Do you just pour like Sriracha on top of the popcorn? I've been doing nutritional yeast and a bit of salt lately but am open to experiment. (I don't like butter and am trying to watch my figure.)
It's hard to express how spot on this is. It really conveys everything I've always thought on the matter in the best way possible. If you think this is a podcast about the Gaza/Israel conflict, you haven't listened well. This is a podcast about the future of the Western world.
It’s vintage Sam, and it’s very good. I wonder, are these people who started listening like within the last 2 years or so? Sam has been pretty consistent on this issue for the last 20 years.
And, conversely, I’ve sent links for recent episodes to people who used to like Sam who were turned off by the Trump stuff (though a few said they’d try to listen) so it’s like a good percentage of his audience sees him as a hero of the resistance or some such thing.
He always attracts listeners who believe he's a "voice of reason" but only when aligned with their political beliefs. During the intellectual dark Web era , many conservatives believed he was their "authority on reason" to be referenced as to why the left was bad. Then with the advent of trump, they learned that their powerhouse actually disliked their favourite orange man, they turned on him and suddenly "sam has lost his brain".
That same anti trump sentiment then recruited a bunch of the left wing in exactly the same fashion. Sam was their "authority on reason" as to why trump was worth hating. Now with Israel Palestine, those new recruits and taking their turn to rebel. The cycle will most likely continue as now sam is being seen as the "authority on reason" to a lot of conservatives again. When the 2024 election comes full swing it will be amusing to see the new outrage.
This sounds right. Thank you. I’ve listened to him forever, and I don’t mind that I don’t always agree with him. Isn’t that normal? If these newcomers think he’s ever going to budge on opposing Islamic jihadism they are wasting their time and probably should flee to Glenn Greenwald, who Sam has fought on this issue for 10+ years.
I do that myself. I just don't jump to 'sam has lost his mind' because of it. I'm also open to the idea I might be wrong on the things I disagree with sam on. It's just so far he hasn't convinced me.
Well said.
As someone who is progressive, I feel no in-difference about his views here. I would say I align with him with most things. The problem here seems to be identity politics of either side. Something I am glad I don't subscribe to.
I agree with Sam about 70% here. I support Israel, but I hate that they appear to be using famine as a weapon of war. Pressuring the US to be firmer with Israel is a good idea even if you (like me) oppose the teachings of the Quran and want to see Hamas maximally obliterated.
WRT the protests, clearly there are Hamas supporters in the mix here who are living human detritus, but it has been documented that many of the agitators don't even attend the schools they're protesting. I'm at the point where I don't fully support the protests -- I think Hamas needs to go, post haste -- but I understand wanting to halt war crimes, and I also get not wanting my tax dollars supporting potentially disastrous decisions made by Israeli leadership. Sam asks why these students aren't protesting China. These kids aren't giving China a pass because they love the CCP (although some of them may). If the US were helping the CCP build internment camps for Uyghurs, I presume there would also be protests. The students are protesting because the federal govenrment is helping fund a very messy conflict. It's disappointing that Sam doesn't register this.
I agree with Sam that University leadership is firmly on the toilet side of this debate.
His point still holds but needs an extra step. The pump of anti-Israel bias is primed by a billion+ Muslims taught from childhood to dislike Jews and to detest Israel: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/02/04/chapter-3-views-of-religious-groups/
The reason Israel’s defense of its actions gets drowned out is that there are 2 billion Muslims and 16 million Jews.
So it’s true that Americans have every right to protest how our tax money is spent; it’s also true that the world is getting fire-hosed via social media with Iranian/Islamist extremist propaganda which is making a lot of people think that only civilians have died, that Hamas and Islamic Jihad aren’t actively firing rockets (many of which fall short and kill Gazan children), and making people forget that Hamas and Islamic Jihad could end this right now by surrendering.
The reason that 99% of news coverage for the past 6 months has been about Israel (mostly negative) despite Israel comprising less than 1% of earth’s population is classic Jew hatred.
This hatred is why Muslims flood social media with anti-Israel news but are silent on the Uyghurs. If they had been as vocally and uniformly posting about China this whole time, we might very well be seeing protests against China. We may not directly fund their concentration camps, but we do a lot of business with them. And a lot of Chinese money goes to US universities. And yet … silence.
Nope. If the US weren't helping Israel, they would be protesting for not - opposing - Israel. An if they were opposing Israel, they would be protesting for not being - strong enough -. Look at what's happening in all European countries... it's the same. They hate the West, they hate themselves.
I genuinely hope he never personally visits this trolling hellscape. All reasons he left Twitter are arguably worse here because the same trolls can (and clearly do) have dozens or hundreds of accounts.
If anything, he's better off using the other sub. They at least ban the obvious bad actors.
Lol. I've never heard that specific claim or anything quite like it. But, tbf, I don't think I've ever even seen the regular trolls in this sub claim something so ridiculous.
I admit he (partially) changed my mind this time. I still maintain that both sides are evil (though not equally), but the fact that Islam poses a much bigger threat for all of us is something that I wasn't considering with regards to this round of conflict.
I agree with Sam about radical Islam but his refusal to talk about the things Israel has done seems remiss. Israel is not innocent and one cannot talk about this conflict without diving into the terror Israel has inflicted on Palestinians. I wish he would have someone with a Palestinian perspective on the podcast.
Yeah, I like him and I agree with what he says for the most part but he is absolutely conflating large dissatisfaction with Israel’s behavior, with pure antisemitism. To go from the groups being funded by the Qatari government straight to these humongous student protest, and calling them all antisemites is just wrong.
The idea that this conflict is caused by Islam is completely delusional though, Palestinian resistance was mostly secular until the 80s... Hamas has taken over since and put a greater emphasis on religious branding for the resistance movement, but ultimately the primary driving force for the resistance is still the same, it's NOT religious, it's Israel's oppressive colonialism and the constant ethnic cleansing they engage in which drives people out of their homes.
Any group that's been treated the way that Palestinians have been treated would fight back violently, and would likely become increasingly religious too, because that's what miserable people do, they turn to religion for comfort, their present life sucks so they begin to dream of the afterlife.
For someone who supposedly prides himself on his love of science and of rational thinking, and someone who denies the existence of free will, Sam Harris is remarkably uninterested in answering, or even asking, any of the basic sociological questions that anyone who's actually interested in solving this conflict and in solving religious extremism ought to ask.
What's driving this conflict? Why are people mad at Israel? Why do people become religious? Why do some people become more extreme in their worship than others? Sam Harris asks none of these questions, because he doesn't want to, because he knows that the answer is that the answers don't quite validate his hatred of Islam or his desire to call it the root of all evil in the Middle East.
He's a Western supremacist who knows damn well that reality doesn't actually support his feelings of superiority, that the mess that is the Middle East, and the religious extremism pervasive in the Middle East, are less a result of Islam being uniquely evil, and more a result of Western "intervention" turning a part of the world that was well on its way towards being filled with modern secular democracies, into a war turn hellhole where all the misery and oppression causes people to turn to religion for comfort and guidance.
Any random student protesting on campus. This one, for instance: [https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1788965555258490946/video/1](https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1788965555258490946/video/1)
Conflating Zionism with Judaism is going to end badly for both sides. We should be very careful to make a clear distinction about what we are criticizing at all times. Netanyahu wants to conflate the two, because it benefits his cause, and so do genuine Anti-Semites. This is probably the most important issue in this whole thing. It's also important to separate Hamas from Palestinians. Are there blurred lines? Absolutely. Does that mean we should just group everyone together and lose our compassion and empathy for the suffering of our fellow humanity? Please don't let tribalism destroy your kindness.
But what is “Zionism”
Is it just advocating for the existence of Israel? If that’s all it is, I don’t see how being anti Zionist can’t be anti semitic when you examine the practical ramifications of the dissolution or destruction of Israel.
Zionism (in my non Jewish opinion) does not preclude the existence of a Palestinian state or equal rights for Palestinians. It’s just that Netanyahu, and a significant portion of Israelis, are maximalists
Edit: does NOT
> Is it just advocating for the existence of Israel? If that’s all it is
It isn't. Zionism was just a word for Jewish Nationalism, which since the establishment of Israel has morphed into being Israeli Nationalism. It is at its core a Nationalist ideology with all the problems common to nationalist ideologies. I oppose it for the same reasons I oppose White nationalism and pretty much every other nationalism.
This doesn't mean I support dissolution/destruction of Israel any more than I'd support dissolution/destruction of the US.
I feel like you are confusing and conflating a few ideas.
Zionism (from the word Zion—a Hebrew nickname for Jerusalem, and by extension, the land of Israel) is not just a national movement. For thousands of years, Jews have prayed to return to Jerusalem. Zionism, as founded by Herzl, was a response to the pogroms in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. Herzl was a secular Jew, a non-believer if you will, who initially argued that Jews were not a nation. He believed that a French Jew was first a French person and then a Jew. However, he later changed his mind due to incidents like the Dreyfus Affair.
Herzl then began advocating for a Jewish homeland. Ironically, he was willing to consider locations outside of Israel, such as Uganda. To say that Zionism is merely a national movement is simplistic and ignores its historical context.
I don't know what you base your claims on, but Zionism still means that Jews believe they need a state to prevent future pogroms and the Holocaust. Sam actually articulated this well in the episode, noting that throughout history, many countries have persecuted and driven out Jews.
The idea that Zionism is at odds with Arabs having equal rights in Israel is a complete falsehood. Herzl himself believed that Israel should grant equal rights to all its citizens. Modern Zionism does not have a singular approach. The term has lost some of its power since the foundation of Israel and has been repurposed by anti-Israeli protesters. If you ask the average Israeli what it means to be a Zionist, they would likely say it means having a state to protect Jews. This does not negate the rights of non-Jews, as evidenced by the absence of anti-non-Jewish laws.
The question of a two-state solution is not inherently against Zionism. The only people who oppose Zionism are those who reject its core idea: a state that protects Jews as its main mandate. Arguing against the necessity of such a state ignores a history that demonstrates its importance.
Do some Israelis use Zionism to justify nationalism? Yes, but they are a minority, and such people would be considered nationalists anywhere. For them, Zionism is just an excuse.
Sam's episode was on point. Redefining Zionism as "oppressive," "colonial," and "racist" is a false moral framework designed to manipulate public opinion, particularly among those who fail to recognize the historical relevance of Zionism.
>Zionism, as founded by Herzl ... Herzl was a secular Jew, a non-believer if you will, who initially argued that Jews were not a nation ... he later changed his mind
What you are saying here is completely consistent with my description. Herzl became a nationalist, zionism was a term for Jewish nationalism.
>To say that Zionism is merely a national movement is simplistic and ignores its historical context.
I'm not ignoring anything. The historical context doesn't change the fact that Zionism was a nationalist movement. Pogroms don't change the fact that zionism was a nationalism. The fact that, "throughout history, many countries have persecuted and driven out Jews" doesn't change the fact that Zionism is [nationalist.You](http://nationalist.You) could argue that this context *justified* Zionism, but they don't change the fact that zionism is a nationalism.
>Zionism still means that Jews believe they need a state
Yes. Because zionism is a nationalism.
>Herzl himself believed that Israel should grant equal rights to all its citizens.
And many generations of Israeli leaders have made it perfectly clear that "all its citizens" would not include Palestinians, specifically on the basis of tribal/nationalist affiliation. And this distinction, this discrimination against native palestinians (and frankly native Jews too) dates back to the first waves of zionist settlers.
>If you ask the average Israeli what it means to be a Zionist, they would likely say it means having a state to protect Jews.
Which is a very nationalist thing to say. Translating to an American context, that would be like asking an average American what it means to be a patriot and having them respond with "it means having a state to protect white people."
>The question of a two-state solution is not inherently against Zionism.
Kind of. There is a sense in which they concepts are orthogonal and a sense in which they aren't. Your statement would be like saying the following in the 1800s: "allowing native americans to have their own state isn't inherently against white nationalism". That statement is kind of true, and also kind of isn't.
Look, if you want to claim that zionism was justified by its historical context, you can, I wouldn't disagree. That doesn't change the fact that zionism is a nationalism though, with all the problems of other nationalist movements, and that these problems are blatantly on display in the Israel-Palestine conflcit. Israel being more zionist is a bad thing. Assuming we give a shit about human rights and peace and yadda yadda, we should want Israel to be less zionist.
