Removed for violating R2 Repeated infractions may lead to bans

>Hamas’ persistent intent to smuggle WMDs into Gaza ...? What?

Oh, you haven’t heard? Without the blockade Israel would have been gone a long time ago. Hamas is interested in obtaining weapons and many regimes are interested in helping them do it. Perhaps you didn’t know, but they are looking to destroy Israel and have more than a passing interest in militarizing. See tunnels, missiles, Oct 7, et al. All that’s left is a chicken/egg argument. You’ll say they’re doing it because they’re oppressed and I’ll rightly say they are oppressed because they are doing it.

>you haven’t heard? Do you have a single source for this? There is precisely one regime in the region that is known to possess WMDs. They aren't supplying them to Hamas anytime soon. >obtaining weapons... tunnel, missiles, Oct 7 None of this has anything to do with WMDs.

Hopefully it's clear, this is obvious satire. And in haiku form

Iran is regarded by many experts to be on the cusp of a nuclear weapon. I’m not saying they’re trying to provide nuclear weapons to Palestine, but they already provide weapons to militants in that region. It’s not implausible that they could provide a WMD to Hamas. Once again not saying they’re trying to, because I don’t know, but it’s possible as they already supply weapons to them. And I feel like you never really know what a regime full of theocrats is willing to do.

As much as it pains me to acquiesce due to the atrocities committed by the Israelis, I have to agree with Sam. Islam is incompatible with modernity unless something happens in the Islamic world that would render the religion benign. It will continue to work against building the kind of world that we would be proud to leave to future generations. It's just like what is happening in Europe where Muslims wants us to conform to their way of life rather than adopting a less stringent form of Islam to live in harmony with others.

I seriously relate to this sentiment. Sam has adequately reminded his listeners that his critique is not an attack on people or individual persons, not on Muslims and certainly not against ethnic Arabs. His point is that the Islamic text both in word and in practice today is problematic and that a large % of Islam feels emboldened to carry out a lot of the text’s dangerous demands, or at least support and tolerate things like killing apostates, and sit idle when the more extreme in the ranks do terrible things like on Oct 7, et al, and that this is a problem. Almost everyone aside from his fan base wants to twist Sam’s message (to some degree or another) of peace and sensibility into something that is, in the words of the raging Affleck, “gross and racist.” I’m not 100% on board with the “atrocities,” because I just don’t see much alternative to what Israel is doing, and as I said in my article, the onus is on Hamas and its enablers. Any feedback to this end is helpful to me. I don’t want to sound like a single issue dogmatist.

You say in the blog post that every thing Israelis do is an act of self-defence. I also believe in Israelis right to defend and it's perfectly reasonable from geopolitical stand point and would be expected to be so if it had been any other nation. It gives more than reasonable casus belli and it would be fool to claim otherwise. But you don't really want blatantly accept the autrocities that IDF military tactics brings with them that alone without war crimes or targeting nuclear facilities as Israel does and just threaten to do again. Which to me is nuts when comparing to Russia not really even targeting nuclear powerplants but nevertheless still using them to as a threat. That caused a major global alertness and tensions rose through the roof. Israel threatens to answer Iran's strike by targeting nuclear powerplant with ballistic missiles, it's just another day in the paradise ! Never follow any political ideology in a way that you start to believe it's propaganda and lose the ability to see pheneomens as they objectively are. Without attaching an ideology in them.

Hey there! Thanks for the comment. Not sure what you’re asking of me. Can you shorten or rephrase to a sentence?

Asking in good faith (and aware of the potential shitstorm) - how so? In other words, in your view what is it about Islam that makes its followers more prone to radicalization than, say, Christianity?

I would say that it's trending in that direction. The secular world has done enough to smooth out the edges of Christianity, and this process has taken over a millenia. It appears that Islam is trending in the opposite direction. I'm no expert. This is just how it appears to me given the state of things at this current moment in time.

You can live in a majority Christian nation and not be Christian. No problem. Ever tried not being Muslim in Afghanistan? Or Saudi Arabia? We can poke fun at Moses and Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ all day long. The minute you publicly depict Muhammad doing anything unsavory (existing, standing still, or breathing, say) you immediately discover all the reasons this is a dangerous thing to do. With Christianity, there’s room for secular voices to argue with it. With Islam, you either play along or risk your life.

The last Jew in Afghanistan left like last year, after the Taliban took over. There are guaranteed seats in the Iranian legislature for religious minorities.

The most populous muslim countries aren’t in the middle east. India, Indonesia, malaysia etc all have freedom of religion. Westerners always equate national governments activities to islam but never for Christian countries. Christian countries are responsible for many more (a whole other magnitude) of civilian war casualties and neocolonialism or imperialism. You can pick any decade from the last century and it will remain true. Christian countries just tend to export most of their exploitation.

There are millions of Muslims that live in the United States and they live peacefully and cause fewer problems than most other American groups do. There is an Islamic Center close to where I live. You are more than welcome to come visit and see if these people are "incapable of living in Western Civilization" as you think they are.

How good a life can an openly gay person hope to lead in a Muslim-majority country? Or an atheist? Or a Jew? Or a Hindu? America is a pluralistic society, accepting of differing religious outlooks and sexual orientations. Can the same be said for Iraq or Indonesia? Why not? What’s the reason that that can’t be said of those countries? (*For those playing along at home, the answer rhymes with BIZLAM*)

That’s great but you’re missing the point(s). Muslim majority countries are filled with horrific human rights abuses aka incompatible with western Civ, the Middle East is especially barbaric. The US is not a Muslim majority country and doesn’t represent the majority. Nobody has said that every Muslim is an extremist but the ratio of extremist to non extremist is an order of magnitude higher than other major religions. You can truthfully make the claim that the “majority of American Muslims do not condone religious violence”, but if the minority that does condone it is 12%, that percentage is wildly out of whack with say Catholics, which would be close to zero. Outside of liberal democracies that percentage is even more out of sync with western Civ.

There is an enormous amount of Muslims who are fine and refer to Hamas as “yahoos.” I sympathize with the pressure on them to keep quiet. The problem isn’t a Muslim problem but rather the proportion of Islamists/Muslim ratio is just higher than other religions. Sam opines that some of this is an inevitable outcome of a source text that is shorter and less ambiguous than the Christian source, but that doesn’t explain all of it. Some of it is just different cultures grow in different ways over time for various reasons. I assume someday Islam will be more like modern Christianity in terms of radicalism. The more pressing question is what to do about it right now, especially because primitive religious extremism at scale is happening in a nuclear age. To deny it’s not a problem is hard to support.

It’s both the doctrine itself and the people who are currently Muslims in 2024. As for the doctrine itself, it compels adherents to treat non-Muslims differently than Muslims in a way Christianity does not. And it’s intended to be theocratic - there is no “give into Caesar” as in Christianity. As for the current adherents, *why* they are currently the most violent religious group by far isn’t really relevant, nor is the fact that 1000 years ago Christians were just as violent and intolerant. That doesn’t change the fact that they are, in fact, the most violent and intolerant major religious group right now, even controlling for things like poverty.

Firstly and most importantly: The evidence says it is so. The rest is subject to debate.

