Having recently expressed support for our bombing of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, I’ve been reminded that my views about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East can seem perplexing.
Absolute gold as always. So proud to be a subscriber. I still think about your episode "The Bright Line btw Good and Evil," early after 10/7, as the best thing ever said about the conflict. And now this rises to the top. Especially these lines:
"The spread of Islam presents a profound challenge to open societies. While we cherish tolerance as a foundational value, tolerance of intolerance eventually becomes self-destructive."
What "corruption" are you accusing Netanyahu of? He hasn't been convicted. Netanyahu is exactly the sort of hard-line leader any free, secular democracy would be expected to end up with after decades of Islamist attacks. He might just be the first leader to achieve lasting peace with all Israel's Arab neighbours.
Exactomundo! Any country with a leader as smart and tenacious at protecting it is lucky beyond belief in a world where most governments care nothing for their people and often murder large number of them Case in point is Palestinian Gaza or Iran where one wrong move or word can get you killed.
Any honest person needs to examine the circumstances of the accusations against Netanyahu.
Very good point. The world hates this strong, non-apologetic leader of the Jewish nation. Bibi's political dealings in Israel are not outside of the norms in other liberal democracies, and should not be the world's concern during this war. These issues are for the Israeli public to vote on. Bibi will be replaced when a better alternative will present itself (likely Bennett).
Apparently, Netanyahu cannot be tried while in office, much like our President. (I stand corrected. This is not true. I mis-remembered something that i had read awhile ago. ) It is said that he is clinging to power in order to avoid prosecution (correction: with a full independent inquiry). It is also said that he coddled Hamas and is partly responsible for the lack of readiness on October 7th. Did he set the house on fire, so that he could call the fire engines and stay in power? I do not think so but what happened on Oct 7th was very uncharacteristic of Israeli readiness.
He’s in court 3 to 4 days a week, depending on the week. What in the world are you talking about. You can in fact be tried while in office as is being demonstrated now and in the past with the Israeli jurisprudence.
In addition, he was out of power for nearly 2 years, during which time the more serious charges against him fell apart in the courtroom.
Please do at least a minimum amount of googling before spewing nonsense.
I stand corrected on his being tried while in office. My mistake. Conviction does not force resignation. However, there are serious allegations and criticisms of him about his government's lack of preparedness and strategic decisions that may have indirectly contributed to the conditions leading up to the Oct 7th assault. IDF documents revealed that Netanyahu's staff received alerts about unusual Hamas activity hours before the attack but did not escalate for some strange reason? He denies this. Critics argue that Netanyahu's refusal to step down or allow a full state commission of inquiry reflects a desire to avoid accountability while in office. Around 70% of Israelis support an independent state commission but Netanyahu resists this because he would lose control of the process. There appears to be a pattern of bribery in his behavior with 3 cases being tried. An independent commission would be the best way to get to the bottom of it. We will see if attacking Iran turns out to have been the best way to solve the problems Israel is confronted with. I am a Zionist with my father having been a holocaust survivor. I just do not believe that Netanyahu is the best leader for Israel at this time.
Maybe all of our Western leaders should be under indictment and "clinging to power" as you say - it certainly got the best leadership out of Netanyahu.
At the risk of repeating what the parent comment said, he has not been convicted of anything. Israeli Justice similar to that of other western nations. Innocent until proven guilty.
I started listening to Sam Harris about 10 years ago. I agreed with his stance on extreme Islam. Like Harris, I believed the aggressive proselytizing was something to be scared of, but more importantly to me, I believed the brutalizing of >50% (women and gay people) of the population within Muslim societies was the bigger, more egregious, problem. There is something particularly heartbreaking about that to me. I believed Harris also cared deeply for the internal victims of extreme Islam.
My question to Harris and his fans now is, why doesn’t he seem to care for them now? Innocent women and children are being slaughtered. This, along with the release of the remaining hostages, is all we should be thinking about at this moment.
I can almost hear Harris get around this by blaming it all on Hamas using the innocent as human shields. Fuck Hamas, they truly are scum. However, it takes two to tango for the slaughter to continue. Israel are the ones dropping the fucking bombs. They are supposed to have one of the most sophisticated militaries on the planet, why can’t they be more surgical? Send in more boots on the ground to seek out and kill hamas, rather than murder hundreds in the pursuit of a couple of terrorists.
The only answer I have for this is that Israel, and Sam Harris, value a Palestinian life way way less than an Israeli life, and in Israel’s case always have done.
He kinda spells its out. Because the vast number of people in the region still support Hamas. Im sure if that wasnt the case, Israel probably would be a little more careful. But they do support Hamas. The answer that no one wants to admit, is to completely fully eliminate the problem, about 6-10 countries in the middle east need to be exterminated entirely.
I’d like to see the polls on current support for Hamas in Gaza.
I’d also like to hear Harris discuss why they voted for Hamas in the first place, what drove them down that path. I would suggest a lack of basic freedoms, living in an apartheid state and straight up being treated like shit by the people who stole their land had something to do with it.
Also support for Hamas isn’t a good enough reason for mass murdering people, especially with the levels of propaganda at play in the region.
Was support for Hitler good enough reason for the allies to kill all those thousands and thousands of German civilians in endless bombings and combat as they moved in Germany? How else were they supposed to end Nazism?