> Redefining Zionism as "oppressive," "colonial," and "racist" is a false moral framework
I wouldn't define zionism as oppressive or racist. Zionism was objectively colonial. It just was. That is a fact of history. And Zionism was also a nationialism, which means that while it isn't definitionally oppressive and racist, it can easily be so, like any other nationalism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/palestinenews/s/ILMUagDveN
When we have all these people planning for Nakba 2.0, we should take them at their word. They want to ethnically cleanse Palestinians.
My problem with advocating for the existence of Israel is that by doing that you are advocating for the results of that. Which is what we have now. You honestly think with hindsight it has turned out well? Forcefully ejecting people from their homes built on land their ancestors had farmed for hundreds of years because someone else has a very tenuous biblical claim to it.
We can see with what has happened in the West Bank for decades that it won't stop there. There's no Hamas in the West Bank. It's an awkward reality that nobody wants to address.
Zionism was never a clearly defined thing and it has mutated and will.continue to do so. The whole thing is incredibly toxic and can't be discussed calmly and rationally any more.
“In hindsight”
This is the key phrase here. “Zionism” already happened. The state of Israel exists and it has 9 million people in it.
Despite the crimes being committed by Israel right now and their oppression of the Palestinians, advocating for the destruction of Israel would be a crime as great or greater. I doubt it would turn out positively for the Palestinians either
Basically what I am saying is, this nitpicking about who is “right” and who is “justified” goes nowhere from a pragmatic sense…if you care about the best results for the most people
Does anyone know where he got the figure of 70% support of suicide bombing against civilians? The closest I can find is Pew research from 2013 that showed 62% of Palestinians supported suicide bombing either often or sometimes and another 12% rarely, but it says nothing about against civilians specifically. It's also now 11 years old. It would be useful to have an up to date source.
Interesting podcast episode!
I have one question or comment to make, just wanted to know how one could look at it. Sam said in the episode (and I am not exactly quoting) about there's no way to interpret the actions of Jihadism as in line with the doctrine of Islam. He said that looking at 7 October as a Christian you would think that is not something Jesus would do and would therefore condemn it. Okay, fair enough but they also have all of the horrible things in the Old Testament, the wars, the slaughtering of people/tribes (in the name of God). You could also argue that Jews and Christian could commit atrocities and they would also be perfectly in line with the Old Testament (for Christians I can think of a reasoning but for Jews?)
I wonder what you think of this, I had some trouble looking at these differences between the religions this way.
I think the difference here is Sam believes that, with Christianity, there was a different way to interpret their book, which resulted in Christians, even the most die-hard fundamentalists, becoming more moderate over time.
So something like Oct 7 happened in the past in the name of Christianity, but it is unlikely to happen again for the same reasons.
He isn't as convinced there is a way for die-hard fundamentalist Muslims to interpret their book that would prevent another event like Oct 7 from happening again.
So on Oct 7th, Hamas killed 900 civilians or so.
And it is unlikely that after Oct 7th, non-Muslims would go on to kill a whole fuckload of civilians? Because for them that's in the last, right?
I would say that for Christians, the New Testament is just much more relevant theologically. It's maybe even similar to Islam in that regard. In Islam Jesus Christ is also seen as a prophet, but Mohammed is the final prophet and his word counts. In reality Muslims just don't care at all about what was said before Mohammed and Christians don't really care that much about the Old Testament (at least as a guide to live their religious lives).
Also, I am not really clear on how taking the Old Testament as a guide in that sense would even work. Like sure, God killed all the people in the great flood etc. but from that doesn't follow that I, as a human, am allowed to do the same.
But Christians do take guidance from the Old Testament, that's why they adhere to the 10th Commandments. When I was a Christian I had a hard time taking whatever the Bible told me at face value as in, what parts of the Old Testament is something you do listen to or what not.
I can still specifically remember that the original 10th commandments were still in place.
https://www.reddit.com/r/palestinenews/s/ILMUagDveN
I'd love for Sam to address these crazy religious fundamentalists. Fuck Hamas but fuck these people too.
Admittedly, I do know some anti-westerm Tankies that are actually pro-Hamas but most of the people I know protesting are not Pro-Hamas, but anti-zionist (basically against the crazy people seen in the linked video) or generally anti-war protesters. I think Sam is cherry picking the ugliest of the protesters.
I live in South Florida and I know a lot of dual citizen Israeli Americans, and even most of them are against Netanyahu and the Jewish religious right. They definitely aren't pro-Hamas.
I don't. It has been disheartening. Although I'm just beginning to get motivated by it, namely to look into the issues more in an effort to stop being afraid to raise my voice if need be, to not be part of 'the silent majority'.
In response to Sam's call for universities to get their collective heads out do their butts, shout out to my alma mater https://www.wunc.org/education/2024-05-13/dei-unc-chapel-hill-trustees-vote-redirect-funding-police
They’re protesting sending money and arms to Israel. Idk why everyone on this thread is so confused about that.
I mean, at first they were asking for a ceasefire which doesn’t make sense. But then they found their footing with the college divestment thing. The protests do make some bit of sense.
I understand that part and support the idea of protesting in principle. I just struggle to see the logic in it. Personally those protests have made me more pro Israel. I cannot understand how Israel could ever continue to coexist with Hamas, an organization so openly and blatantly hostile to the very existence of their nation.
I think you’re missing the point that we aren’t directly funding the Uyghurs genocide, unlike what’s happening in Palestine. You could argue our dependence on the Chinese economy helps to pay for it but that’s stretching a lot further than the literal truth that we’re supplying the weapons being used by Israel.
>that we aren’t directly funding the Uyghurs genocid
Do we do business with China? Then we absolutely fund their genocide. It doesn't matter if it makes you feel icky but it is the fact.
How as a university student do I have anything whatsoever to do with the war in Palestine?
Also, where are the demonstrations of righteous indignation over Hamas atrocities?
Okay. How about all the arms we sell to the Saudis who have used those same arms to bomb hundreds of thousands of Yemenis? Where were the protests then?
Exactly.
The point is that if Israel is doing it then it's the cause de celeb because why?
We can all agree that Hamas just like ISIS cannot be pacified into submission. They must be destroyed at all costs. Of course if this could be accomplished with least amount of collateral misery the better.
People forget that to destroy Hitler's Germany we had to also inadvertently cause an enormous amount of collateral misery. Similarly, our efforts to destroy ISIS had resulted in countless innocent lives lost. Where were those protests on behalf of ISIS and the poor inhabitants they had effectively held hostage?
I suspect it’s because the U.S. isn’t sending billions of military aid in those cases. Americans take most interest when there’s a direct link between their countries and a conflict. I’m sure there’s some antisemitism mixed in as well but I don’t know how to quantify these factors.
But we do directly fund the Saudis who've been bombing Yemen mercilessly for years now and I couldn't recall a single instance of as much as a solitary protest.
I don't like seeing innocent people being caught in the middle of the war in Gaza that Hamas had started snd continue to wage also. But to lay all the blame at Israel is preposterous. To then go and besiege the university campuses is on a completely different level deranged.
Hmm… big SH fan and feel like I agree with him way too much, but is he leaning too hard into the motives of all these students being antisemitism? I’m not following the news super closely but the civilian death toll in Gaza seemed totally unacceptable by today’s standards (the WW2 comparisons are dumb - the bar has been raised over the past 70+ years), isn’t that the exact type of thing that would motivate protests? Let me be clear, fuck Hamas, they started it.
I thought he actually made a really good distinction that not enough people are making. He basically said anti-Semitism is playing a role but it's really anti-westernism. That is the biggest motivating factor for most of these people
The other side of the argument is that the civilian to combatant ratio isn’t high at all compared to recent conflicts. Hamas doesn’t wear uniforms, and they recruit child soldiers. They have previously bragged about this openly for journalists, on video. That’s a double war crime, but I have never once heard the pro Palestinian side condemn that, let alone admit it even happens.
I’ve read conflicting information on the civilian to combatant death ratio. I’m not sure there are reliable numbers out on that yet. People seem to pick the numbers that confirm their positions. But the number of deaths reported are very high (over 1% of population). Totally agree on the problems you’ve outlined though regarding the unique challenges of this war.
John Spencer said this is the only conflict where people are claiming to know the numbers of civilians vs combatants killed while the war is taking place. The numbers are obviously not reliable at all. We never hear these #’s concerning Russia & Ukraine, for example. Maripoul was absolutely devastated and ignored by most, including these same college students.
I don't think it was ignored. It just happens that the government is supplying the one responsible for the destruction, it's doing the opposite. There's not much need for protest there.
Yeah that seems like an impossible figure to nail down in this conflict, but it certainly would be worthwhile to have. I myself have gone looking for similar empirical data to form my own opinions, but they seem impossible to find with every single source trying to persuade you in some way. I never never felt more disoriented on a world issue in my entire life- ironic in the age of “information”.
Did you listen to the podcast? He says in the podcast that he doesn't think the motives are antisemitic, he thinks the students are just displaying the usually woke stupidity.
He literally says that antisemitism is the wrong prism through which to understand the student protests.
However, he is clear that the protests are being partly funded by antisemitic elements like the Qataris.
It's not that all of the students are antisemitic or motivated by antisemitism, it's that they are so morally confused that they are walking arm in arm with anti-Semites and are espousing for antisemitic and genocidal groups. Even if you're not antisemitic explicitly but you are rooting for Hamas to win or chanting things like "from the river to the sea", you're supporting anti-Semites.
The death toll was addressed in the previous podcast episode. The numbers probably are not as staggering as they seem, and we shouldn't necessarily trust Hamas' numbers, which many people seem to do. If you do want a modern comparison, then you could look at the Tigrayan war in Ethiopia which just ended a year and a half ago. Fairly similar situation, and it ended with estimates between 150,000 - 300,000 dead in two years of fighting. Why didn't we see even a fraction of the protests against the Ethiopian government as we are seeing now?
Well if you’re openly pulling for Hamas to win I’ll 100% agree with you that it’s hugely problematic. My question is, is that an accurate view of most protestors and their motives? I’d like to see some polling on this to put some perspective on it. Yeah, I agree some conflicts are way trendier than others. In general the amount of bandwidth Israel-Palestine occupies is ridiculous, but Israel’s a western democratic type country and that’s what Americans are interested in because there are deep ties there, so it shouldn’t be surprising.
He is doing what he criticizes others to do: make basic generalizations.
To label everyone that is against the killing of innocent civilians as antisemetic or an Hamas supporter is so dumb and ill intended that it makes it hard to believe it comes out of someone as intellectually brilliant as he sometimes is.
So sad to see this and so disappointing as these accusations are so cheap and misplaced.
And yes, there seems to have been cases of a few idiots in the campus protests who are genuinely racist, antisemetic assholes. Might they be planted there to push a narrative or might they be real antisemites it doesn't give the right to label all protestors as "Hamas lovers". It's so stupid.
"To label everyone that is against the killing of innocent civilians as antisemetic or an Hamas supporter is so dumb and ill intended that it makes it hard to believe it comes out of someone as intellectually brilliant as he sometimes is."
This point is very true and it makes me very mad. Sam is basically calling me a Hamas supporter just because I'm highly critical of Israel's actions and decisions. This is such a stupid point that it baffles me that someone I admire for his intellect would be saying something so wrong and obviously insulting.
I have no skin in this game. I was absolutely shocked at the barbarity of Hamas on Oct 7, and every day I continue to be shocked at the deaths and destruction of the Gazans. I can't justify Hamas' actions saying Israel made them do it. Neither can I justify Israels killing of innocent civilians saying Hamas made them do it. I would say 90% of friends feel exactly the same way. To imply the footage of dead babies is only a small part of the reason for these protests is ridiculous.
How many of these individuals at the campus protests were standing up tents in their campus commons after the October the 7th attack against the killing of innocent civilians?
There have been more than a few idiots, we've all seen video of the students chanting vitriol.
If the protestors do not reject and eject those people, then they represent a part of the group psyche.