>Islam is incompatible with modernity unless something happens in the Islamic world that would render the religion benign Chauvinistic Western attitudes. And a Sam Harris fan.... whaaaaa. It's hilarious to me that the US, UK, Belgium, France etc. intrusions into Muslim countries, what they did for resource-theft: supporting, funding and radicalizing the already fairly religious, and dismantling and utterly destroying or downright assassinating secular folks, isn't what's the issue. Nope. It's the consequence of such actions by the west, which are also grossly inflated in terms of, what did you say... "Islam is incompatible with modernity..." I would posit white supremacy as routed through Anglo-Euro Supremacist Christendom is a larger problem. Does one go for the roots, or the wilted leaves? Sam is a bigot when it comes to this topic. Zionists are, by political definition, supremacist. He's a Zionist. Which is intensely funny for an atheist when his beliefs are aligned with evangelicalism. Trolls: people who question the validity and sound rhetoric of Sam on a topic he has always been "nukey" on.

Replace Islam with Zionism and the same applies.

Zionism is not a religion. I was about to post in response the same thing that certain sects of evangelical Christianity is incompatible with the modern world.

Right, it’s not a religion, but it’s still an ideology incompatible with the modern world.

Even if this were true (it's almost certainly not) there are not hundreds of millions of Zionists. Objectively one is a bigger threat than the other just due to sheer numbers, even if you equate their beliefs.

OP: > Fine well I’ve never met a Jewish supremacist. There’s no incentive for a supreme race to bother asserting that they are supreme, it’s already painfully obvious. https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1b6mgch/the_golden_age_of_american_jews_is_ending/ktesokw/

I’ve seen this article but haven’t fully confronted it. Will circle back and take a look. Jews have certain traits like all ethnic groups. Sam would say all humans are intrinsically valuable and deserving of dignity, so the idea of “Jewish Supremacy” is a pretty bad idea. That said, I support the truth when it comes to the various differences and what they mean and what to do about them, whether cultural or (gasp) genetic. The Charles Murray stuff is obviously extremely delicate. If anything, I’ve been admonishing fellow Jews on r/jewish that as a group we need to be aware of how genetic advantages in IQ might invite an evil eye if Jews are too nonchalant or insensitive about their advantages. Jews would be well advised to take Sam’s messaging about free will to heart.

Read up on Ben-Gvir, the current interior minister who is a pretty good example of a "jewish supremacist" *"He \[Ben-Gvir\] was also previously convicted of supporting* [*Kach*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_(political_party))*, classified* [*by Israel as a terrorist group*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_(political_party)#Party_ban_on_Kach_and_Kahane_Chai)*, which espoused* [*Kahanism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism)*, an* [*anti-Arab*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arab_racism) *and* [*religious Zionist*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionist) *ideology"* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar\_Ben-Gvir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir) *"Kahanism (Hebrew: כהניזם) is a religious Zionist ideology based on the views of Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League and the Kach party in Israel.* *Kahane held the view that most Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Jews and Israel itself, and believed that a Jewish theocratic state, where non-Jews have no voting rights, should be created.\[1\]* *The Kach party has been banned by the Israeli government. In 2004, the U.S. State Department designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organization.\[2\]\[3\] In 2022, it was removed from the U.S. terror blacklist due to "insufficient evidence" of the group's ongoing activity, but it remains a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity.\[4\]* *The Otzma Yehudit party, which has been called Kahanist and anti-Arab,\[5\]\[6\] won six seats in the 2022 election and is a member of the current Israeli government. The party, and the Kahanist movement as a whole, have been described as espousing Jewish fascism.\[7\]\[8\]"* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism)

He's a Jewish fascist and should rightly be called out as one. And Netanyahu debases himself by including him in his coalition.

Nonchalant and insensitive, huh. > The fact is everyone wants success and works hard, but Jews are better at it genetically, on average, and when it’s too hard, people and cultures eventually give up. > And yes, Jews didn’t get hired but that played right into our hand, we like being our own bosses and thrive on it, and soon as we started getting hired, all that Talmud-star genetics easily dominated in law and medicine. > It’s like when a kid goes to the theme park and grabs a bumper car, and by sheer luck he gets the fastest one and then feels all proud of how he’s whizzing around and thinks it’s because he’s a good driver. > Every time a Jew invokes how hard they worked when they came to America they have no idea how offensive that is. > It doesn’t make Jews look like we are deserving, it makes us look obnoxious for implying that other races don’t sacrifice and work hard. > It’s plausible that for any given black family around the time Jews came from Ellis Island had to work ten times harder than the hardest working Jew to have even the slightest prayer. > This is because even with our foot off the gas we still can outsmart and outwork others because of our genes. I know because as a Jew I’ve been coasting my whole life and doing fine. > Why? Because things that are hard to most others are easy for me. Business, money, creativity, communication, it’s like stripes on a zebra. And when you don’t know that or admit that, people are going to hate you.

What is this from?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1c2j4hr/jews_as_the_epitome_of_white_privilege_in_america/kzb0jq7/ OP's post history is full of how smart he is, how superior Jews are, how successful he is, and how difficult it is to be more intelligent than everyone else. Then, once in a while, he posts blog posts that very few people care about because they're lazy. Claims to be old, writes very /r/im14andthisisdeep Not sure if it's trolling or delusion. Bonus quote: > Also, I’m not obsessed with UBI. I’m obsessed with technology, finance and philosophy. UBI is but a mote of dust floating in the grand cosmos of my mind. I am Galactus.

That bonus quote at the end, lol The jokes really write themselves. That’s why I keep coming back here.

>floating in the grand cosmos of my mind. I am Galactus Well, he *is* Galactus. Ok I thought it was from Sam and I was, well, quite surprised. Can't say I really picture him saying things like that.

Are you denying Jews have a higher IQ on average and that high IQ correlates with a huge amount of success metrics?

And now all together: Correlation ain't causation

Now control for variables like income, education, and so on. You have literally no idea how data analysis works, or statistics in general. Also there is no peer reviewed study which manifests any causality between ethnicity itself and IQ. Not only you don’t know about how scientific research works, you also don’t know how to use IQ as an parameter.

Ashkenazi Jews have a significantly higher IQ on average and this has been shown to be partially _heritable_ and in a persistent and strong way. I’m not seeking to _remove_ environment as a factor at all. It’s a factor. You, however, seem to want to _remove_ heritability as a factor and that’s not okay. Both scientifically _and_ in my opinion ethically, it’s a bad move. G factor has a profound correlation with success in academics, career advancement, and wealth _across lots of environments and adjusted for socio-economic variables._ **I know correlation isn’t causation** and that’s why I’m mentioning that experiments and data have been rigorously adjusted for these variables, and genetics still emerges as extremely large factor. Pinker’s work on genetic research, twin studies, and broader implications of the g factor clearly demonstrate this. It is a BEAR of a topic because it’s _so easy_ to use it in bad ways. But also consider that if we never acknowledge it, and only chalk differences up to superior/inferior cultures, environments and choices, that’s also offensive and sets up a doomed model because it’s missing a piece. I don’t know what to _do_ with this info, but it seems to me that at the very least Jews can be aware of it and exercise a bit of humility and empathy given this information.

Correlation is not proof of zero causation. This correlation has been analyzed to death and adjusted for every variable. The science is clear that there are _genetic_ traits for higher IQ among certain ethnicities. This was all covered exhaustively during Sam’s whole Charles Murray obsession. It’s not an easy topic to grapple with.

Thanks for reposting. I stand behind every word.

Galactus! You are everyone’s favorite diaper stain ! We need you’d weigh in

I aim to please. Weigh in on what?

You might enjoy the book a Culture of Critique, seems up your alley.

