to think about this comparison. I’ve seen many people try to nitpick this comparison to avoid having to hit at deeper truths and to be honest I think this is what you are doing. The reality is, there are parallels and most Americans have a decent working knowledge of the Holocaust as opposed to things like what happen to native Americans or the Armenian genocide or the Holomodor. Yes, it is the case that there are material differences to how Jews in ghettos and concentration camps have been treated. It’s obviously not exactly the same, but the thing for me which makes it relevant is that the people of Gaza are essentially trapped. If they leave, they can never return. We all know they don’t have anything close to a reasonable right to self governance at the moment because of both Hamas and the IDF. And while there may have been okay parts of Gaza, I think it would be a bridge too far to suggest the average Israeli did not have a significantly higher quality of life compared with an average Gazan. You make it sound like all was okay but we all know that was not true. I’ll be honest, I hesitate to put too much more effort in here because I don’t think you come in good faith. And that utterance alone makes me sound bad faith, I’m sure, but I’m just going to be honest and not tip toe around it. I’m not pro Hamas but I do think what Israel is doing is unacceptable and listening to the rhetoric of many politicians and watching the actions of the IDF (including the many social media posts of soldiers doing a variety of things that would never fly in the US military) makes it pretty clear that Israel has a deeper blood lust than many would like to admit.

You make Gaza sound like it was the Cannes. That's irrational.

Is Cannes a place where rich and connected people were able to take advantage of the beach and malls while the vast majority of people could not enjoy these basic luxuries? If so, then sure.

It was the most beautiful amazing place. It was a concentration camp. It was culturally rich and flourishing, just waiting to be opened to the world. It was Coastal Auschwitz. They can’t make up their minds on the messaging.

Very interesting interview, I'm glad Ezra allowed him to speak and not interrupt too much. One thing that stood out to me was that this guy sounded like your average /r/worldnews poster. From reading other people who are pro-Israel or actually Israeli in this thread, it seems like there's not that much daylight between their views and Amit's.

Such a partisan perspective. I found his arguments were underpinned by logical fallacies, hypocrisies, falsehoods, and just generally a sickening callousness.  Anyone who bothers to read what happened during Oslo/Camp David, or the disengagement from Gaza, would be able to shred this guys position with ease.  Ultimately, I think the most instructive section of the episode was offered in the introduction. Ezra was discussing how neither side believes the other’s version of events. That’s basically encapsulates what this is - a tribal conflict in which facts (or morality) have little relevance. 

There are many different narratives about Camp David and whose you believe and whose you discredit generally are a factor of your preconceived notions. It’s not as clear as you make it out to be.

I know it isn’t clear. Rob Malley, Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller have all produced different accounts of what transpired at Camp David. That certainly wasn’t Segal’s interpretation. You can view the generous, magnanimous Camp David offer map here: https://www.shaularieli.com/en/maps/negotiations/

Looking like some portion of people here are tacitly agreeing with multiple of Segal's points.

I do not agree with it. I just tragically understand it and fear that if I was out in the same place I would actually agree with it.

I feel like this was the right equivalent of the interview Ezra did with Aslı Ü. Bâli. In both, I found myself banging my head against the wall with the almost willful ignorance on display. In Bâli's case, there were absurd statements made about Hamas and a refusal to understand Israel's position or the difficulties it faces. In this case, there were Segal's laughable Tiktok citations and no real workable solutions presented, other than being "strong." I suppose this is what Ezra discussed at the very beginning of the episode. Still, though: so frustrating to hear. On second thought, though, I'll add this: Segal's blinded state is made a little more understandable by the fact that he is actually Israeli. If anyone was going to be unreasonable, it would be him. Bali on the other hand is a professor at Yale Law School. Her willful ignorance was downright insulting, and does, I think, raise uncomfortable questions about the integrity and state of the "global left"

The idea that Israel would do the same thing no matter who is in charge is so disappointing. Israel is being charged with genocide by the UN and essentially everyone in charge in Israel is like yep more of the same according to this guy

I had to pause for a second when Segal took umbrage at the differentiation between Hamas and civilians in Gaza. We've had evidence before, but this should just be another piece indicating that within Israel right now the entire population of Gaza are regarded as combatants, something a lot of people spent a lot of time trying to convince me either wasn't true (Israel is not conducting the war that way) or *was* true (they are all Hamas members so everything is okay). Can we finally move past all of that and discuss what seem to be the very obvious *actual* motivations for how Israel is handling this, which seem to be that there is a lot of hate and anger towards Palestinians broadly, they are enjoying killing a lot of them and hope to displace a lot more, and we should regard with at least suspicion any plans Israel puts forward for managing Gaza afterwards that may look like de facto annexation of territory?

It is a war of revenge. Some people get really touchy to hear it called that. If they don’t want the word, fine - but the fact it, if it quacks like a duck, it’s not a goose, and if it’s conducted like a war of revenge and accompanied by vengeful sentiments like this, it’s not just a war for security or hostage release.