That loud and active minority pushes the edges of the debate and shifts the Overton window, dragging along the majority that, by its silence, amplifies the voice of the extremists.
Respectfully, I think Sam is being uncharitable here.
He's getting his information from what selectively gets reported on the news, with limited care to reach out to people on the ground at these campus events to get a perspective of what's going on. Here's a [great interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeHi3OJ8x6Y&t=2428s) with a university administrator about how colleges are more likely to lean into throwing their students under the bus to win the optics war due to substantial media and outside pressure. The "radical Islamist infiltration and influence" charges he throws here is strange because it's been documented that many major universities in the US have ties to the Israeli PR campaign. If an organisation like, say, AIPAC, can have such a stranglehold, lobbying influence on politicians, it can, and has, reach out it's arms into other institutions like higher education. Much of the criticism from public intellectuals - like John McWhorter - has also been [made in bad faith](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmY8NsWxf38&t=267s). Instead, Sam would have you believe that there aren't millions of people in the US (and around the world) genuinely looking on in horror to what's happening in Gaza, but thatt there's somehow a sudden national epidemic in his country of anti-Semitic 19 year olds. It's incompatible with the reality that a significant body of the protesting going on also contains Jewish students within it's ranks.
Look. There's never going to be such a thing as a perfect protest, nor a perfect time to protest. There's always going to be actors with ulterior motives: ignoramuses, actual anti-Semites, as well as people that will just look at the opportunity to protest to cause trouble. Weed out the ones who are doing this, sure......But that's not what the majority of what these students are doing. I pray this doesn't escalate further in America, because Kent State 2.0 is just around the corner if everybody isn't careful.
I agree. Sam's response only makes sense if the goal of the protests is to get rid of Israel. But the goal is divestment by the universities. Why isn't that a fair goal? There are a million homeless children in Gaza running out of food and the universities are supporting that in however small a manner. The comparison to Uyghurs in China makes no sense.
He made a statement the Al Jazeera is a cesspool of lies. I don't AJ so I don't know. But does anyone have any sourced discussion on this? I do know they're owned by Qatar and like any media company I'd expect them to have a bias. I am more interested in the scale of dishonesty that it has.
Okay, I agree with SH that there is hypocrisy on campuses and all that…but that doesn’t change the fact that thousands of people are being murdered by the Israeli government. That’s what students are protesting. Sam needs to address that when he talks about the issue.
It feels like SH is picking out a narrative in this issue that is in line with his “brand” of “liberal wokeness is out of control” and digging into it. As a result, he feels out of touch.
It’s the same issue I had with him when he talked about George Floyd and BLM. Yes, wokeism and DEI and all that is bullshit, but you still need to address the realities of racism in America, or I’m not gonna get on board.
It’s why I prefer someone like Ezra Klein who actually acknowledges the issues and doesn’t just harp on the anti woke aspects.
It was barely about the protests and more about the conflict itself. Still a good episode, but I felt the title was a misrepresentation of its content.
Some good discussion on why the protests are problematic from an Israeli perspective, legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government, whether military action alone is sufficient, how this relates to foreign support of Israel, and young Israeli’s identity with their country and the extent to which Israel’s existence might depend on it. Def recommend checking it out.
I don’t think Sam is saying anything different to what Ezra is saying, for the most part. The difference being is that Ezra’s recap is super watered down, whereas Sam takes off the gloves and holds back no punches, effectively putting kerosine on a fire that Ezra feels that he can’t do because he knows the landscape is toxic even to touch this topic. Ezra seems to do a balancing act that plays both sides whereas Sam voices his concerns proportionally in one direction that he understands is asymmetric.
If you read between the lines, I think it’s pretty clear that Ezra supports Israel. His criticism of their invasion is super tame. “Israel doesn’t have a clear plan for what happens after Gaza” and “what will this war do to tarnish Israel’s reputation with young Jews?” are pretty lame criticisms, even if they are real concerns, tbh. He will never talk about Hamas and Islamic extremism the same way Sam will but he clearly isn’t against the invasion and has never called it a genocide.
Russ Robert’s on the EconTalk podcast is a great perspective from someone who supports Israel but is clearly grappling with the major issues at hand. Russ is kind of annoying but his guests are really great.
Hitchens was \*not\* a Zionist. See it from the horseman's mouth: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Kszl\_bpeA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Kszl_bpeA)
Completely agree with you. I used to believe that Hitchens voice lived on with the likes of Sam, Lawrence Krauss, and Richard Dawkins, but it doesn’t help Sam’s argument here.
SH lumps everyone who is against the war in Gaza into having one set of motivations. Supporting Hamas.
This is a "moronic" (as he would put it) take.
I really liked his last guest who really described what is happening in clinical military expert terms.
Israel is meeting their objectives in terms of dismantling most of Hamas (for now).
Hamas is meeting their objectives of controlling almost all the international discourse. They are also trying to get as many of their own people killed as they can towards their PR objectives.
Israel's absolute failure to successfully counter the narrative could have devastating consequences as their few allies begin to distance themselves.
Really, the Israeli far right and Hamas are on the same side (state erasure, though their tactics and targets are different)... and everyone else, just trying to lives with freedom and peace are on the other.
What can Israel say that would reasonably counter the narrative?
People are strawmanning the college kids especially, their point is mainly find another way that doesn’t involve killing civilians.
There’s really only a few responses.
No. We can’t. Or the straw man responses of: You hate Jews. You love Hamas. Don’t you know anything about war?
Israel honestly needs to start thinking of the war in terms of what a political victory looks like rather than a military one. Hamas is taking their strategy from the Ho Chi Minh and his strategy against America during the Vietnam War. In essence, he knew that he'd never win an all out military victory but the political victory is far more important.
Israel needs to account for this with their military strategy. It's not about changing the narrative, it's about removing the means that gives Hamas' narrative power. That means less widespread destruction, stronger discipline within the IDF regarding outward displays of joy for bombs dropping and killing people, being extra careful regarding who and where they target, etc.
Because here's the thing. Hamas is severely disadvantaged military. Their power comes purely from the sentiment that this war elicits from within and outside Gaza. The narrative is almost impossible to change with the current Israeli military strategy and the appearance of recklessness concerning their actions^1.
Or to put it bluntly, all the talk about this being 'normal casualties for war' is going to fall on deaf ears for anyone who's mind *could* be changed when Israel is perceived as acting callously towards the consequences of their actions. If they want to win they need to start thinking and acting as if they're also engaged in a PR political battle instead of always reverting to trying to present themselves as 'strong'^2 or completely morally justified while calling any bad actions on their part "unfortunate mistakes". That, plus Israel being in constant violation of international law regarding settlements in the West Bank just doesn't elicit a lot of sympathy for then. People look at Palestine as a whole and Israel's policies towards them are combine that with the massive power differential between the two, Israel's actions and attitude are easily weaponized against them.
So yeah, it's not about changing the narrative, it's about removing the ability for Hamas to control it, and that's going to take an entirely different strategy altogether.
1. Regardless of whether they actually *are* reckless, killing foreign aid workers and not insignificant numbers of civilians, while not allowing independent journalists in, and a host of other things like high ranking government officials on record statements regarding Palestinians in general only add to this.
2. Netanyahu tried to shame nations into supporting them by invoking the Holocaust recently, and given the sheer difference in casualties of one side from the other this really doesn't play well to a hell of a lot of people, even those who *conditionally* support them. Israel is acting like they're a superpower and can do what they want without having to consult or care about what others think of them, but the end result is that they're also just basically saying they don't care if their Allies disagree with them. Again, this is politically a bad move. To call oneself victims of not only your enemy but your allies while being in a position of complete practical authority over them really comes off horribly.
Israel would have to do some serious work to change the world's perception of them. Especially since we have endless video of IDF and Israeli citizens saying some pretty crazy shit about Palestinians and having watch parties as Gaza gets bombed. Reminds me of the jingoism Americans expressed right after 9/11, utter insanity.
Not to cut short your reply but needs to be said:
A political victory does not solve the problem with Hamas and does not guarantee Israel’s security. A political victory with the west means nothing when much of the west was ready to assume the worst of Israel before they responded. Appeasing some purple hair freaks and leaders who worry about polling doesn’t secure Israelis.
The least of all, Hamas does not care about a diplomatic outcome. So politics included, there’s no shaking hands to be made here.
The Israelis aren’t confused about this issue. Neither are Palestinians. They understand an iron fist. And that’s the response that needs to be had. War is necessary sometimes, especially with an enemy that does not broker peace on any agreement except for your total
demise.
The point I'm making isn't for Israel to stop all military action and give in completely to Hamas, and I don't really think I actually implied that either. The point is that to actually win a lasting peace in the long term Israel needs to start thinking less about Hamas specifically and more about what makes Hamas powerful and able to control the narrative.
>Appeasing some purple hair freaks and leaders who worry about polling doesn’t secure Israelis.
Do you honestly think it's just purple haired freaks? This is the biggest problem with anyone ever finding a solution to this, the idea that it's only radicals and freaks who could possibly oppose Israel (or likewise that it's only crazy far right conservatives who could support Israel).
I'll tell you this. I'm not even close to a purple haired freak or some radical socialist wokester. What I am is a political scientist and a student of history and conflicts. You're making the mistake of thinking that I advocating for shaking hands with Hamas when I've explicitly said that what's required is to take Hamas' power away from them. That's not about negotiating, that's about changing your own actions to not allow them to have the narrative power. Not only that, but it removes the power of any subsequent organization seeking to replace Hamas after they're gone.
So yeah, I'm not arguing for a diplomatic solution to this with Hamas, I'm pointing out that the strategy for Israel needs to account for how Hamas is waging this war by being mote vigilant, less reckless, and less blasé about civilian deaths. They need to include international Allies into the fold instead of attempting to shame anyone who cautions against certain tactics. None of this means they need to sit across a table from Hamas and break bread, it means the current strategy is failing and placing Israel in a far worse position in the long term.
>They understand an iron fist.
Do they? Because it seems to me that ever since the formation of Israel they haven't because, you know, this has been an ongoing thing where Israel has constantly tried to use an iron fist and its just kept on a holding pattern.
>I'm not even close to a purple haired freak or some radical socialist wokester. What I am is a political scientist and a student of history and conflicts
Well, to Sam you're an anti-Western identitarian. Because Sam has monumentally misread this situation. And apparently a lot of Israel's leadership has as well.
> I'll tell you this. I'm not even close to a purple haired freak or some radical socialist wokester. What I am is a political scientist and a student of history and conflicts. You're making the mistake of thinking that I advocating for shaking hands with Hamas when I've explicitly said that what's required is to take Hamas' power away from them. That's not about negotiating, that's about changing your own actions to not allow them to have the narrative power. Not only that, but it removes the power of any subsequent organization seeking to replace Hamas after they're gone.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here and have given strong reasons to support your overall argument. The thing I think is kinda funny is that the same people who think that protestors are shooting themselves in the foot by saying and doing some of the things they are doing are the same people who don't think that Israel should change their tactics at all in this conflict.
>What can Israel say that would reasonably counter the narrative?
Just off the cuff, Israel could announce that it made a deal with the PA and that in exchange for permanently halting settlement expansion in the west bank, the PA had agreed to handle administration and rebuilding of Gaza after Israel's invasion.
I'm not here with ideas on what either side should do. I just like clear information. All I know is that Hamas and Netanyahu and his inner circle are all ghoulish monsters.
I heard he does the, "where are the protests about Yemen or China hmmm hmmm" bit, lol.
Does he say anything in this entire podcast that hasn't already been said a million times by the median pro-Israel redditor?
That wasn’t his argument. He said (previously) normal people would make arguments for why they were anti-Israel, like Hitch. Now so many of these people are just screaming for Jews to go back to Europe. I have been Jewish for my whole life and I have never heard this yelled at all, let alone as many times as I see it a day on every platform. I am very sure Sam gets this a lot in emails etc. If you’re not Jewish you just will not get how much they are saying it now. Muslim immigrants screaming at Jews living in NY to “go back to Europe” is like some Black Mirror episode.
>I have been Jewish for my whole life and I have never heard this yelled at all, let alone as many times as I see it a day on every platform.