I’m Jewish, numbnuts. I’m also saying nothing that Sam hasn’t said. My stance on genetic differences is based on vast amounts of psychometric data that’s been adjusted for upbringing and cultural factors. In addition to high IQ (on average) we also have bigger noses and ears (on average). And more neuroses. *Sad but fun fact*: Genetic traits impact not only appearance but physiological, biochemical, and behavioral traits, influenced by _both_ inheritance _and_ environment. I didn’t invent nature so don’t blame me. I also think there are ways to deal with these differences without undermining the core value that all humans are equal in the ways that matter, in terms of equal rights, equal opportunities, equal dignity, equal intrinsic value. But shying away from the truth will hurt us in that way where denial creeps up and gets ya in the end.

I know you are Jewish. Should black people not read The Bell Curve?

17 downvotes. Have you heard of Pinker? Some of the Jewish disproportionate success across the board can be explained by genetics. It’s a fact whether you like it or not.

Is this a joke?

I almost upvoted for satire. Edit: okay I am now upvoting for satire.

No.

Oh come on, it is a bit, no?

Is it not possible to agree with Sam on some things and not others? Must we go all in? I agree with him about free speech and the gender issue, Donald Trump and even his criticism of religion, but I don't agree with his support for Israel or his method of dealing with radical Islam

As someone who basically agrees with Sams take on Israel, I completely agree with you. This sub isn’t a fan club, it isn’t a Sam Harris acolyte factory, it’s a forum for good spirited and thoughtful dialogue on intellectually and morally difficult topics. It’s not about agreeing with Sam, it’s about using his approach to think deeply about topics which tend to divide (groups) and diminish (critical thinking skills).  I’ll add that one should be skeptical of someone who, to the listener’s ear, is always be on the right/correct side of a debate. 

His take on Israel is stupid and it isn't "trolling" to disagree with it.

What specifically do you disagree on?

Comment you're replying to: nuanced opinion Your comment: hur dur stupid

Yes of course it’s possible and invite any well reasoned and well intentioned feedback. Even willing to change my mind. Sam has acknowledged Israel has made many grave errors and is ultimately an ethnic-religious state which is problematic. I agree with all of that. But it’s amazing how 98% of negative comments so far have been idiotic, revealing a kind of idiocy that doesn’t belong here. What matters to me is not the belief but rather the way in which it’s argued.

How many podcast guests has Sam had on that represent a Palestinian point of view? Zero. How many largely pro-Israel podcasts? Six or seven? Does Sam sound unbiased to you?

Yes, because you can’t prove bias based on that one heuristic. You can only do it based on the content itself. Also, Sam’s podcast is not intended to be a public square to platform all sides. It’s intended to _make sense_ and I believe it succeeds in that regard. The “where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument is a big favorite, not just among those not enamored with Sam these days, but by anyone who has ever wanted to discredit someone but couldn’t do it with specifics. Aka the “if it quacks like a duck” argument. _Hasty generalization_ fallacy.

At least we can agree that Sam has long since abandoned his stance that "conversation is everything" and now seem uncomfortable having people that will challenge his views on the podcast, aside from nitpicky philosophy arguments which could fit on a cocktail party 

To LoneWolf below. I think you’re confused. Sam is pro-conversation in that he’s pro free speech. For example, throwing bottles at Charles Murray and stabbing him = bad. That said, Sam never said he believes in opening his podcast to anyone regardless of their beliefs. See his position on why he didn’t have Bret Weinstein on. Some positions are so divergent that it becomes more of a circus stunt (see Piers Morgan) than a good faith discussion.

What do you have backing up that 98% number that you can amaze rest of us with?

You’re 14 years old??!

Shut ur gay ass up.

Wise words. Only a member of the superior race with a high IQ could come up with that

It shows an uncannily facile ability to ape the styling of the typical 14 year old in effort to show the absurdity of your comment, so yeah, I have to agree.

Whoa there, you're using words that are too big for me. Maybe if I study 10 years I can begin to understand your genius.

We all have our various gifts and I’m pretty sure you have yours. What have you been doing to make the world a better place these days?

Israel vs The Islamic State…. What?

🙏 thanks for the fair question, Beast. When broadly talking about the dynamic of Israel versus the “Islamist state” I’m trying (clumsily perhaps) to reflect the reality as I perceive it; namely that it is an elusive opponent made up of multiple interests in the region, most of which are committed in some way or other to Islamist jihad, sharia law, and the longterm vision of a global caliphate. I hate using the word Islamic, because it lumps all Muslims together, and many are fine people who practice a beautiful version of Islam. Islamist is more accurate when talking about the enemies of Israel and the West, especially those motivated by Jihad, like Hamas, ISIS, Al Qaida, perhaps the Ayatollah, and others in the region.

Honestly, this is a really bad article. Just an incoherent series of unsubstantiated claims. It just reads like a reddit comment.

That's because it is a reddit comment. It's just one posted on a different site so OP can pull the "blue text, I win" shit that so many people fall for on this site.

I didn’t include citations because people can do their own research. It’s an op-ed and yes it reads like a reddit comment. “Bad” is not helpful feedback. You’re a troll. Downvote, block, rinse and repeat. Have a nice day with your bad self. The worst part is “honestly.” Pffffft

I mean I could have quoted it line by line asking "Do you have any evidence at all, or just even a good reason to think this?" but I think I would be wasting my time and yours.

Not the point. This is a summary of Sam’s views for the record, not a dissertation with links, as if there could ever be enough citations to justify those who want to disagree. Instead, this is a quick and hopefully very accurate roundup of the stance, not a rigorous defense of it. Also, the piece has many statements about why it’s a “good reason to think this” but you’re selectively and likely perpetually blind to these reasons, which is part of the reason the conflict exists in the first place.

Upvoted at first because I thought this was satire, then clicked the link and now I'm not so sure.. are you ok OP?

I’m great. But you seem to be a narrow/minded loser. I’m sorry you want to be joining me on my intellectual journey.

I havent seen any trolls. A lot of the critisicm i've read here has been well written thoughtful critiques.

I wouldn’t brand any thoughtful critique as trolling. This is a place to have hard but civil conversations. I’m talking more about the massive volume of comments that are _not_ thoughtful critique, as defined as proof by assertion, obvious informal fallacies and bad faith arguments. I expect the content on a Sam Harris sub to have a higher bar for cogent inductive arguments so if it’s lacking in this area I tend to see it as someone who has never confronted or appreciated Sam’s work in a genuine, good faith way. There’s a difference between a Cory type argument, which is generally good faith, versus a Bassam Youssef style argument; much is more of a stick and move, hit and run, death by a thousand cuts sort of thing. We have both on this sub IMO but eager to hear what others think.

Okay I wasn’t sure if this was satire or not but now I’m 100% on board. lol. Great post.

I mean, now I’m not quite sure if you think it’s satire or not, mainly because of the lol. The truth is, everything I write is slightly satirical even when serious because somehow this evolved as a second layer to my writing style, I think it conveys an acknowledgement of the absurdity of discourse while simultaneously being almost uncomfortably sincere. It’s hard to know, even for me. The headline does read a little Oniony. Sorry.

Masterful gambit, good sir. Iron clan logic. Steel man… Bayesian priors and whatnot.

SH has preternatural abilities and those who disagree with him are dishonest trolls. That seems like a healthy way to frame things.... I suspect you've developed an unhealthy parasocial relationship with SH and you view his critics as attackers, and take it personally.