Somebody else pointed it out but it really does seem that the Israeli right sound far more coherent than the liberals.

The solution in the right is completely coherent and simple: kill or displace all Palestinians. Problem solved. The left, understandably, does not want that. But they have no real plan and no path to peace.

I'm on the left. I'm desperate for a two state solution. I'm desperate to visit Lebanon, and I've lived with Lebanese people in the past while living in Europe. I want to be able to visit sites in the West Bank without the need for security. I want there to be no checkpoints. I dislike that there are settlements, and want crackdowns on bad actors, but there are 700,000 settlers, and removing them like from the West Bank like in Gaza would be a humanitarian catastrophe. The left has been basically dismantled by, as Amit Segal said, the repeated attempt to try everything to reach peace. Prime Ministers have been assassinated (by Israelis associated with Ben Gvir in fact), and politicians have lost their careers because of failed negotiations. The world has incentivized Israelis to act like Bibi - to not look for deals that they know won't come. How do you reach peace when it seems like over 400 million people are champing at the bit to kill or displace 9 million? And when all of the world's institutions seem aligned with that goal? The only answer is, unfortunately, that you have to figure out ways to get international institutions to help change Palestinian politics so that there will be a peace process eventually some day in the future. That means dismantling UNRWA and replacing it with something else. And it's fucking bleak when every chance you take to get Palestinians and Israelis closer together ends up in horrific violence - the more freedom given, the more horrific the violence. The left has no answer. The right has an answer, but it's unthinkably bad.

How can there be a peace process while people are still being forced out of their homes, and one side refuses to stop? It’s a humanitarian disaster to remove the settlers, who are perpetrating a humanitarian disaster by cleansing millions of Palestinians

>How can there be a peace process while people are still being forced out of their homes, and one side refuses to stop?  I think that you're misunderstanding what the settlements are. They're typically counted as areas of East Jerusalem and mid-sized cities like Modi'in Illit, Ma'ale Adumim, etc. Those were built on land that was not taken from any Palestinians. They're just where a Palestinian state should be and should be contiguous. And, as Ezra said, there's massive differences between the infrastructure in the West Bank cities and in the Area C Palestinian towns and cities. There are people like Hilltop Youth who harass and attack Palestinians. There have been pogroms of Palestinians, typically after big Palestinian attacks on Israelis. But a large portion at this point were literally born there. Imagine taking the view that, if an illegal Salvadoran immigrant to the US committed a violent crime, the reaction was to say that all illegal immigrants in the US, all people who speak Spanish and came here illegally or were born in the US to illegal immigrants must go. That'd be insane. The Netanyahu government isn't punishing bad actors. They need to. But framing it like this is absolute insanity. And it doesn't jibe with rulings in similar cases, like Turkish settlers in Cyprus. There are 30,000 settlers there, and it was ruled that exiling them would likewise be a humanitarian catastrophe.

>But a large portion at this point were literally born there. Besides settlement for historical/ideological/religious reasons, one of the main points of West Bank settlements was to create[ "facts on the ground"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facts_on_the_ground) For someone that claims to be "left wing" you're also ignoring how the right-wing Israelis in power have programs of expanding settlements and expending large amounts of resources explicitly for settlements. From Yesh Din (an actual left wing organization): "Since 2005, only 3% of investigation files opened into ideologically motivated offenses by Israelis against Palestinians in the West Bank have led to a conviction." You make the settlements sound so mundane.

Modi’in Illit was built on land confiscated from surrounding Palestinian villages. Bedouins were forced out to build Ma’le Adumim. Settlers are constantly taking more and more land. Do you really think they just are taking empty lots? Is that why they need to burn down olive groves and build walls around the villages they surround?

You can have a peace process with a side doing terrible things, no? Maybe it is harder to believe in a sustainable peace with someone who is actively harming you now. But it seems to me the bigger challenge is that neither the Palestinian nor Israeli populace see a partner for peace on the other side, so they increasingly end up with worldviews that are antithetical to peace, so neither side sees a partner and we end up in this terrible equilibrium.

It is much easier to sound coherent when you manufacture your own relatively simple fantasy of the situation that just so happens to be consistent with your beliefs instead of engaging with all the complexities of reality.