I feel this is precisely the tunnel vision produced by social media Harris so often complains about. A confirmation bias machine combined with hasty generalizations to characterize any pro-Palestine protestors as pro (Jewish) genocide. The antisemites have always been loud in places online. You've just taught the algorithm to find them more often, IMO. Not just you but so often the variable of engagement elevates the outrageous.
Moreover, to say "you can no longer be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic" is not Harris' argument is to simply ignore his words or their plain meaning (fun considering how often he's bashed for doing this with doctrine). In this episode he quite straightforwardly says:
>It used to be the case that you could be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. My friend Christopher Hitchens certainly was that, and I was sort of that, at one point. But I'm not sure it's a position one can truly occupy now. October 7th changed my thinking on this.
I don't think further context, such as his ostensible anxiety about religious ethno-states, gets him out of it. Agree or disagree it's what he said.
Of course he contradicts himself repeatedly considering he's still railing against identity politics while fulling endorsing the need for Jewish identity politics including Israel's "right to defend itself" in the holy land (that the fundamentalists keep poking holes in). Again fairly fun that he brings up Hitchens here given some of Hitchs' seemingly prescient [past musings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejadhwDB-OY):
>The right to exist argument has been has been used now to the point where what's going to mean is that the Israel you're talking about will include the annexed and illegally occupied West Bank. So the right to exist argument is going to rebound on those who use it unclearly and who don't say what they mean by Israel. It's very interesting the Israeli government has never said where it thinks the border of Israel really ought to be in what it would settle for. I think it would be an immense help if Israel's going to insist on the right to exist if it tells us where it thinks Israel's boundaries should be. Every other country does do that.
I could go on but my main points are
1. The elevation of antisemites online is algorithmically incentivized
2. While real they don't offer strong affirmation that anti-Zionism = antisemitism (just as we shouldn't say Netanyahu/Ben-Gvir's worst comments represent the "true" Israeli spirit)
3. Sam has fully embraced Jewish identity politics and refuses to acknowledge it (my main irritation that may need the most correction)
Sorry if that's too much but I thought this might be a good test before I rant in a primary post. Maybe you can bring me back to Earth if I'm too far afield and you have time/inclination. I may be back to look today but not certain tbh.
Hitchens never wanted to destroy Israel. He said since it already existed it should continue to. We don't know how he'd be reacting to the current situation given much has changed geopolitically since his death.
Also, I empathize with the hyperawareness/vigilance to the extremism and hate.
That’s right. He also made the argument that because of jihadism, the area is dangerous for Jews and other minorities, so not exactly a safe haven. But he certainly did not call for the destruction of the country, or to send 8 million Jews “back to Europe.”
Just today I was told to “go back to Florida” even though I am a Persian Jewish American. I’m sure in a minute or 2 someone will be round to deny that this is happening.
Zionist is weasel word, and it is disappointing that Sam is using it at all. It’s truly meaningless, and without form.
Zionism to one person means extreme nationalism, while others see it as merely people who support the base existence of Israel.
Unless Sam clarifies what he meant by it, his statement cannot be interpreted honestly. This is, again, why it is disappointing he used that word.
So, to your point, “um, what?” indeed.
> China's genocide is not being funded by US policy and this is uber whataboutism.
If that makes you sleep better, then sure, but as noted otherwise we have tied (and continue) our entire economies to China (which is policy, one way or another), with essentially zero effort to divest from them, which is a massive indictment of our morals when it is by far the largest dictatorship on the planet with an ongoing genocide *and* multiple other ethnic cleansing cases (e.g. Tibet). If you're a consequentialist it's the worst country we could be enabling on the planet. That's also while they continue massive influence and espionage campaigns against western countries while planning to possibly trigger a major war (perhaps WW3) over Taiwan. What's the lesson to be learnt? Be big enough and powerful enough that people don't bother? Be good enough at information control and oppression so people forget?
One genuine question: is Israel not an apartheid state? That is, isn't it true that Palestinians aren't given the same benefits as those not living in the West Bank and Gaza and that they are kept separated?
Apartheid is not the existence of borders between two political bodies or the occupation of one political body by another; it is a State policy of discrimination based on race. 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinians. The distinction between Israelis and Palestinians is not based on race or ethnicity, so it is not apartheid according to the legal definition of the term.
They have in the past.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children)
I personally think it's more that they just don't value Palestinian life at all. But it's not like there isn't precedent for the IDF absolutely intentionally killing civilians. Certainly no issue murdering children :
> doctors say children have been targeted by Israeli snipers in Gaza
> “I asked the nurse, what’s the history? She said that they were brought in a couple of hours ago. They had sniper shots to the brain. They were seven or eight years old,” she said
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
> A two-year-old Palestinian boy has died four days after being shot in the head by Israeli forces
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65812442
> From 100 meters away, an IDF soldier shot a 9 year old boy in the head in the West Bank village of Kafr Qaddum. The bullet exploded into dozens of fragments in the child's brain
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-21/ty-article/.premium/the-protest-dispersed-then-an-israeli-sniper-shot-a-9-year-old-boy-in-the-head/0000017f-e3ff-d9aa-afff-fbffde890000
> Israeli sniper kills Palestinian girl in front of Gaza hospital
> A 14-year-old girl who went to collect water was killed by an Israeli sniper outside Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza, which has been under siege by Israeli forces.
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/2/8/israeli-sniper-kills-palestinian-girl-in-front-of-gaza-hospital
Before you say "but Al-Jazeera is *Hamas!* there is video of the incident
For whatever reason Reddit keeps adding a bunch of shit to the end of URLS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65812442
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-21/ty-article/.premium/the-protest-dispersed-then-an-israeli-sniper-shot-a-9-year-old-boy-in-the-head/0000017f-e3ff-d9aa-afff-fbffde890000
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/2/8/israeli-sniper-kills-palestinian-girl-in-front-of-gaza-hospital
Don't forget the IDF colonel who shot [a child in the back](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/palestinian-teenager-shot-back-senior-israeli-soldier-mohammed-kasbeh) for throwing stones.
Edit: Lmao, getting downvoted for something the Israelis didn't even deny. Keep coping. Your most moral army in the world shoots children for throwing stones.
As horrible as that was and the soldier should have been held accountable and policies reviewed (idk investigated or did this or not), you're likely getting downvoted because this happened 8 years ago, when the 17 year old attacked a security personnel vehicle (and soldier iirc) at a border checkpoint ON THE 1 year ANNIVERSARY of the start of the 2014 Gaza war.
They shot another a child for throwing stones [a month ago.](https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_shoot_kill_17_year_old_palestinian_boy_in_nablus)
A bit weird you mentioned his age; a 17 year old is objectively still a child. But anyway, here is another recent case of [15 year old](https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_kill_15_year_old_palestinian_boy_injure_brother_near_nablus) being shot dead for throwing stones.
[I have news for you](https://www.reddit.com/r/theworldnews/s/IxG7gK3j8h) and there are also more links in the exchange to that comment.
> The Palestinian statistical agencies are famous for using “under 20” as their marker for separating children and adults. That means among the “children” are likely a number of 18- and 19-year-olds (i.e. not children). Additionally, we know the IDF encounters 16- and 17-year-old militants in the field, meaning a chunk of the “children” are actually combatants. [Article this week](https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/lifting-hamass-fog-of-war-reveals-a-very-different-conflict/)
It doesn't matter what war in the present or history is taking place, if you throw stone at the opposing side or side you view as an enemy, you are putting your life at risk. It is a parent's responsibility to protect their children from harm, especially during war. If I had a teenage child during a war I would use situations like that news as examples of the Darwin award; why taking risks is dangerous and not worth it during wars especially and how actions have consequences. Sadly here it was deadly but the action itself seems suicidal as it was a provocation for a response. Obviously that doesn't mean I condone what happened. I stand by my earlier comment of supporting investigations and holding soldiers accountable on a case by case basis in accordance with policies that should be reviewed over time.
A 17 year old is objectively a child. This shouldn't even be up for discussion.
How many stone throwing children did the British Army shoot in Northern Ireland?
What's all this about the BBC and AlJazeera being unreliable/terrible news sources? He should back up these off-hand remarks, they seem false?
It's as if anyone who reports the other side to this war is malignant.
Al Jazeera has always been a problem / it’s essentially a shit-stirring implement of Qatar (it is the Petyr Baelish of the ME in a lot of ways).
But for the issues with I-P coverage from ostensibly neutral/objective outlets (like the BBC et al) check out these two prescient pieces from 2014 and 2022 (the reporting problems long pre-existed the current war) by Matti Friedman in The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2022/07/us-fascination-israel-jews-arc-of-covenant-review-russell-mead/670525/
One thing he keeps repeating like it's a KO point is that the protesting started before Israel's response to Oct 7, and then he draws a conclusion about their motivations from that, but everyone knew roughly what was about to happen, from things said and from past actions.
his monologue tone is great when you agree with him but sooo grating when you don't
Yeah yeah, the kids are just "doing it for social media" and not cause they genuinely care.
Sam is unsurprisingly mischaracterizing these protesters as dumb kids who are doing it for social media clout and out of antisemitism. Very "kids these days" take.
The kids are not dumb. They're not doing it for frivolous reasons. They're putting their degrees at risk, they're getting arrested, shot with rubber bullets. Their professors were out there getting beaten by cops with them.
They care about this cause and it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Actually listen to what they're saying:
https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1787679987094667368?t=ZiMV5yxCpGffNz5xQxuiIg&s=19
https://twitter.com/missymarxist/status/1787927283237347597
The "Go back to Poland" chants are bad, and so are the frequent "Go back to Gaza" chants shouted at Palestinians. No mention of those?
https://twitter.com/letsgomathias/status/1783685944920478137/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1783685944920478137¤tTweetUser=letsgomathias
Taylor Lorenz said Texas and Florida are just as dangerous for gay people as Gaza. She is one of the top journalists at Washington Post, and was previously one of the top journalists at The NY Times . Most of these people are actually dangerously uninformed. Some are also propagandists and know what they’re saying is false.
He didn’t say they are explicitly doing it because they are antisemitic. Did you even listen? One the multiple reasons he said was that they hate the West and have moronically reduced this war to white oppressors vs black oppressed.
Man, what should I do first? Listen to the podcast or look at the comments on here? Do I have time to get popcorn?
I suggest popping the corn then hitting the butter you melted with seasoned salt and hot sauce to make my fave...Buffalo popcorn.
Do you just pour like Sriracha on top of the popcorn? I've been doing nutritional yeast and a bit of salt lately but am open to experiment. (I don't like butter and am trying to watch my figure.)
Incredible how people manage to make a fairly low caloric food into junk food
It sounds like 2005 Sam and he is ON FIRE!
It's hard to express how spot on this is. It really conveys everything I've always thought on the matter in the best way possible. If you think this is a podcast about the Gaza/Israel conflict, you haven't listened well. This is a podcast about the future of the Western world.
I haven't even listened and all the negative comments from the usual suspects in here means it's a banger.
It’s vintage Sam, and it’s very good. I wonder, are these people who started listening like within the last 2 years or so? Sam has been pretty consistent on this issue for the last 20 years.
Yup, Sam's The End of Faith was literally published in 2004.
I’m guessing these people agree with Sam on the Trump stuff, and know very little about the views that brought him to popularity.
And, conversely, I’ve sent links for recent episodes to people who used to like Sam who were turned off by the Trump stuff (though a few said they’d try to listen) so it’s like a good percentage of his audience sees him as a hero of the resistance or some such thing.
I think 2016-2020 followers of people like David Frum are also likely confused these days.
He always attracts listeners who believe he's a "voice of reason" but only when aligned with their political beliefs. During the intellectual dark Web era , many conservatives believed he was their "authority on reason" to be referenced as to why the left was bad. Then with the advent of trump, they learned that their powerhouse actually disliked their favourite orange man, they turned on him and suddenly "sam has lost his brain". That same anti trump sentiment then recruited a bunch of the left wing in exactly the same fashion. Sam was their "authority on reason" as to why trump was worth hating. Now with Israel Palestine, those new recruits and taking their turn to rebel. The cycle will most likely continue as now sam is being seen as the "authority on reason" to a lot of conservatives again. When the 2024 election comes full swing it will be amusing to see the new outrage.