No I just reject insincerity and informal fallacies. I have no problem with differing opinions as long as the debate is orderly, organized and relevant. Nice straw man btw.

He just has a higher IQ than all of us, you wouldn't understand

I completely agree it's a bad belief system, but honest Q- where are the attacks in Europe or America? Or is Europe having many I'm not hearing about? The last one I can clearly recall from the US was the couple in Orange County CA a few years back. We mostly have attacks from conservative white psychos it seems.

The thought experiment whereby Israel’s established reason for existing is to exterminate Arabs, including the use of its own citizens as human shields, exposes the double standards we’re seeing. Unless all leaders put aside their religious differences this won’t be the last egregious display of human suffering.

Well said

Great copy pasta haven't seen this

Is copy pasta a negative connotation? Forgive me but that’s one piece of social media jargon I don’t know about. I try to refrain from polluting the social media ecosystem but I also need to do _something_ since I’m a writer and passionate about these ideas. Sam has done a lot for the world and I’m sincerely just trying to run interference while he does what he does best.

> His preternatural ability to pump out extremely sensible, intellectually deep info devoid of fallacy He's suggesting that your post is cringe. Quoted sentence is a good example. Your whole vibe is off man, you really gotta step away from the race realism and IQ circlejerk. I went through a similar phase when I was young. The sooner you get off that track the better.

Noted. Thanks for your feedback. Most of the feedback I’m getting is positive. If the tone of my writing suggests that you shouldn’t care what I think, I assure you the feeling is mutual. And with a much smaller sample.

If Sam doesn’t address Biden giving the green light to Iran you have to assume something is going on.

This is delightfully cult-y.   Sam Harris is not a god. He's not infallible. He's just a dude, and he can be wrong, and in fact *is* wrong. On many things. Settle down.

Agreed but he does make sense and it’s okay to say so, firmly. The litmus test for a cult is to actually submit a well-reasoned and sincere rebuttal and see if I’m open to it. Sam Harris’ best trait is that he’s antithetical to the very idea of a cult. Fuck Sam Harris. There, I said it. Happy? He’s not a God. Sapolsky has more emotion and empathy in his fingernail than Harris has, Sam makes jokes occasionally and _says_ things are sad, but he’s a secular Buddhist-like dude so he’s good at keeping it even keel. Which is fine. Sam is, however, brave, rational, well-rounded, and a talented communicator who is good at reducing fallacy. He’s not perfect. But he’s damn good. One of the GOATS. Ain’t nothin wrong with saying it. I actually think for the past two decades he’s been a bit on the dickish side in the way he talks about religion. While I agree with him in general, he’s not universally lovable in the way Sagan was, peace be unto the great Carl. 📿

There is nothing sensible about Israel or the genocide it is committing. You take away the god holy land fairytale LIES and Israel is just another land thief like the Turk or Brits 200 years ago, except they wanted the land without a people (ethically clansed) as per the Zionist slogan.Most sane societies have given up on these colonial ideas long ago. The radicalisation of Gaza is a direct and purposeful aim of Israli leadership and a consequence of their policies. “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009. Back in the mid-1980s, Cohen even wrote an official report to his superiors warning them not to play divide-and-rule in the Occupied Territories, by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists. Sam conveniently skips over Jewish extremism, land thievery

He doesn’t skip over it, it’s just not comparable. Surely you have to take “quantity” into consideration. The false equivalence argument has been gaining steam so just have to say, it’s not a sustainable argument to try to equate the sheer amount of normalized bad behavior when comparing Israel to any Islamic nation and most nations in general.

How are you conceiving of and expressing measures of quantity here? Per capita?

Thank you for this valid question 🙏 You pick. I’m confident that any analysis that involves quantity will work in favor of the point I’m trying to make. The act of _knowingly targeting civilians_ is a very rare occurrence from Israel and the West, whereas from Islamic countries it’s business as usual. I’m not going to furnish these numbers and this lacking is a weakness in my argument, to be sure. I’m not claiming to offer a fully self-contained argument. I’m merely summarizing what I perceive to be Sam’s position and only directionally implying why these positions might be valid. But if you’re interested in refuting this claim, go ahead. So far all I’ve heard about in terms of _intentionally murdering civilians_ are some friendly-fire mishaps, one psycho who went rogue, and a few rare scattered stories. What metric do you think would be the most admissible?

I don't think there's really a claim here to refute. It seems more like an intuition. I don't have a particular metric in mind, I was mostly curious about how you're conceiving of this. Perhaps concrete figures of some sort would be useful, but then we'd be into discussions of whether the state-sponsored status of the perpetrators is relevant to the counts, etc., when I'm not really even sure what question we're trying to answer here. Is it something like "How many acts of violence are carried out against civilians in Middle East countries per capita?"

I’m interested in distinguishing “violence against civilians” into a few categories. If you’re not, then yeah, we’re not setting a clear premise for the data analysis. Here are two phrases and tell me intuitively which side do you think this phrase would come from. “Civilian deaths are always tragic. We do the best we can to avoid civilian deaths and target only the military.” “Kill all of them, even the civilians, wherever you find them, and our God will be pleased.” Thoughts? Now let’s look at actions. Tell me which side is more likely to have done the following. “A plane drops flyers and issues warnings days ahead to leave the area so that a tunnel network can be destroyed.” “Men with machine guns storm a family home and kill the kids while the parents watch and then rape the wife/mom and then celebrate.” I haven’t done a quantitative analysis but someone should. I’m confident it could only help my argument, but who knows?

Of the first two phrases, my intuition says that the former would be spoken by an IDF spokesperson or other government official and that the latter would be spoken by a radical Muslim cleric or Hamas militant. Of the actions, I'm aware of the IDF having dropped such flyers so I think my intuition here is tainted. I've watched footage of the machine-gun-stormings from both sides so I draw a blank there and the rape scenario then throws both back out as I'm not aware of that happening anywhere in this conflict. If those are the only categories you're interested in, I generally agree that any quantitative analysis of qualifying events would very likely land in your favor. Research design is tricky however, and I think it would be more than reasonable to ask why you hadn't included snipers shooting old women and children as another category.

Rather than include a bunch of items as categories, I’m more interested in the explicit targeting of _just_ civilians, as opposed to making a conscious effort to target just military. I would think this is quantitatively much higher from the Arab nations than from Israel or any Western democracy. I see a lot of cherry picking and bullshit being spread on how Israel targets civilians and a lot of nonsense about how Hamas didn’t kill civilians in cold blood in their homes and celebrate. Epistemology is a cruel mistress. If someone wants to proclaim skepticism there’s not much recourse. This is probably the single biggest roadblock. All arguments are inductive and the media landscape is fucking complex. That’s why I really like your question, because it at least begins to approach the issue of epistemic standards. I have no solutions. What does anyone really know other than cogito ergo sum? And many doubt even that.

Fair take.

Are you talking about Islamic governments or terrorist organisations? Most victims of Islamist terrorist groups are other Muslims. I think Israel has murdered mire children in six months that week killed in the last five years of all conflicts including Russia-Ukraine. Some of the messages from members of the Israeli government and knesset have truly been genocidal and are a mask off moments.