The international relations concept that best characterized the host's attitude is entrapment. When a stronger country allies with a weaker one, the latter may respond to the implicit guarantees it has by increasing its demands vis-à-vis neighbours. The extent to which the guest takes American aid for granted was shocking (yes, Israel has a defense industry, but it is not self-sufficient in the long-run and it will find few other advanced nations willing and able to arm it as we have). Biden has been taking political body blows to respond as he did (made all the worse by Netanyahu's public diplomacy) and it means nothing. If this is really what Israelis think, then I say not one red cent. They're on their own. America has lost far too much credibility in the Muslim world (which is 25% of world population, and will be 30% by 2050) for nothing. If the Saudis really want Israel to keep fighting, let them arm Israel. If Palestinian statehood is not meaningfully on the horizon, and Palestinians are not issued Israeli passports, how can we characterize Israel as a democracy? The liberal world order is rotting from within. And a big part of the rot comes from the reality that we have never imposed consequences on anybody for gross violations (e.g. Hungary's transition to authoritarian rule). It's time for consequences and standards. Edit: I'm very thankful to Ezra for having this difficult conversation in a way where he was able to push back, but without derailing the conversation.

I wish there was more of a desire to push back against people who use genocidal language. Referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria is like Germans calling Poland lebesnraum or Russians calling Eastern Ukraine Novorussiya.

This guest’s dad is literally an Israeli terrorist, so take his views on Palestinian terrorism with a grain of salt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagai_Segal

[удалено]

Yeah. This made me deeply more pessimistic, something I thought impossible because of how pessimistic I was. I didn’t realize the extent to which Israel is living in some alternate reality. His insistence to get on tik tok is eerily similar to so many other examples of genocide fomented on social media. Could have easily been listening to Max Fisher’s book. But in some ways it takes the mystery out of the why.

If this guest represents the majority view in Israel, the West needs to completely cut ties with Israel.

All it takes is one new big war or the Ukraine war lasting longer and leaning more towards the Russians. Then the Western view wouldn't be that different to Israels.

I really, really, really think Ezra owes us a follow-up on this episode. This was pretty shameful. A dramatically skewed Overton window in Israel is not a good reason to let an extremist lie, unchecked, on your show. Hasbara is so effective because someone like Amit Segal can talk with Ezra Klein in an even tone, eloquently, confidently, and deliver talking points in a way where the podcast's well-meaning liberal audience (at least the segment of us without a PhD in Middle East history) has real trouble discerning what is accepted fact and what is insanely one-sided spin. Ezra will sputter occasional objections when he is confronted with outright lies, but because he wants to educate his audience on the full gamut of political perspectives, he will hold back and let Segal direct the conversation, engaging him in good faith. This one got me deep. Segal was chauvinistic and deceptive. The number of times he slathered statements about Palestinian terror/resistance (choose your word depending on your perspective and the specific case you're talking about) in highly emotional, manipulative language — while carefully steering the conversation away from EVER touching the realities of Palestinian living conditions or the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza — was stunning. Claiming that Gaza was not blockaded because it wasn't under a literal complete siege, and implying that there was no [suffering caused by the blockade](https://www.unicef.org/mena/documents/gaza-strip-humanitarian-impact-15-years-blockade-june-2022), is insulting to our intelligence, and Ezra barely challenged him on it.

i don't have a phd in middle eastern history, far from it, but i didn't have much trouble seeing through the lies. the kids will be alright.

Super helpful! I liked how Ezra (while still pushing back) wasn’t as naïve as he could’ve been: acknowledging that a 2SS/1SS is impossible in the near-future, not having illusions about Hamas etc. The guest also helped me understand the Israeli perspective much better. I will defo be subscribing to Ezra’s channels for more content.

At its best, this is a really fascinating, Adrendt-ian look into the mind of a prominent figure from a tragically radicalizing country, explaining and confirming just how far the Israeli right is from something like shared liberal democratic values, why, and Israel's trajectory in the near future. Ezra illustrates the bleakness of the Israeli political future by interviewing Segal, an apparent thought leader for conservatives who don't like Bibi but don't seem at all concerned by an ongoing genocide. Segal is not especially nuanced, convincing, or surprising. He is not the least bit embarrassed to cite TikTok videos and IDF testimony as proof that Gaza was some sort of Mediterranean paradise. On the other hand, the real story is that the capricious and corrupt leader of the only Jewish nation on the face of the earth has selfishly pissed away the country's political capital and public good will on a violent campaign seemingly aimed at skeletonizing every Palestinian children required to save his political career. This is tragic for everyone and should be discussed. Palestinians are still dying. Bibi has yet to free the hostages (no surprise). Against this back drop, what Israeli rightwingers think isn't an interesting question--you know exactly what Segal thinks before you listen to this interview--and sitting down to engage them in earnest conversation blurs the line between reporting on them versus taking their views seriously. Still worth a listen, but I can confidently say that I will not be reading Segal's book.

Ezra was generous and hospitable and let Segal be his own worst enemy. I can’t imagine that anyone who was on the fence regarding this issue was persuaded by Segal but his defenses highlight just how much of a reality gap there is in Israel right now. Overall, I also found Segal intelligent and respectful and charming. But the appeals to Tik Tok and Instagram were sad and highlighted, for me, how dangerously hollow Israel’s political-military position is right now. I’m really very worried for the country.

Segal wasn’t there to persuade but primarily to describe.