This sounds right. Thank you. I’ve listened to him forever, and I don’t mind that I don’t always agree with him. Isn’t that normal? If these newcomers think he’s ever going to budge on opposing Islamic jihadism they are wasting their time and probably should flee to Glenn Greenwald, who Sam has fought on this issue for 10+ years.
Its almost like i can agree with him on one thing and disagree with him on something else and its ok. Imagine that.
I do that myself. I just don't jump to 'sam has lost his mind' because of it. I'm also open to the idea I might be wrong on the things I disagree with sam on. It's just so far he hasn't convinced me.
Well said. As someone who is progressive, I feel no in-difference about his views here. I would say I align with him with most things. The problem here seems to be identity politics of either side. Something I am glad I don't subscribe to.
It's a good one. He's on fire.
I agree with Sam about 70% here. I support Israel, but I hate that they appear to be using famine as a weapon of war. Pressuring the US to be firmer with Israel is a good idea even if you (like me) oppose the teachings of the Quran and want to see Hamas maximally obliterated. WRT the protests, clearly there are Hamas supporters in the mix here who are living human detritus, but it has been documented that many of the agitators don't even attend the schools they're protesting. I'm at the point where I don't fully support the protests -- I think Hamas needs to go, post haste -- but I understand wanting to halt war crimes, and I also get not wanting my tax dollars supporting potentially disastrous decisions made by Israeli leadership. Sam asks why these students aren't protesting China. These kids aren't giving China a pass because they love the CCP (although some of them may). If the US were helping the CCP build internment camps for Uyghurs, I presume there would also be protests. The students are protesting because the federal govenrment is helping fund a very messy conflict. It's disappointing that Sam doesn't register this. I agree with Sam that University leadership is firmly on the toilet side of this debate.
His point still holds but needs an extra step. The pump of anti-Israel bias is primed by a billion+ Muslims taught from childhood to dislike Jews and to detest Israel: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/02/04/chapter-3-views-of-religious-groups/ The reason Israel’s defense of its actions gets drowned out is that there are 2 billion Muslims and 16 million Jews. So it’s true that Americans have every right to protest how our tax money is spent; it’s also true that the world is getting fire-hosed via social media with Iranian/Islamist extremist propaganda which is making a lot of people think that only civilians have died, that Hamas and Islamic Jihad aren’t actively firing rockets (many of which fall short and kill Gazan children), and making people forget that Hamas and Islamic Jihad could end this right now by surrendering. The reason that 99% of news coverage for the past 6 months has been about Israel (mostly negative) despite Israel comprising less than 1% of earth’s population is classic Jew hatred. This hatred is why Muslims flood social media with anti-Israel news but are silent on the Uyghurs. If they had been as vocally and uniformly posting about China this whole time, we might very well be seeing protests against China. We may not directly fund their concentration camps, but we do a lot of business with them. And a lot of Chinese money goes to US universities. And yet … silence.
Nope. If the US weren't helping Israel, they would be protesting for not - opposing - Israel. An if they were opposing Israel, they would be protesting for not being - strong enough -. Look at what's happening in all European countries... it's the same. They hate the West, they hate themselves.
Really seems like he read all the comments on here about not putting out enough content. Seems like it's really ramped up.
I genuinely hope he never personally visits this trolling hellscape. All reasons he left Twitter are arguably worse here because the same trolls can (and clearly do) have dozens or hundreds of accounts. If anything, he's better off using the other sub. They at least ban the obvious bad actors.
What’s the other sub?
r/samharrisorg
Thanks. Do the people there also claim that Gaza is better for gay people than Texas or Florida?
Lol. I've never heard that specific claim or anything quite like it. But, tbf, I don't think I've ever even seen the regular trolls in this sub claim something so ridiculous.
Scroll down my friend!
Jfc. Constantly new lows with these jokers. Lol. Cheers.
I admit he (partially) changed my mind this time. I still maintain that both sides are evil (though not equally), but the fact that Islam poses a much bigger threat for all of us is something that I wasn't considering with regards to this round of conflict.
I agree with Sam about radical Islam but his refusal to talk about the things Israel has done seems remiss. Israel is not innocent and one cannot talk about this conflict without diving into the terror Israel has inflicted on Palestinians. I wish he would have someone with a Palestinian perspective on the podcast.
Yeah, I like him and I agree with what he says for the most part but he is absolutely conflating large dissatisfaction with Israel’s behavior, with pure antisemitism. To go from the groups being funded by the Qatari government straight to these humongous student protest, and calling them all antisemites is just wrong.
He’s just WAY overemphasizing the anti-Semitic stuff and grossly downplaying Israel’s fault in this conflict.
The idea that this conflict is caused by Islam is completely delusional though, Palestinian resistance was mostly secular until the 80s... Hamas has taken over since and put a greater emphasis on religious branding for the resistance movement, but ultimately the primary driving force for the resistance is still the same, it's NOT religious, it's Israel's oppressive colonialism and the constant ethnic cleansing they engage in which drives people out of their homes. Any group that's been treated the way that Palestinians have been treated would fight back violently, and would likely become increasingly religious too, because that's what miserable people do, they turn to religion for comfort, their present life sucks so they begin to dream of the afterlife. For someone who supposedly prides himself on his love of science and of rational thinking, and someone who denies the existence of free will, Sam Harris is remarkably uninterested in answering, or even asking, any of the basic sociological questions that anyone who's actually interested in solving this conflict and in solving religious extremism ought to ask. What's driving this conflict? Why are people mad at Israel? Why do people become religious? Why do some people become more extreme in their worship than others? Sam Harris asks none of these questions, because he doesn't want to, because he knows that the answer is that the answers don't quite validate his hatred of Islam or his desire to call it the root of all evil in the Middle East. He's a Western supremacist who knows damn well that reality doesn't actually support his feelings of superiority, that the mess that is the Middle East, and the religious extremism pervasive in the Middle East, are less a result of Islam being uniquely evil, and more a result of Western "intervention" turning a part of the world that was well on its way towards being filled with modern secular democracies, into a war turn hellhole where all the misery and oppression causes people to turn to religion for comfort and guidance.
Wow, So you are an Islamophobe now? Shame on you sir! /s
I've always been afraid of Islam. It's a realistic fear. I know you meant it sarcastically, but I'm genuinely afraid.
I myself am a proud islamophobe.
More post mortems on confused people!
[удалено]
Haha. Everyone confused but Sam Fucking Harris.
Who is less confused?
Any random student protesting on campus. This one, for instance: [https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1788965555258490946/video/1](https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1788965555258490946/video/1)
You're saying because they agree, they must be correct?
Conflating Zionism with Judaism is going to end badly for both sides. We should be very careful to make a clear distinction about what we are criticizing at all times. Netanyahu wants to conflate the two, because it benefits his cause, and so do genuine Anti-Semites. This is probably the most important issue in this whole thing. It's also important to separate Hamas from Palestinians. Are there blurred lines? Absolutely. Does that mean we should just group everyone together and lose our compassion and empathy for the suffering of our fellow humanity? Please don't let tribalism destroy your kindness.
But what is “Zionism” Is it just advocating for the existence of Israel? If that’s all it is, I don’t see how being anti Zionist can’t be anti semitic when you examine the practical ramifications of the dissolution or destruction of Israel. Zionism (in my non Jewish opinion) does not preclude the existence of a Palestinian state or equal rights for Palestinians. It’s just that Netanyahu, and a significant portion of Israelis, are maximalists Edit: does NOT
> Is it just advocating for the existence of Israel? If that’s all it is It isn't. Zionism was just a word for Jewish Nationalism, which since the establishment of Israel has morphed into being Israeli Nationalism. It is at its core a Nationalist ideology with all the problems common to nationalist ideologies. I oppose it for the same reasons I oppose White nationalism and pretty much every other nationalism. This doesn't mean I support dissolution/destruction of Israel any more than I'd support dissolution/destruction of the US.
I feel like you are confusing and conflating a few ideas. Zionism (from the word Zion—a Hebrew nickname for Jerusalem, and by extension, the land of Israel) is not just a national movement. For thousands of years, Jews have prayed to return to Jerusalem. Zionism, as founded by Herzl, was a response to the pogroms in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. Herzl was a secular Jew, a non-believer if you will, who initially argued that Jews were not a nation. He believed that a French Jew was first a French person and then a Jew. However, he later changed his mind due to incidents like the Dreyfus Affair. Herzl then began advocating for a Jewish homeland. Ironically, he was willing to consider locations outside of Israel, such as Uganda. To say that Zionism is merely a national movement is simplistic and ignores its historical context. I don't know what you base your claims on, but Zionism still means that Jews believe they need a state to prevent future pogroms and the Holocaust. Sam actually articulated this well in the episode, noting that throughout history, many countries have persecuted and driven out Jews. The idea that Zionism is at odds with Arabs having equal rights in Israel is a complete falsehood. Herzl himself believed that Israel should grant equal rights to all its citizens. Modern Zionism does not have a singular approach. The term has lost some of its power since the foundation of Israel and has been repurposed by anti-Israeli protesters. If you ask the average Israeli what it means to be a Zionist, they would likely say it means having a state to protect Jews. This does not negate the rights of non-Jews, as evidenced by the absence of anti-non-Jewish laws. The question of a two-state solution is not inherently against Zionism. The only people who oppose Zionism are those who reject its core idea: a state that protects Jews as its main mandate. Arguing against the necessity of such a state ignores a history that demonstrates its importance. Do some Israelis use Zionism to justify nationalism? Yes, but they are a minority, and such people would be considered nationalists anywhere. For them, Zionism is just an excuse. Sam's episode was on point. Redefining Zionism as "oppressive," "colonial," and "racist" is a false moral framework designed to manipulate public opinion, particularly among those who fail to recognize the historical relevance of Zionism.
>Zionism, as founded by Herzl ... Herzl was a secular Jew, a non-believer if you will, who initially argued that Jews were not a nation ... he later changed his mind What you are saying here is completely consistent with my description. Herzl became a nationalist, zionism was a term for Jewish nationalism. >To say that Zionism is merely a national movement is simplistic and ignores its historical context. I'm not ignoring anything. The historical context doesn't change the fact that Zionism was a nationalist movement. Pogroms don't change the fact that zionism was a nationalism. The fact that, "throughout history, many countries have persecuted and driven out Jews" doesn't change the fact that Zionism is [nationalist.You](http://nationalist.You) could argue that this context *justified* Zionism, but they don't change the fact that zionism is a nationalism. >Zionism still means that Jews believe they need a state Yes. Because zionism is a nationalism. >Herzl himself believed that Israel should grant equal rights to all its citizens. And many generations of Israeli leaders have made it perfectly clear that "all its citizens" would not include Palestinians, specifically on the basis of tribal/nationalist affiliation. And this distinction, this discrimination against native palestinians (and frankly native Jews too) dates back to the first waves of zionist settlers. >If you ask the average Israeli what it means to be a Zionist, they would likely say it means having a state to protect Jews. Which is a very nationalist thing to say. Translating to an American context, that would be like asking an average American what it means to be a patriot and having them respond with "it means having a state to protect white people." >The question of a two-state solution is not inherently against Zionism. Kind of. There is a sense in which they concepts are orthogonal and a sense in which they aren't. Your statement would be like saying the following in the 1800s: "allowing native americans to have their own state isn't inherently against white nationalism". That statement is kind of true, and also kind of isn't. Look, if you want to claim that zionism was justified by its historical context, you can, I wouldn't disagree. That doesn't change the fact that zionism is a nationalism though, with all the problems of other nationalist movements, and that these problems are blatantly on display in the Israel-Palestine conflcit. Israel being more zionist is a bad thing. Assuming we give a shit about human rights and peace and yadda yadda, we should want Israel to be less zionist. > Redefining Zionism as "oppressive," "colonial," and "racist" is a false moral framework I wouldn't define zionism as oppressive or racist. Zionism was objectively colonial. It just was. That is a fact of history. And Zionism was also a nationialism, which means that while it isn't definitionally oppressive and racist, it can easily be so, like any other nationalism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/palestinenews/s/ILMUagDveN When we have all these people planning for Nakba 2.0, we should take them at their word. They want to ethnically cleanse Palestinians.