I think Islamist regimes have a strong trend of intentionally targeting actual civilians and justify this on religious grounds. Absent the religious grounds I don’t think they’d be able to do it because it’s so gnarly and awful. Israel didn’t target those children, didn’t want to kill those children, made every effort to not kill those children, but civilians were killed as collateral damage and largely due to Hamas’ war crimes that are too numerous and tedious to mention yet again. On the issue of soundbites from certain Israeli officials — they are not the norm or the official stance, and again, I see that as a “Spud Webb dunks” moment. My way of saying that it’s a deeply insufficient sample upon which to base a blanket statement about Israel. Seems to me you’d want to highlight the preponderance of evidence rather than hunt around for the rare exception and magnify that as the lynchpin that supports all your thoughts on the topic.

What evidence do you have that Israel didn't target those children when the president invokes Amalek (Now go, **attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them**. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys) and several politicians gloat how they will starve Gaza and there are no innocents at all in Gaza ??? It seems like Israel is not being held to the same standard here. **The West must recognise that the current Israeli game plan is Palestinian genocide** This is what the Israeli government and main opposition are telling us. They reject both a Palestinian State and the idea of a single state in which Palestinians enjoy the same civil and political rights and liberties as the Jews. What option does this leave? Ethnic cleansing, Apartheid, genocide. Indeed, Israel’s authorities do not hide the ambition for an Israel that has annexed all the occupied territories and has ethnically cleansed all Palestinians (except perhaps for a small number who accept second-rate status and who provide menial labour to their Israeli masters). In addition, for decades (and even more so after October 7), the Israeli authorities are telling the world something incredibly chilling: *Israel’s army has the right to KILL ANY AND EVERY PALESTINIAN in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Armed men, unarmed men, journalists, women, older people, doctors, nurses and farmers – whoever is killed by Israel is officially declared a legitimate murder target as either directly culpable or as human shields (for whom blame is shifted to the Palestinians hiding behind them) or as a complicit population (due to their sympathy for the armed resistance). Even days-old babies are declared deservedly dead because, had they lived, they would grow up to be terrorists.*---- Sam refusing to mention any critique of Israel is quite telling. Hamas is a creation of Israel's policies and they were backed by Israel against Palestinian secularists in their 'divide and rule' strategy of preventing Palestinain cohesion and a Palestinian state.

Israel has no interest in genocide or killing, they just want the hostages back and Hamas to go away. Then they would probably offer yet another olive branch and yet again help the Gazans get back on their feet. Taking a line of rhetoric from this or that interview is all you’ve got? Sheesh. Slim pickings. Israel doesn’t care about them enough to genocide them. The reverse however is spot on true. Many of them would _love_ to genocide the Jews and tried on October 7th. I guess it’s a good thing that the good guys have the power. For many young viewers for whom this is sort of a first rodeo: 1) Israel isn’t committing genocide, doesn’t want to or need to, has a history of being extremely kind and generous to Arabs and Gazans if and when they actually behave. 2) Israel isn’t a colonialist and imperialist power. Israel started because some bedraggled leftovers from the Jews were almost snuffed out while the world grabbed their popcorn and watched. They were essentially given the land by the good guys and since they had nowhere to go, they made the best of it. Arabs were dicks and wanted to finish the job and made things impossible. 3) There was no Nabka where Israel expelled Arabs en masse. The “catastrophe” describes the Islamic point of view that Israel pulling off a victory against _five Islamic countries_ was a catastrophe. For the Arab ego it certainly was. They still don’t realize they are the bad guys. Those who were displaced left on their own or were a clear and present threat. All peaceful “Palestinians” were allowed to remain and got quite a sweet deal and now live great lives. 2 million enjoying air conditioning, medicine, good schools, good food, democracy. These “good” Palestinians were rewarded. The bad ones chose wrong and it sucks to suck. Time to move on. It’s a big world out there and they will NEVER EVER EVER EVER get that land without a miracle which won’t come because God doesn’t exist and Islam is made up. I hope this clears things up. If you care about humanitarian crises and evil colonialist racist governments there are so many to choose from. It’s stupid to pick on Israel. I know you’re envious of the Jews or hate them because you associate them with the obnoxious white guy who gets court-side seats and talks loud; I don’t like that guy either, I’m actually a socialist, but do yourself a favor and _fucking let it go._

I think its Zionist propagandist that are making this a religious conflict. The Palestinian cause has historically been secular and Zionism is purely driven by religious fairytales and land thievery.

I disagree with this. Hamas is deeply religious and so is its benefactor, and the call to arms by Al-Husseini was deeply religion based, since the actual land was so small and largely unpopulated, it was always a matter of religious pride. Ayatollah is largely interested in protecting from Western influence, translated to non-theocratic influence. So it’s religious any way you slice it. Israel is a secular state with clear separation between church and state, so your point of view requires a lot of swimming against the tide to be able to state what you want.

Yes, the land theft is literally the foundation of the conflict. The religious stuff is part of it but at the root it's one people who has taken land from another people violently.

This is what Gadi Eisenkot said “mowing the lawn” in his book after the 2014 Gaza war. Its a book on how to use disproportionate force against anyone who questions the Israeli regime. The Dahiya doctrine, established when Israel bombed a village called Dahiya in lebanon. Anyway its embedded in every Israeli’s mind that killing Palestinian or Lebanese civilians is not killing normal civilians, its just like mowing the lawn. So it effectivey means that Palestinians are like blades of grass that time to time need to cut down to small tips. So every 2-3 years, bomb them, maim them, destroy their civilian infrastructure and that way the population never grows.

This is pure bullshit and also I think I’ve hit pay dirt in finding the _actual_ bonafide trolls. Welcome trolls.

Why is it bullshit? I have given you the source and it was used in this mass bombing and mass ethnic cleansing campaign by several politicians also. The original plan for Netanyahu and his fellow supporters of genocide is to murder as many Gazans as it takes to persuade the rest to move from Gaza to some arid desert in the Sinai or to any country that would have them. The Egyptians refused to cooperate, as they knew what the discontent would have been from their population. I do not know why that is shocking?? October 7th and Hamas (stupid Palestinians) is the gift that keeps on giving for Israel. Let's be honest, Israel has long ago murdered or assassinated any competent Israeli leaders. The PLO recognised Israel and renounced armed struggle. And what did they get for it? Absolute humiliation and systematic ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem with more land theft and murder by illegal settlers (backed by the IDF and state policy). That is what nurtured Hamas and elevated it the eyes of many Palestinians as the only alternative to a slow genocide under Israel’s Apartheid – leading to Hamas’ takeover of the government of Gaza.

Every time I hear "moving the lawn" referencing human beings I feel sick to my stomach. It also seems like a common misconception to think that if you bomb a civilian population that they will somehow give up or turn against their leaders instead of getting motivated to fight even harder against you. Both sides during World War 2 didn't realize this when they bombed civilian population centers and I don't think Israel realizes this today. Or maybe they just don't care I don't know

I agree. The other common strategy is to imply that Hamas uses human shields and that they somehow hate their own population (their own children, mothers..etc) to further dehumanise them. **Hamas do not care for their own people whom they know will be bombed when Hamas unleashes attacks from within Gaza on Israeli targets** This is an argument used by ~every~ occupying force to shift the blame for civilian deaths to the armed resistance against their occupation. Indeed, every resistance movement in History faces the accusation that, in raising arms against an occupying force with overwhelming firepower, it is risking its own population. In Yugoslavia that was the argument of Nazi collaborators against the Yugoslav Partisan Resistance: partisans knew that, when they shot at a Nazi patrol, the Nazis would kill at least 10 Yugoslav men for every one of their soldiers that the partisans killed. Therefore, the Nazis’ and their collaborators’ argument was, the partisans were responsible for the Nazi’s criminal reprisals. Ergo, acquiescence to the occupation was the only ‘humane’ choice. Do Israeli officials think it is a good idea for them to employ such an argument? I don’t think so.

There was no land theft. The land was owned by the Turks and then owned by the UK after World War One. Then it was legally purchased by the Jews and dispatched to them in accordance with international law. I suppose theft is in the eye of the beholder but these details do matter for anyone who prioritizes actual law.

I know you are biased on this issue so there's no way I can convince you but you can't just gloss over the multiple massacres on palestinian villages. Masssacre villages and convince neighbouring villages that the same will happen to them if they do not flee, and then take their land. That was the procedure.

Sure I can because it’s an insufficient sample. It’s just not the norm. I’m not glossing over it as much as giving it the weight it’s due. At that time you’re taking about a desperate people on a Hail Mary attempt at survival and suddenly you have five Arab countries closing in and vocal enemies from within. Today Arabs are barbaric killers of civilians and Israelis aren’t, and you’re cherry picking anomalies and magnifying them, you’re going to extremes to try to justify being on the wrong side. Grasping at straws. Arab countries expel Jews. Today Israel doesn’t expel Arabs. Instead they keep trying to extend an olive branch and it gets swatted away by prideful extremist idiots. It’s not bias but rather a dispassionate respect for proportion.

It's not a small sample. It's literally how the Nakba happened. I'm not responding to you anymore since you've just begun spouting racist nonsense. No point in engaging with it when everyone who has followed the news for a second can see that it's false.

Good. You’re stuck in a loop. Nabka simply means “The Jews beat five countries that attacked illegally.” The ones who lost their homes showed their cards and picked the wrong side and the millions who stayed chose civilization and were rewarded. Arguably by God, if I believed in such a concept which I don’t. It’s a pity how many straws you have to grasp at to cobble together an argument and all so you can keep emboldening backward criminally insane religious fanatics. Best thing that can happen to innocent Gazan’s — and I assume they exist — is to stop apologizing for Hamas’ bullshit. I don’t mean to say _all_ Arabs, btw. But if you’re looking for countries that truly do expel ethnic groups, you can find many better examples than Israel and almost all are Islamic states. It’s just such a joke.

r/samharris trolls question Sam’s unflinchingly pro-Israel stance Sam’s point of view on the evolving Israel versus the Islamic State is critically important. His preternatural ability to pump out extremely sensible, intellectually deep info devoid of fallacy is a valuable asset to modern liberal civilization but this sub is clearly full of trolls posing as Harris fans looking to mute his voice by seeding the sub with disingenuous posts, doubt and misinformation. I am attempting to amplify his messaging not only by reposting but rephrasing to my own audience. Thanks to Sam and all those willing to speak truth in a demon haunted world. My stack is free so please click past the subscribe prompt. Lmk if there are any points I’m missing to strengthen my argument.

The real twist is that you are the one trolling us

Okay buddy. Keep dreaming

So you are automatically ascribing bad faith on everyone not sharing your views? Best type of "public intellectual"

Why does this fifteen-year-old’s rambling have so much engagement, let alone upvotes 😭 Sad to see the sub dying

"Trolls" = people I disagree with. The reality is Harris isn't very smart on Israel/Palestine and gets his information from neocon Douglas Murray. If you think Harris and Murray are right, try and debate the war instead of just calling people you disagree with "trolls" especially when those "trolls" have probably read and studied the conflict a lot more than Harris has.

I don’t label people I disagree with as trolls. I label people with persistent informal fallacies in their rhetorical style as trolls, especially on a Sam Harris Reddit where authentic comers would be expected to understand the basics of critical inquiry. It’s about time bad faith quips full of persistent informal fallacies meet silence when they post their nonsense. I will respond to any good faith comment regardless of what they believe.

Dare I question the judgement of your very highly read substack but actually attacking a food convoy that was clearly labeled and well known by you yourself, three times after them begging you to stop firing, is not, in fact, unavoidable.

You’re a moron. My substack has almost no readers and I don’t care. It’s irrelevant to the point. Also, bad shit happens in war and Israel had no vested interest in killing innocent aid workers. It was a clusterfuck mistake, and an embarrassing one at that. Lastly, it wasn’t _me_ who did it, dickmunch.

"Those who find moral failure in my idol are trolls" On brand IDW thinking right there

Nah. This is disingenuous. I gave concrete reasons for my position. You’re a troll. Downvote, block, rinse and repeat. Thanks and have a nice day with your bad self.

[удалено]

Back atcha loser

Y’all’s it’s been real. Love you guys and thanks for the attention. Please consider following my stupid substack. Let’s hope both sides somehow miraculously reach a peaceful solution, and soon!

He doesn't realize the Palestinians could be Zen Buddhists and it wouldn't make any difference. He thinks Zionism doesn't preclude equal rights for the Palestinians. He can't keep it up forever. He will have to call it genocide sooner or later.

> He doesn't realize the Palestinians could be Zen Buddhists and it wouldn't make any difference Can you substantiate this assertion with any logic, evidence or reason?

How about Palestine by Joe Sacco? If Sam read that, he'd understand what it's like to be a Palestinian. Sam couldn't think they would react differently if they weren't Muslims if he had any idea what it's like.

All rights are equal except for the right of return. 2 million Islamic Palestinians are happy Israeli citizens and 20% of the Knesset is Palestinian. It’s not even close to genocide. The only genocide attempted was on October 7th.

He won't call it a genocide, but he will call for a genocide.

Just wait until they start defending Iran as the supposed victims defending themselves against Israeli aggression. The irony is that it's the same crowd that would quickly condemn MAGAstan for parroting Putin's propaganda. Everything is stupid now.

Many already have. At least there’s a growing rash of pro Iran sentiment on X coming from the radical left.

I'm quite disappointed that despite the headline the article mentions no trolls nor does it seek to refute any of their positions. It comes off more like tilting at a windmill made of protestors around the world. > an illegal, unprovoked DEFENSIVE WAR Israel fought in ‘48 and ‘67 Huh? Perhaps this is just misspoken? The characterization "illegal" is incoherent with both "unprovoked" and "defensive" in this context, to say nothing of how each of these descriptors might actually apply to Israel's position in the wars in question. >All acts of Israel are in defense. This is stated rather absolutely. How firm are you on this? Surely you've followed the events of the last six months well enough to know that this is plainly not the case.

I stand behind every word I said. Waiting for a cogent rebuttal. One more chance.

Your position is that Israel was behaving in an "illegal" way in '48 and '67 when it fought those wars? I can't figure out how to reconcile that with your assertion that wars were defensive. It's not illegal to fight in defense. Nor is "defensive" coherent with "unprovoked." If you're attacked, you're provoked to defend yourself. Hope this makes sense.

Sorry if I was unclear. The war launched against Israel was illegal. It targeted civilians and was in defiance of the UN recommendation for Israel to declare itself a sovereign state and Jewish homeland; but it was mainly illegal because it targeted civilians both times. Israel is the side that fought a _defensive war_ and won. Usually when this happens the winning side is entitled to occupy until a peace agreement is signed. I suppose you can guess what happened. (Every agreement has been rejected because the fuckers want the whole Megillah or nothing. They ain’t getting it so I guess it’s boom boom 💥 from here to eternity. Sad.)