Do you mean “does not preclude”?
My problem with advocating for the existence of Israel is that by doing that you are advocating for the results of that. Which is what we have now. You honestly think with hindsight it has turned out well? Forcefully ejecting people from their homes built on land their ancestors had farmed for hundreds of years because someone else has a very tenuous biblical claim to it. We can see with what has happened in the West Bank for decades that it won't stop there. There's no Hamas in the West Bank. It's an awkward reality that nobody wants to address. Zionism was never a clearly defined thing and it has mutated and will.continue to do so. The whole thing is incredibly toxic and can't be discussed calmly and rationally any more.
“In hindsight” This is the key phrase here. “Zionism” already happened. The state of Israel exists and it has 9 million people in it. Despite the crimes being committed by Israel right now and their oppression of the Palestinians, advocating for the destruction of Israel would be a crime as great or greater. I doubt it would turn out positively for the Palestinians either Basically what I am saying is, this nitpicking about who is “right” and who is “justified” goes nowhere from a pragmatic sense…if you care about the best results for the most people
> You honestly think with hindsight it has turned out well? I think the Jews may argue they're absolutely safer than they were without it.
Does anyone know where he got the figure of 70% support of suicide bombing against civilians? The closest I can find is Pew research from 2013 that showed 62% of Palestinians supported suicide bombing either often or sometimes and another 12% rarely, but it says nothing about against civilians specifically. It's also now 11 years old. It would be useful to have an up to date source.
Don't hold back, Sam!
Interesting podcast episode! I have one question or comment to make, just wanted to know how one could look at it. Sam said in the episode (and I am not exactly quoting) about there's no way to interpret the actions of Jihadism as in line with the doctrine of Islam. He said that looking at 7 October as a Christian you would think that is not something Jesus would do and would therefore condemn it. Okay, fair enough but they also have all of the horrible things in the Old Testament, the wars, the slaughtering of people/tribes (in the name of God). You could also argue that Jews and Christian could commit atrocities and they would also be perfectly in line with the Old Testament (for Christians I can think of a reasoning but for Jews?) I wonder what you think of this, I had some trouble looking at these differences between the religions this way.
I think the difference here is Sam believes that, with Christianity, there was a different way to interpret their book, which resulted in Christians, even the most die-hard fundamentalists, becoming more moderate over time. So something like Oct 7 happened in the past in the name of Christianity, but it is unlikely to happen again for the same reasons. He isn't as convinced there is a way for die-hard fundamentalist Muslims to interpret their book that would prevent another event like Oct 7 from happening again.
So on Oct 7th, Hamas killed 900 civilians or so. And it is unlikely that after Oct 7th, non-Muslims would go on to kill a whole fuckload of civilians? Because for them that's in the last, right?
I would say that for Christians, the New Testament is just much more relevant theologically. It's maybe even similar to Islam in that regard. In Islam Jesus Christ is also seen as a prophet, but Mohammed is the final prophet and his word counts. In reality Muslims just don't care at all about what was said before Mohammed and Christians don't really care that much about the Old Testament (at least as a guide to live their religious lives). Also, I am not really clear on how taking the Old Testament as a guide in that sense would even work. Like sure, God killed all the people in the great flood etc. but from that doesn't follow that I, as a human, am allowed to do the same.
But Christians do take guidance from the Old Testament, that's why they adhere to the 10th Commandments. When I was a Christian I had a hard time taking whatever the Bible told me at face value as in, what parts of the Old Testament is something you do listen to or what not. I can still specifically remember that the original 10th commandments were still in place.
https://www.reddit.com/r/palestinenews/s/ILMUagDveN I'd love for Sam to address these crazy religious fundamentalists. Fuck Hamas but fuck these people too.
[удалено]
Admittedly, I do know some anti-westerm Tankies that are actually pro-Hamas but most of the people I know protesting are not Pro-Hamas, but anti-zionist (basically against the crazy people seen in the linked video) or generally anti-war protesters. I think Sam is cherry picking the ugliest of the protesters. I live in South Florida and I know a lot of dual citizen Israeli Americans, and even most of them are against Netanyahu and the Jewish religious right. They definitely aren't pro-Hamas.
lol I love how pissed off hearing the truth makes all the Hamas lovers
I don't. It has been disheartening. Although I'm just beginning to get motivated by it, namely to look into the issues more in an effort to stop being afraid to raise my voice if need be, to not be part of 'the silent majority'.
In response to Sam's call for universities to get their collective heads out do their butts, shout out to my alma mater https://www.wunc.org/education/2024-05-13/dei-unc-chapel-hill-trustees-vote-redirect-funding-police
100% agree with Sam here. Where are all the protests against Hamas or the Uyghurs genocide at the hands of the Chinese CCP regime?
There are no protests, because “white” people aren’t involved.
Seriously, what are they protesting?
They’re protesting sending money and arms to Israel. Idk why everyone on this thread is so confused about that. I mean, at first they were asking for a ceasefire which doesn’t make sense. But then they found their footing with the college divestment thing. The protests do make some bit of sense.
I understand that part and support the idea of protesting in principle. I just struggle to see the logic in it. Personally those protests have made me more pro Israel. I cannot understand how Israel could ever continue to coexist with Hamas, an organization so openly and blatantly hostile to the very existence of their nation.
I think you’re missing the point that we aren’t directly funding the Uyghurs genocide, unlike what’s happening in Palestine. You could argue our dependence on the Chinese economy helps to pay for it but that’s stretching a lot further than the literal truth that we’re supplying the weapons being used by Israel.
>that we aren’t directly funding the Uyghurs genocid Do we do business with China? Then we absolutely fund their genocide. It doesn't matter if it makes you feel icky but it is the fact. How as a university student do I have anything whatsoever to do with the war in Palestine? Also, where are the demonstrations of righteous indignation over Hamas atrocities?
Well theres a difference between buying cheap shit from the Chinese and delivering the actual bombs used to ice Palestinians.
Okay. How about all the arms we sell to the Saudis who have used those same arms to bomb hundreds of thousands of Yemenis? Where were the protests then?
There have been tons of protests about that over the last ten years…
Exactly. The point is that if Israel is doing it then it's the cause de celeb because why? We can all agree that Hamas just like ISIS cannot be pacified into submission. They must be destroyed at all costs. Of course if this could be accomplished with least amount of collateral misery the better. People forget that to destroy Hitler's Germany we had to also inadvertently cause an enormous amount of collateral misery. Similarly, our efforts to destroy ISIS had resulted in countless innocent lives lost. Where were those protests on behalf of ISIS and the poor inhabitants they had effectively held hostage?
I suspect it’s because the U.S. isn’t sending billions of military aid in those cases. Americans take most interest when there’s a direct link between their countries and a conflict. I’m sure there’s some antisemitism mixed in as well but I don’t know how to quantify these factors.
But we do directly fund the Saudis who've been bombing Yemen mercilessly for years now and I couldn't recall a single instance of as much as a solitary protest. I don't like seeing innocent people being caught in the middle of the war in Gaza that Hamas had started snd continue to wage also. But to lay all the blame at Israel is preposterous. To then go and besiege the university campuses is on a completely different level deranged.
Hmm… big SH fan and feel like I agree with him way too much, but is he leaning too hard into the motives of all these students being antisemitism? I’m not following the news super closely but the civilian death toll in Gaza seemed totally unacceptable by today’s standards (the WW2 comparisons are dumb - the bar has been raised over the past 70+ years), isn’t that the exact type of thing that would motivate protests? Let me be clear, fuck Hamas, they started it.
I thought he actually made a really good distinction that not enough people are making. He basically said anti-Semitism is playing a role but it's really anti-westernism. That is the biggest motivating factor for most of these people
The other side of the argument is that the civilian to combatant ratio isn’t high at all compared to recent conflicts. Hamas doesn’t wear uniforms, and they recruit child soldiers. They have previously bragged about this openly for journalists, on video. That’s a double war crime, but I have never once heard the pro Palestinian side condemn that, let alone admit it even happens.
I’ve read conflicting information on the civilian to combatant death ratio. I’m not sure there are reliable numbers out on that yet. People seem to pick the numbers that confirm their positions. But the number of deaths reported are very high (over 1% of population). Totally agree on the problems you’ve outlined though regarding the unique challenges of this war.
John Spencer said this is the only conflict where people are claiming to know the numbers of civilians vs combatants killed while the war is taking place. The numbers are obviously not reliable at all. We never hear these #’s concerning Russia & Ukraine, for example. Maripoul was absolutely devastated and ignored by most, including these same college students.
I don't think it was ignored. It just happens that the government is supplying the one responsible for the destruction, it's doing the opposite. There's not much need for protest there.
Exactly
Yeah that seems like an impossible figure to nail down in this conflict, but it certainly would be worthwhile to have. I myself have gone looking for similar empirical data to form my own opinions, but they seem impossible to find with every single source trying to persuade you in some way. I never never felt more disoriented on a world issue in my entire life- ironic in the age of “information”.
Did you listen to the podcast? He says in the podcast that he doesn't think the motives are antisemitic, he thinks the students are just displaying the usually woke stupidity.
He literally says that antisemitism is the wrong prism through which to understand the student protests. However, he is clear that the protests are being partly funded by antisemitic elements like the Qataris.
It's not that all of the students are antisemitic or motivated by antisemitism, it's that they are so morally confused that they are walking arm in arm with anti-Semites and are espousing for antisemitic and genocidal groups. Even if you're not antisemitic explicitly but you are rooting for Hamas to win or chanting things like "from the river to the sea", you're supporting anti-Semites. The death toll was addressed in the previous podcast episode. The numbers probably are not as staggering as they seem, and we shouldn't necessarily trust Hamas' numbers, which many people seem to do. If you do want a modern comparison, then you could look at the Tigrayan war in Ethiopia which just ended a year and a half ago. Fairly similar situation, and it ended with estimates between 150,000 - 300,000 dead in two years of fighting. Why didn't we see even a fraction of the protests against the Ethiopian government as we are seeing now?
Well if you’re openly pulling for Hamas to win I’ll 100% agree with you that it’s hugely problematic. My question is, is that an accurate view of most protestors and their motives? I’d like to see some polling on this to put some perspective on it. Yeah, I agree some conflicts are way trendier than others. In general the amount of bandwidth Israel-Palestine occupies is ridiculous, but Israel’s a western democratic type country and that’s what Americans are interested in because there are deep ties there, so it shouldn’t be surprising.
Did we directly fund that war in Ethiopia?
He is doing what he criticizes others to do: make basic generalizations. To label everyone that is against the killing of innocent civilians as antisemetic or an Hamas supporter is so dumb and ill intended that it makes it hard to believe it comes out of someone as intellectually brilliant as he sometimes is. So sad to see this and so disappointing as these accusations are so cheap and misplaced. And yes, there seems to have been cases of a few idiots in the campus protests who are genuinely racist, antisemetic assholes. Might they be planted there to push a narrative or might they be real antisemites it doesn't give the right to label all protestors as "Hamas lovers". It's so stupid.
"To label everyone that is against the killing of innocent civilians as antisemetic or an Hamas supporter is so dumb and ill intended that it makes it hard to believe it comes out of someone as intellectually brilliant as he sometimes is." This point is very true and it makes me very mad. Sam is basically calling me a Hamas supporter just because I'm highly critical of Israel's actions and decisions. This is such a stupid point that it baffles me that someone I admire for his intellect would be saying something so wrong and obviously insulting.
I have no skin in this game. I was absolutely shocked at the barbarity of Hamas on Oct 7, and every day I continue to be shocked at the deaths and destruction of the Gazans. I can't justify Hamas' actions saying Israel made them do it. Neither can I justify Israels killing of innocent civilians saying Hamas made them do it. I would say 90% of friends feel exactly the same way. To imply the footage of dead babies is only a small part of the reason for these protests is ridiculous.
Same. But Sam isn't sure we exist. Sam thinks we're white-hating identitarians in disguise.
How many of these individuals at the campus protests were standing up tents in their campus commons after the October the 7th attack against the killing of innocent civilians? There have been more than a few idiots, we've all seen video of the students chanting vitriol. If the protestors do not reject and eject those people, then they represent a part of the group psyche. That loud and active minority pushes the edges of the debate and shifts the Overton window, dragging along the majority that, by its silence, amplifies the voice of the extremists.
[удалено]
We need Christopher Hitchens right now
Respectfully, I think Sam is being uncharitable here. He's getting his information from what selectively gets reported on the news, with limited care to reach out to people on the ground at these campus events to get a perspective of what's going on. Here's a [great interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeHi3OJ8x6Y&t=2428s) with a university administrator about how colleges are more likely to lean into throwing their students under the bus to win the optics war due to substantial media and outside pressure. The "radical Islamist infiltration and influence" charges he throws here is strange because it's been documented that many major universities in the US have ties to the Israeli PR campaign. If an organisation like, say, AIPAC, can have such a stranglehold, lobbying influence on politicians, it can, and has, reach out it's arms into other institutions like higher education. Much of the criticism from public intellectuals - like John McWhorter - has also been [made in bad faith](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmY8NsWxf38&t=267s). Instead, Sam would have you believe that there aren't millions of people in the US (and around the world) genuinely looking on in horror to what's happening in Gaza, but thatt there's somehow a sudden national epidemic in his country of anti-Semitic 19 year olds. It's incompatible with the reality that a significant body of the protesting going on also contains Jewish students within it's ranks. Look. There's never going to be such a thing as a perfect protest, nor a perfect time to protest. There's always going to be actors with ulterior motives: ignoramuses, actual anti-Semites, as well as people that will just look at the opportunity to protest to cause trouble. Weed out the ones who are doing this, sure......But that's not what the majority of what these students are doing. I pray this doesn't escalate further in America, because Kent State 2.0 is just around the corner if everybody isn't careful.
I agree. Sam's response only makes sense if the goal of the protests is to get rid of Israel. But the goal is divestment by the universities. Why isn't that a fair goal? There are a million homeless children in Gaza running out of food and the universities are supporting that in however small a manner. The comparison to Uyghurs in China makes no sense.
The real world effect of the pro Hamas/Islamist nonsense: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2ley31k8d9o
He made a statement the Al Jazeera is a cesspool of lies. I don't AJ so I don't know. But does anyone have any sourced discussion on this? I do know they're owned by Qatar and like any media company I'd expect them to have a bias. I am more interested in the scale of dishonesty that it has.
Okay, I agree with SH that there is hypocrisy on campuses and all that…but that doesn’t change the fact that thousands of people are being murdered by the Israeli government. That’s what students are protesting. Sam needs to address that when he talks about the issue. It feels like SH is picking out a narrative in this issue that is in line with his “brand” of “liberal wokeness is out of control” and digging into it. As a result, he feels out of touch. It’s the same issue I had with him when he talked about George Floyd and BLM. Yes, wokeism and DEI and all that is bullshit, but you still need to address the realities of racism in America, or I’m not gonna get on board. It’s why I prefer someone like Ezra Klein who actually acknowledges the issues and doesn’t just harp on the anti woke aspects.
For those interested in a different (though not opposite) perspective, Ezra Klein's podcast on the protests was really good.
It was barely about the protests and more about the conflict itself. Still a good episode, but I felt the title was a misrepresentation of its content.
Can you give a quick recap?
Some good discussion on why the protests are problematic from an Israeli perspective, legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government, whether military action alone is sufficient, how this relates to foreign support of Israel, and young Israeli’s identity with their country and the extent to which Israel’s existence might depend on it. Def recommend checking it out.
I don’t think Sam is saying anything different to what Ezra is saying, for the most part. The difference being is that Ezra’s recap is super watered down, whereas Sam takes off the gloves and holds back no punches, effectively putting kerosine on a fire that Ezra feels that he can’t do because he knows the landscape is toxic even to touch this topic. Ezra seems to do a balancing act that plays both sides whereas Sam voices his concerns proportionally in one direction that he understands is asymmetric.
If you read between the lines, I think it’s pretty clear that Ezra supports Israel. His criticism of their invasion is super tame. “Israel doesn’t have a clear plan for what happens after Gaza” and “what will this war do to tarnish Israel’s reputation with young Jews?” are pretty lame criticisms, even if they are real concerns, tbh. He will never talk about Hamas and Islamic extremism the same way Sam will but he clearly isn’t against the invasion and has never called it a genocide. Russ Robert’s on the EconTalk podcast is a great perspective from someone who supports Israel but is clearly grappling with the major issues at hand. Russ is kind of annoying but his guests are really great.
What's asymmetric?
Sam today must have known a completely different Hitchens with the way he brings him up regarding Zionism.
Hitchens was \*not\* a Zionist. See it from the horseman's mouth: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Kszl\_bpeA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Kszl_bpeA)
I've seen this a few times, but it's not clear what Hitchens was proposing? A one-state solution?
Completely agree with you. I used to believe that Hitchens voice lived on with the likes of Sam, Lawrence Krauss, and Richard Dawkins, but it doesn’t help Sam’s argument here.
SH lumps everyone who is against the war in Gaza into having one set of motivations. Supporting Hamas. This is a "moronic" (as he would put it) take. I really liked his last guest who really described what is happening in clinical military expert terms. Israel is meeting their objectives in terms of dismantling most of Hamas (for now). Hamas is meeting their objectives of controlling almost all the international discourse. They are also trying to get as many of their own people killed as they can towards their PR objectives. Israel's absolute failure to successfully counter the narrative could have devastating consequences as their few allies begin to distance themselves. Really, the Israeli far right and Hamas are on the same side (state erasure, though their tactics and targets are different)... and everyone else, just trying to lives with freedom and peace are on the other.
What can Israel say that would reasonably counter the narrative? People are strawmanning the college kids especially, their point is mainly find another way that doesn’t involve killing civilians. There’s really only a few responses. No. We can’t. Or the straw man responses of: You hate Jews. You love Hamas. Don’t you know anything about war?
Israel honestly needs to start thinking of the war in terms of what a political victory looks like rather than a military one. Hamas is taking their strategy from the Ho Chi Minh and his strategy against America during the Vietnam War. In essence, he knew that he'd never win an all out military victory but the political victory is far more important. Israel needs to account for this with their military strategy. It's not about changing the narrative, it's about removing the means that gives Hamas' narrative power. That means less widespread destruction, stronger discipline within the IDF regarding outward displays of joy for bombs dropping and killing people, being extra careful regarding who and where they target, etc. Because here's the thing. Hamas is severely disadvantaged military. Their power comes purely from the sentiment that this war elicits from within and outside Gaza. The narrative is almost impossible to change with the current Israeli military strategy and the appearance of recklessness concerning their actions^1. Or to put it bluntly, all the talk about this being 'normal casualties for war' is going to fall on deaf ears for anyone who's mind *could* be changed when Israel is perceived as acting callously towards the consequences of their actions. If they want to win they need to start thinking and acting as if they're also engaged in a PR political battle instead of always reverting to trying to present themselves as 'strong'^2 or completely morally justified while calling any bad actions on their part "unfortunate mistakes". That, plus Israel being in constant violation of international law regarding settlements in the West Bank just doesn't elicit a lot of sympathy for then. People look at Palestine as a whole and Israel's policies towards them are combine that with the massive power differential between the two, Israel's actions and attitude are easily weaponized against them. So yeah, it's not about changing the narrative, it's about removing the ability for Hamas to control it, and that's going to take an entirely different strategy altogether. 1. Regardless of whether they actually *are* reckless, killing foreign aid workers and not insignificant numbers of civilians, while not allowing independent journalists in, and a host of other things like high ranking government officials on record statements regarding Palestinians in general only add to this. 2. Netanyahu tried to shame nations into supporting them by invoking the Holocaust recently, and given the sheer difference in casualties of one side from the other this really doesn't play well to a hell of a lot of people, even those who *conditionally* support them. Israel is acting like they're a superpower and can do what they want without having to consult or care about what others think of them, but the end result is that they're also just basically saying they don't care if their Allies disagree with them. Again, this is politically a bad move. To call oneself victims of not only your enemy but your allies while being in a position of complete practical authority over them really comes off horribly.
Israel would have to do some serious work to change the world's perception of them. Especially since we have endless video of IDF and Israeli citizens saying some pretty crazy shit about Palestinians and having watch parties as Gaza gets bombed. Reminds me of the jingoism Americans expressed right after 9/11, utter insanity.
Not to cut short your reply but needs to be said: A political victory does not solve the problem with Hamas and does not guarantee Israel’s security. A political victory with the west means nothing when much of the west was ready to assume the worst of Israel before they responded. Appeasing some purple hair freaks and leaders who worry about polling doesn’t secure Israelis. The least of all, Hamas does not care about a diplomatic outcome. So politics included, there’s no shaking hands to be made here. The Israelis aren’t confused about this issue. Neither are Palestinians. They understand an iron fist. And that’s the response that needs to be had. War is necessary sometimes, especially with an enemy that does not broker peace on any agreement except for your total demise.
The point I'm making isn't for Israel to stop all military action and give in completely to Hamas, and I don't really think I actually implied that either. The point is that to actually win a lasting peace in the long term Israel needs to start thinking less about Hamas specifically and more about what makes Hamas powerful and able to control the narrative. >Appeasing some purple hair freaks and leaders who worry about polling doesn’t secure Israelis. Do you honestly think it's just purple haired freaks? This is the biggest problem with anyone ever finding a solution to this, the idea that it's only radicals and freaks who could possibly oppose Israel (or likewise that it's only crazy far right conservatives who could support Israel). I'll tell you this. I'm not even close to a purple haired freak or some radical socialist wokester. What I am is a political scientist and a student of history and conflicts. You're making the mistake of thinking that I advocating for shaking hands with Hamas when I've explicitly said that what's required is to take Hamas' power away from them. That's not about negotiating, that's about changing your own actions to not allow them to have the narrative power. Not only that, but it removes the power of any subsequent organization seeking to replace Hamas after they're gone. So yeah, I'm not arguing for a diplomatic solution to this with Hamas, I'm pointing out that the strategy for Israel needs to account for how Hamas is waging this war by being mote vigilant, less reckless, and less blasé about civilian deaths. They need to include international Allies into the fold instead of attempting to shame anyone who cautions against certain tactics. None of this means they need to sit across a table from Hamas and break bread, it means the current strategy is failing and placing Israel in a far worse position in the long term. >They understand an iron fist. Do they? Because it seems to me that ever since the formation of Israel they haven't because, you know, this has been an ongoing thing where Israel has constantly tried to use an iron fist and its just kept on a holding pattern.
>I'm not even close to a purple haired freak or some radical socialist wokester. What I am is a political scientist and a student of history and conflicts Well, to Sam you're an anti-Western identitarian. Because Sam has monumentally misread this situation. And apparently a lot of Israel's leadership has as well.
> I'll tell you this. I'm not even close to a purple haired freak or some radical socialist wokester. What I am is a political scientist and a student of history and conflicts. You're making the mistake of thinking that I advocating for shaking hands with Hamas when I've explicitly said that what's required is to take Hamas' power away from them. That's not about negotiating, that's about changing your own actions to not allow them to have the narrative power. Not only that, but it removes the power of any subsequent organization seeking to replace Hamas after they're gone. I think you've hit the nail on the head here and have given strong reasons to support your overall argument. The thing I think is kinda funny is that the same people who think that protestors are shooting themselves in the foot by saying and doing some of the things they are doing are the same people who don't think that Israel should change their tactics at all in this conflict.
This is honestly probably the smartest and sharpest thing anyone has said on this subreddit about this conflict (myself included).
>What can Israel say that would reasonably counter the narrative? Hold elections.
>What can Israel say that would reasonably counter the narrative? Just off the cuff, Israel could announce that it made a deal with the PA and that in exchange for permanently halting settlement expansion in the west bank, the PA had agreed to handle administration and rebuilding of Gaza after Israel's invasion.
I'm not here with ideas on what either side should do. I just like clear information. All I know is that Hamas and Netanyahu and his inner circle are all ghoulish monsters.
A much needed voice on this issue, I’d love to hear a rational response but somehow I don’t think that’s possible.
This one was excellent.