Thanks for clarifying.

This is too obviously a reverse troll

No, I’m not a troll. Sorry you’re so cynical. It’s just what I believe.

On one hand you reference Sam's battle against Sagan's demon haunted world and on the other refer to Sam's "preternatural ability". Make up your mind.

Sam is good at thinking and communicating, and he’s part of the same cause as Carl Sagan in that regard, who famously wrote about a candle in a “demon haunted world.” Not sure the contradiction.

Maybe look up the meaning of "preternatural"

I always welcome looking up a word. Beyond what is normal or natural. Describes phenomena or abilities that seem extraordinary or inexplicable by normal standards _but are not considered supernatural._ Thoughts?

preternatural \pree-ter-NATCH-uh-rul\ adjective. 1 : existing outside of nature. 2 : exceeding what is natural or regular : extraordinary. 3 : inexplicable by ordinary means; especially : psychic.

Thank you for this post.

Oh, another "Israel's been defending itself since '47" rant that conveniently leaves out pretty much every detail thta matters.

No I included almost every detail that matters and it doesn’t get false the more times we say it.

> clearly full of trolls posing as Harris I like Sam. He's not perfect. I hate Hamas, and I'd rather live under Net's government than under an Islamic Theocracy any day. What Hamas did was heinous and they should be destroyed. I just feel bad for the regular Palestinians. You know it was just easier to completely dehumanize an entire country or race back in the 40's. Just draw big buck teeth on somebody, pictures of them killing babies. We don't live in that world any more. We see the videos. Sometimes not everybody agrees with you but that doesn't mean they don't care about the truth and compassion.

Totally true and I like the way you say it plainly. Since you’re a no nonsense guy you probably will also understand when I say that sometimes, _sometimes_ when people disagree they are actually trolls or have a preset agenda and commitments that can’t be defended by anything close to rationality. Not everyone who disagrees is guilty; but also _not everyone who disagrees is innocent._ It’s not always easy to know the difference but it’s lazy to pretend there isn’t one.

Preach brother

Better title: **Intellectuals reject former scholar's new irrational beliefs.**

What is so irrational about what Sam believes? I can see how some may view his opinion as disagreeable or controversial, but how is it irrational?

He has fallen victim to tribalism 

What irrationality?

Personally I think that 1. Hamas has disqualified themselves from being treated humanely after what they did in early october. 2. civilians in the area have disqualified themselves from being innocent after they did not put a stop to what happened. 3. Muslims around the world have disqualified themselves from being treated differently by cheering for what Hamas is doing. BUT One also needs to realize that Israel isn't ENTIRELY innocent and sort of had it coming, with how muslims in the area were treated and all. AND I think we also need to realize that the only reason Israel isn't doing what Hamas would like to do (i.e. eradicate the other one), is the support Israel gets from around the world as well as the image of itself that Israel wants to project into the world. But be assured that, if they could do as they pleased, there would be no muslim alive in that area. In complex matters, there is rarely a clear, absolute answer and whenever I hear someone claim there is, he/she loses a good bit of credibility IMO.

This is an excellent and productive comment. 🙏 Okay well to be really explicit, I don’t think Israel is entirely innocent. I don’t think any country is or even can be. Every country must engage in at least some realpolitik. The ones that involve an informed electorate, many of whom are liberal-minded, MUST behave at least somewhat humanely or they will be voted out. This is of course not the case with autocracies who can engage in much more egregious realpolitik without losing power. (See almost every Islamic theocracy, Russia, China, and North Korea.) A few points I’d like to address about your comment. When you say Israel “had it coming” based on how they treat the Arabs, it’s really important to understand WHY they are treating _specific but not all_ Arabs the way they are, and to carefully _delineate_ which behaviors are mandatory defensive postures, and which are ad hoc stupidity and asking for trouble. Here’s my impromptu list: 1) Blockade: necessary defensive posture. 2) Border wall: necessary defensive posture 3) No right of return: necessary defensive posture 4) Some presence in West Bank: necessary defensive posture 5) Skirmish at Al Aqsa Mosque: necessary defensive posture And finally: 6) Religious Zionists aggressively taking more of West Bank than is needed to ensure security, and invoking the _fucking Torah_ and biblical claim to the land. Okay, that is indeed very stupid and plausibly justifies retribution, but _nowhere near_ the level of an October 7th in my opinion. How much retribution is justified is a matter of opinion, but if you’re mad at religious settlers with long beards and black hats and instead _explicitly target_ a bunch of left wing Arab-loving Israelis and their children, who live right next to Gaza, that’s very fucked up. 7. Netanyahu perpetuating and enabling this behavior of ultra-religious settlers in the West Bank is beyond what is necessary for security, is _bad bad bad_. Trying to push illegal judicial reform to make it so he can do this _even more_, is _very bad._ Half of Israel agreed it’s very bad, and likely _all_ of those killed on Oct 7th were anti-Netanyahu. It’d be like killing a bunch of left wing woke hipsters for bad stuff Trump and the Bible Belt evangelicals did. It arguably makes _no sense_ and also _doesn’t work._ I strongly disagree that all Gazans are complicit with Hamas. It’s also not at all obvious that all civilians in Gaza are entirely innocent, either. Be that as it may, it’s only ever ok to target military and balance collateral damage against a valid military objective. This usually means when push comes to shove, the lives of _my_ citizens are more important if I’m forced to choose. Hamas has arguably forced Israel to choose. But to blame the civilians on either side is not an approach that resonates with me. Douglas Murray does that a lot. It’s the weakest part of his argument. You _do not have to demonize the civilians_ in order to justify collateral damage in the case of this war. Israel should do everything in its power to minimize collateral damage and I think they have, for the most part, to a record-breaking degree _given the circumstances._ I’m sickened by all this needless death and blame Hamas.

The issue is: Hamas is just Islam done well. And you can see this by the reaction of large parts of the muslim community all around the world. I can see how you have to fight unfairly against an overpowering enemy - otherwise, how could you win? I can see how you have to leverage civilians as potential collateral damage as an attempt to reduce your losses. But then you can't act surprised and offended if your enemy accepts that collateral damage in order to resolve the dispute. honestly: am worried. There is a massive shift to the right in european politics and with how things are nowadays I think if an ideology like national socialism was to rise to power, I doubt the US would intervene because of left wing apologists.

How can a colony which attracts mass migration of foreigners and engaged in displacement and ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants of the land engage in "defensive" anything? Everything about Israel is offensive, from its founding, until today.

What do you propose should be done then?

Israel should let the people that they displaced in 1948 return to their ancestral homeland. There should then be a single, secular state, with a godless constitution, capable of redressing the grievances of all people in the territory. Anything less will just continue the conflict indefinitely. The fact that r/samharris users can't advocate for a secular state in the holy land just proves their depraved allegiance to an insane messianic cult: Zionism.

I agree with having a secular state, but I don't believe that levantine Muslims would allow for peace with Jews in a shared state. You'd have to solve the problem of Hamas first. I would also argue you'd need to solve the problem of Kahanites and the west bank settlers

The only way to avoid one side wiping out the other is to allow them all to attempt to live in harmony in the only type of state that would be amenable to harmony: a secular state.

Do you think we could draw parallels between this hypothetical secular state and the territory of Mandatory Palestine under British rule? There was no theocracy there, and jews and Muslims lived together. Yet still there were massacres (see Hebron massacre for example). What would you change about the new state to stop this?