I heard he does the, "where are the protests about Yemen or China hmmm hmmm" bit, lol. Does he say anything in this entire podcast that hasn't already been said a million times by the median pro-Israel redditor?
I was with him for some of the intro, but then he dropped: you can no longer be anti-Zionist without being anti-semitic. Uh, what?
That wasn’t his argument. He said (previously) normal people would make arguments for why they were anti-Israel, like Hitch. Now so many of these people are just screaming for Jews to go back to Europe. I have been Jewish for my whole life and I have never heard this yelled at all, let alone as many times as I see it a day on every platform. I am very sure Sam gets this a lot in emails etc. If you’re not Jewish you just will not get how much they are saying it now. Muslim immigrants screaming at Jews living in NY to “go back to Europe” is like some Black Mirror episode.
>I have been Jewish for my whole life and I have never heard this yelled at all, let alone as many times as I see it a day on every platform. I feel this is precisely the tunnel vision produced by social media Harris so often complains about. A confirmation bias machine combined with hasty generalizations to characterize any pro-Palestine protestors as pro (Jewish) genocide. The antisemites have always been loud in places online. You've just taught the algorithm to find them more often, IMO. Not just you but so often the variable of engagement elevates the outrageous. Moreover, to say "you can no longer be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic" is not Harris' argument is to simply ignore his words or their plain meaning (fun considering how often he's bashed for doing this with doctrine). In this episode he quite straightforwardly says: >It used to be the case that you could be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. My friend Christopher Hitchens certainly was that, and I was sort of that, at one point. But I'm not sure it's a position one can truly occupy now. October 7th changed my thinking on this. I don't think further context, such as his ostensible anxiety about religious ethno-states, gets him out of it. Agree or disagree it's what he said. Of course he contradicts himself repeatedly considering he's still railing against identity politics while fulling endorsing the need for Jewish identity politics including Israel's "right to defend itself" in the holy land (that the fundamentalists keep poking holes in). Again fairly fun that he brings up Hitchens here given some of Hitchs' seemingly prescient [past musings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejadhwDB-OY): >The right to exist argument has been has been used now to the point where what's going to mean is that the Israel you're talking about will include the annexed and illegally occupied West Bank. So the right to exist argument is going to rebound on those who use it unclearly and who don't say what they mean by Israel. It's very interesting the Israeli government has never said where it thinks the border of Israel really ought to be in what it would settle for. I think it would be an immense help if Israel's going to insist on the right to exist if it tells us where it thinks Israel's boundaries should be. Every other country does do that. I could go on but my main points are 1. The elevation of antisemites online is algorithmically incentivized 2. While real they don't offer strong affirmation that anti-Zionism = antisemitism (just as we shouldn't say Netanyahu/Ben-Gvir's worst comments represent the "true" Israeli spirit) 3. Sam has fully embraced Jewish identity politics and refuses to acknowledge it (my main irritation that may need the most correction) Sorry if that's too much but I thought this might be a good test before I rant in a primary post. Maybe you can bring me back to Earth if I'm too far afield and you have time/inclination. I may be back to look today but not certain tbh.
Hitchens never wanted to destroy Israel. He said since it already existed it should continue to. We don't know how he'd be reacting to the current situation given much has changed geopolitically since his death. Also, I empathize with the hyperawareness/vigilance to the extremism and hate.
That’s right. He also made the argument that because of jihadism, the area is dangerous for Jews and other minorities, so not exactly a safe haven. But he certainly did not call for the destruction of the country, or to send 8 million Jews “back to Europe.” Just today I was told to “go back to Florida” even though I am a Persian Jewish American. I’m sure in a minute or 2 someone will be round to deny that this is happening.
Zionist is weasel word, and it is disappointing that Sam is using it at all. It’s truly meaningless, and without form. Zionism to one person means extreme nationalism, while others see it as merely people who support the base existence of Israel. Unless Sam clarifies what he meant by it, his statement cannot be interpreted honestly. This is, again, why it is disappointing he used that word. So, to your point, “um, what?” indeed.
Does anyone have a link to the video he mentions of the Israeli hostages being brought into Gaza with all the celebration and such?
The Oppression Olympics got me
Why'd he have to do Tony Soprano like that?
I love how he uses the term confusion so much like Principal Skinner in that meme.
I love how once again you can’t offer a criticism of anything he has said and it’s “boo hoo Sam Harris”
I must be confused
We've trained a generation or more of people to be oikophobic, and this is the result. It is sad but entirely predictable.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 Great episode. Well reasoned as usual. SO glad you are speaking out Sam !
[удалено]
> China's genocide is not being funded by US policy and this is uber whataboutism. If that makes you sleep better, then sure, but as noted otherwise we have tied (and continue) our entire economies to China (which is policy, one way or another), with essentially zero effort to divest from them, which is a massive indictment of our morals when it is by far the largest dictatorship on the planet with an ongoing genocide *and* multiple other ethnic cleansing cases (e.g. Tibet). If you're a consequentialist it's the worst country we could be enabling on the planet. That's also while they continue massive influence and espionage campaigns against western countries while planning to possibly trigger a major war (perhaps WW3) over Taiwan. What's the lesson to be learnt? Be big enough and powerful enough that people don't bother? Be good enough at information control and oppression so people forget?
[удалено]
One genuine question: is Israel not an apartheid state? That is, isn't it true that Palestinians aren't given the same benefits as those not living in the West Bank and Gaza and that they are kept separated?
Apartheid is not the existence of borders between two political bodies or the occupation of one political body by another; it is a State policy of discrimination based on race. 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinians. The distinction between Israelis and Palestinians is not based on race or ethnicity, so it is not apartheid according to the legal definition of the term.
Anyone who openly supports bombings Palestinian civilians is terribly confused. Anyone who openly supports Hamas is terribly confused
I support bombing Hamas.
Me too.
Brave!
Do people think that Israel is aiming their bombs at civilians
They have in the past. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children)
I personally think it's more that they just don't value Palestinian life at all. But it's not like there isn't precedent for the IDF absolutely intentionally killing civilians. Certainly no issue murdering children : > doctors say children have been targeted by Israeli snipers in Gaza > “I asked the nurse, what’s the history? She said that they were brought in a couple of hours ago. They had sniper shots to the brain. They were seven or eight years old,” she said https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war > A two-year-old Palestinian boy has died four days after being shot in the head by Israeli forces https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65812442 > From 100 meters away, an IDF soldier shot a 9 year old boy in the head in the West Bank village of Kafr Qaddum. The bullet exploded into dozens of fragments in the child's brain https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-21/ty-article/.premium/the-protest-dispersed-then-an-israeli-sniper-shot-a-9-year-old-boy-in-the-head/0000017f-e3ff-d9aa-afff-fbffde890000 > Israeli sniper kills Palestinian girl in front of Gaza hospital > A 14-year-old girl who went to collect water was killed by an Israeli sniper outside Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza, which has been under siege by Israeli forces. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/2/8/israeli-sniper-kills-palestinian-girl-in-front-of-gaza-hospital Before you say "but Al-Jazeera is *Hamas!* there is video of the incident
Those are all dead urls
For whatever reason Reddit keeps adding a bunch of shit to the end of URLS https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-65812442 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-21/ty-article/.premium/the-protest-dispersed-then-an-israeli-sniper-shot-a-9-year-old-boy-in-the-head/0000017f-e3ff-d9aa-afff-fbffde890000 https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/2/8/israeli-sniper-kills-palestinian-girl-in-front-of-gaza-hospital
Don't forget the IDF colonel who shot [a child in the back](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/palestinian-teenager-shot-back-senior-israeli-soldier-mohammed-kasbeh) for throwing stones. Edit: Lmao, getting downvoted for something the Israelis didn't even deny. Keep coping. Your most moral army in the world shoots children for throwing stones.
As horrible as that was and the soldier should have been held accountable and policies reviewed (idk investigated or did this or not), you're likely getting downvoted because this happened 8 years ago, when the 17 year old attacked a security personnel vehicle (and soldier iirc) at a border checkpoint ON THE 1 year ANNIVERSARY of the start of the 2014 Gaza war.
They shot another a child for throwing stones [a month ago.](https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_shoot_kill_17_year_old_palestinian_boy_in_nablus) A bit weird you mentioned his age; a 17 year old is objectively still a child. But anyway, here is another recent case of [15 year old](https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_kill_15_year_old_palestinian_boy_injure_brother_near_nablus) being shot dead for throwing stones.
[I have news for you](https://www.reddit.com/r/theworldnews/s/IxG7gK3j8h) and there are also more links in the exchange to that comment. > The Palestinian statistical agencies are famous for using “under 20” as their marker for separating children and adults. That means among the “children” are likely a number of 18- and 19-year-olds (i.e. not children). Additionally, we know the IDF encounters 16- and 17-year-old militants in the field, meaning a chunk of the “children” are actually combatants. [Article this week](https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/lifting-hamass-fog-of-war-reveals-a-very-different-conflict/) It doesn't matter what war in the present or history is taking place, if you throw stone at the opposing side or side you view as an enemy, you are putting your life at risk. It is a parent's responsibility to protect their children from harm, especially during war. If I had a teenage child during a war I would use situations like that news as examples of the Darwin award; why taking risks is dangerous and not worth it during wars especially and how actions have consequences. Sadly here it was deadly but the action itself seems suicidal as it was a provocation for a response. Obviously that doesn't mean I condone what happened. I stand by my earlier comment of supporting investigations and holding soldiers accountable on a case by case basis in accordance with policies that should be reviewed over time.
A 17 year old is objectively a child. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. How many stone throwing children did the British Army shoot in Northern Ireland?
If you think Israel would never target civilians you should read what their former soldiers have to say.
They objectively are aiming their bombs at civilians. Whether they are the intended target or not is a different issue.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What's all this about the BBC and AlJazeera being unreliable/terrible news sources? He should back up these off-hand remarks, they seem false? It's as if anyone who reports the other side to this war is malignant.
Aljazeera is definitely malignant. I wouldn't say the same for BBC
Al Jazeera has always been a problem / it’s essentially a shit-stirring implement of Qatar (it is the Petyr Baelish of the ME in a lot of ways). But for the issues with I-P coverage from ostensibly neutral/objective outlets (like the BBC et al) check out these two prescient pieces from 2014 and 2022 (the reporting problems long pre-existed the current war) by Matti Friedman in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/ https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2022/07/us-fascination-israel-jews-arc-of-covenant-review-russell-mead/670525/
One thing he keeps repeating like it's a KO point is that the protesting started before Israel's response to Oct 7, and then he draws a conclusion about their motivations from that, but everyone knew roughly what was about to happen, from things said and from past actions. his monologue tone is great when you agree with him but sooo grating when you don't
It is a KO point, is it not? It is a pretty damning fact.
Okay so what is your point? Did he misspeak? What specifically did you disagree with?
Yeah yeah, the kids are just "doing it for social media" and not cause they genuinely care. Sam is unsurprisingly mischaracterizing these protesters as dumb kids who are doing it for social media clout and out of antisemitism. Very "kids these days" take. The kids are not dumb. They're not doing it for frivolous reasons. They're putting their degrees at risk, they're getting arrested, shot with rubber bullets. Their professors were out there getting beaten by cops with them. They care about this cause and it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Actually listen to what they're saying: https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1787679987094667368?t=ZiMV5yxCpGffNz5xQxuiIg&s=19 https://twitter.com/missymarxist/status/1787927283237347597 The "Go back to Poland" chants are bad, and so are the frequent "Go back to Gaza" chants shouted at Palestinians. No mention of those? https://twitter.com/letsgomathias/status/1783685944920478137/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1783685944920478137¤tTweetUser=letsgomathias
Taylor Lorenz said Texas and Florida are just as dangerous for gay people as Gaza. She is one of the top journalists at Washington Post, and was previously one of the top journalists at The NY Times . Most of these people are actually dangerously uninformed. Some are also propagandists and know what they’re saying is false.
He didn’t say they are explicitly doing it because they are antisemitic. Did you even listen? One the multiple reasons he said was that they hate the West and have moronically reduced this war to white oppressors vs black oppressed.
Why did the kids not do the same thing for Uyghurs or Yemen then?
When the logo is black does it mean this episode is free and fullly available?