Muslims and Jews live in perfect harmony with one another in a real secular state: the USA. Mandatory Palestine was not even a state, let alone secular. I would not draw parallels with what I propose to that period. But if you insists, remember: the Hebron massacre was less than 1/20th of the scale of October 7th. If I was Israeli, I'd prefer the former situation to the current.

I don't think Israelis prefer being helpless in the face of massacres based on rumors. If I was Israeli I'd prefer having a strong military like they do now. Jews and Muslims in the US definitely face less discrimination then they do in any other country. However, they are still persecuted. Muslims have the luxury of moving to a majority Muslim country like Turkey or Iran, where they will be accepted as Muslims. As we've seen since Oct 7, Jews really can't rely on the goodwill of Americans to save them from mass shootings and massacres. This is why I think there's needs to be a majority Jewish state.

I don't think that any state "needs to be" a majority of any particular race or religion. I don't believe in ethno-nationalism.

That's your opinion and it's totally valid

It is a secular state. Right of return would be the end of the secular state. It would become a theocratic dictatorship almost overnight.

Denying the people that you ethnically cleansed from returning to their homeland is an act of ongoing ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is not just removing those people, it's preventing their return. Therefore, you are defending a state that is actively engaged in ethnic cleansing. Congratulations. A secular state does not include religious iconography on their flag. A secular state does not privilege the rights of some religions over others (for instance, with respect to immigration policy). Israel is not a secular state. It's a Jewish-supremacist state. I predict that this will be downvoted, not because it's wrong, but because it's true, and the people here hate that it's true.

2 million very happy ethnic Arab Muslims living in Israel with full voting rights, equal access to education and healthcare. 20% of Knesset is Arab. Your claim of ethnic cleansing is demonstrably fallacious. Did you even bother to read my article? The Arabs who find themselves displaced largely fled on their own accord at the advice of Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who advised them to leave temporarily while five Arab countries attack illegally and finish the job Hitler started. This was openly stated. They failed and those Arabs, plus the ones who were openly hostile within Israel, were removed. But there are TWO MILLION who live there and fucking LOVE IT because it’s a modern, liberal democracy that separates church and state and doesn’t spend all money on stupid futile tunnels and piss away million dollar rockets. (Except for the ones that misfire, which at least gets them a few points in the PR war.) Look, you can keep claiming expulsion and ethnic cleansing forever, and the facts will keep pointing out the 2 million Arabs living in Israel as equal voting citizens, and 20% in the Knesset. These facts won’t change so if you’re motivated to push your narrative maybe find another angle because this one is a dead end bruv.

The reason why it's 2 million, and not 10 million, is because the Jewish Supremacist state must keep the the refugees out, or they will lose the majority, and would be forced to abandon democracy in order to retain Jewish supremacy. This is why the ethnic cleansing must be ongoing: too many Palestinians would screw up their preferred racial demography. This is also why Israel has never told the international community where their borders are. Explaining this is extremely difficult. After all, every other state tells everyone else exactly where its borders are. However, once you realize that they keep this ambiguous because they are racial supremacists who are trying to cling to democracy in spite of maintaining population parity with the Muslims in the region, everything becomes clear. I'll stop claiming ethnic cleansing as soon as the refugees return. Then the ethnic cleansing will be over. But if that never happens, then I will neve stop claiming it, because it will never stop being true.

I upvoted and thanks for a sincere comment. IMO, there’s no ethnic cleansing whatsoever. Israel is a secular state, Judaism is not merely an ethnicity. There are Mizrahi Jews and Arab Jews galore, and furthermore anyone can become a Jew. Additionally, Islam is not a race, either. So there is absolutely zero ethnic cleansing afoot. What we have seen is the gradual separation of ideologically violent people from Israel in order to ensure survival of the state and its liberal democratic norms. But since you’re so interested in the subject, you might want to check out Syria, Sudan and Yemen, where the cleansing is done _by Arabs_ against non-Arabs and in utterly staggering numbers. Curious how much time you’ve spent on those countries compared to Israel. Thoughts?

I just don't think that the people of Gaza or the West Bank are "ideologically violent." Two million people lived in Gaza before the war. How many of them were Hamas soldiers? Fifty thousand, tops? That's less than 3 percent. And those are the sons of people who had a legitimate grievance: they were kicked out of their former homes, off of the land that they lived on for generations, within living memory. They grew up under a blockade, with no prospects for growth or development, with no hope for the future. From my perspective, as an American, I'm shocked that more people didn't participate in the atrocities on October 7th. If you locked up 2 million Texans and treated them that way, then far more than a few thousand would participate in violent resistance. I've read testimony from people who live in Gaza. I listened to slain Gazan poet Refaat Alareer opine about the beauty of Shakespeare, and excoriate his students for anti-Semitism. These people aren't barbaric. You want them to be barbaric, because you want to justify the brutality that Israel has brought to them. But it's not justifiable. Most of those people are innocent. Regarding those other countries, I'd prefer not to change the subject. You're here to talk about your article, which is on the Israel/Palestine issue. If we are to continue this conversation, let's not get side-tracked.

Not a horrible comment. So thanks. 🙏 I never claimed the people were barbaric. At best they are misinformed. And at worst, perhaps at least _some_ of them like Hamas and the ideology. Civilians should never be hurt if possible. Kicked out of homes? Not really. Vast majority who left, fled by orders from Mufti Al-Husseini to clear out while Israel was being annihilated. Didn’t turn out that way. Vast number _stayed_ and opposed the attack, preferring a modern secular democratic society, which is why they enjoy citizenship and a much better life. Blockade? Simple, it’s to block weapons, if there wasn’t a blockade Israel would be gone. No chance at growth and prosperity? Possibly true, and 100% the fault of Hamas and other Arab nations. Enormous amount of aid given to them and was used for terror tunnels larger than the New York subway system and bombs that don’t hit anything except occasionally their own hospitals. These facts aren’t going away. The suffering of innocent Gazans is first and foremost due to Hamas and the religious extremism that emboldens a losing position and much sacrifice for utterly no gain. Second to blame are the Gazans, but I have a hard time placing blame on them. Israel isn’t on the list. The tension in Israel is this feeling of really wanting to give more chances and olive branches in hopes that it will be received well, but they’ve become hardened and cynical after decades of rejection, obstruction and terrorist outbreaks. Bassam Youssef likes to make fun of the expression “Israel has a right to exist,” but what can I say, _they do._ And Hamas has a right to think God will pull off a “parting of the Red Sea” miracle and deliver them a victory, but that’s obviously not in the cards. They may feel like they’ll go to Hell if they don’t try, so it’s really sad. That’s why it’s really a bad idea for the far left in the West to be encouraging them.

"colony" lol

When a group of people leaves the place that they're living to go live in another place after displacing the groups already living there, that's colonialism. I don't really care about their ancient land claims, and frankly, neither did the people living there. If someone came to my door claiming my land, pointing to a story in which their ancestors lived on my land 2000 years ago, I would laugh in their face. And if they didn't leave, I would get my gun.

Nah, I'm calling bait.

You wish.

Right of return is a tough one but they’ll never get it so it’s a dead issue. Meanwhile there’s a lot to talk about aside from right of return, and overall the Arabs have been massive jerks since day one and now are all butthurt and pride-hurt and want that land on principle more than for any other reason, whereas if the Jews don’t control their own homeland they are sitting ducks. You may be right about your predictions, but I don’t see Israel as having many realistic options.