The problem in Gaza is that it is almost impossible or perhaps impossible to distinguish who is supporting Hamas and who is not. There is most likely a wide range of degrees of support from religious fanatics endorsing everything Hamas does to people who truly hate Hamas and everything they stand for (the true victims of this war), and most likely there is everything in between. If most of the population was totally against Hamas and did not cooperate or help Hamas, I don’t think they could stay in power so long like they are doing. It’s a mess and a very complex problem. It’s a tragedy but it seems to me too many palestineans are not ready to do anything to get rid of Hamas even in their desperate position. I feel terrible for anyone there who truly hates Hamas and their philosophy and are trapped in Gaza. They may not be a majority and that is what makes this problem so complex.
Fair points about Gaza, but to answer your question about the allies razing German cities to rubble, or the Germans flattening Warsaw or the US dropping nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no these were all compete unnecessary, they were wrong then and it is wrong now in my opinion. Also I dont think WW2 is comparable at all to the situation in the Middle East.
Well Harris gives the numbers and the sources for the polls, so read the article and youll find those. He also explains why they keep voting them in. Its very abundantly clear that you didnt even read the post, so Im not sure what youre doing commenting.
Harris cites only 38% of people in Gaza still support Hamas. So how is that the vast number as you put it? He had to expand the poll to the West Bank to get it over 50%. Hamas are not in control of the West Bank, so not relevant. He’s is doing everything he can to convince people like you, and possibly himself, that it is still ok to slaughter women and children. He has lost all credibility.
I read it. It’s totally fucking clear you are not paying attention, there hasn’t been an election in Gaza since 2006, so who is still voting them in? Go back to sleep Jimmy.
Just so we’re clear: you’re advocating the extermination of every man, woman, and child in half a dozen countries—because of polling data. That’s not “tough realism.” You’re talking about the extermination of hundreds of millions as if it were even remotely within the realm of decency.
What’s your preferred method—bureaucratic famine, a network of desert gulags, or do you want to bring this into the 21st century with megaton warheads?
This may be nitpicking, but Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention captures it perfectly: “destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Congratulations—you’ve reverse-engineered the textbook definition of evil. This is truly thinking outside the Enlightenment box.
If this was meant as dark humor, it failed. If it was serious, it’s obscene.
Atrocities may be driven by monsters, but they are powered by apathy.
Yes, thats pretty much exactly what Im advocating for. Unashamedly. Preferably not via nukes, but 🤷♂️ whatever needs to be done to eliminate radical Islam. Its bot reverse engineering evil, the evil is already there fully engineered. We've "tolerated" these groups for centuries, and what happens? They come back as an even bigger threat, every single time. Thats why i said its a harsh truth. But its still a truth nonetheless.
I wasn’t really wondering if you were ashamed of what you wrote.
Genocide advocates usually aren’t.
That’s kind of the pattern.
Eichmann? He just showed up for work. Punched in. Pushed papers. Oversaw the trains.
Omar al-Bashir? Killed hundreds of thousands. Denied it. Blamed the West.
Mao? Killed tens of millions and reportedly said—“Aren’t there still people left?”
If they’d had smartphones, they would definitely have ended with 🤷♂️.
But it wasn’t predestined. The bad guys in history didn’t start with “war criminal” on their high school career plan.
Hitler wanted to be a painter.
Stalin trained as a priest.
Mao worked in a library.
Pol Pot studied in Paris.
If I had a time machine, honestly, I wouldn’t go back to shoot Hitler. I’d go to Vienna in 1909, buy his paintings—maybe lie a little—tell him they were quite good. Who knows—maybe we’d have more bad watercolors and fewer mass graves.
But don’t misunderstand me—I don’t see you as a monster from history.
I don’t see evil dictator energy here. Not the camp director with the eyepatch. Not even the guard with the snarling dog and two seconds of screen time.
Just bureaucrat #16, refining the train schedule for improved throughput.
No ideology—just procedures.
An important, but ultimately replaceable and forgettable, cog in the machinery of evil.
You’d have done well in Vichy France.
I’m not writing this to change your mind—or to hear more of your thoughts, if that’s the word.
I’m writing it because I needed to. And for the idle reader who might have stumbled across your comment and, for a moment, thought this is the vibe to go with. It isn’t.
Move along. There’s nothing to learn here.
Other people have expressed the same odious ideas—just in full sentences, with proper spelling and grammar—and they were wrong too.
It is the vibe. When a groups primary objective is imposing their set of rules (sharia) upon the entire world, and when they feel a divine right to use terrorism to accomplish that goal, and when theyve been very clear about their intentions (ACTUAL genocide of the Jews), yes, the answer is to kill them all. We have tried for centuries to get muslims to reject those beliefs, but those beliefs are the core of Islam, they cannot be changed. The worlds governments have tried everything to ignore and pacify and bring peace to these people. They dont fucking want it. They want to spread their doctrine to every corner of the world, through violence if neccessary. Kill. Fucking. All of them. And end this terroristic regime.
You've clearly never served in the military, and have no knowledge about the impossible challenges and unique horrors faced in urban warfare. Particularly when facing an enemy who embed themselves within the civilian population, using them as human shields. An enemy who uses the death of civilians as a tactic to further their aims. Urban warfare is never surgical or precise. It's all too human.
The spread of Islam must be stopped, yes. But Isreal needs a new guy. Pretending netanyahu is the leader democratically is Putin levels of delusion.
This guy has been lying about nuclear capabilities for years and has used the US to bomb and terrorize isreals Arab neighbors for decades. Realize that the US has invaded every one of Israel's neighbors besides Iran at this point. Keeping them destabilized and killing and democratic leaders.
Even the worst of the worst (Trump 2, Bibi 3?) in most aspects, may get things right. The Iran nuclear ambitions (purity, 3% for civilian use, not 60% and billions/decades hiding/securing can only be for weapons) Was a clear, essential one.
This is what happens when a scientific mind bumps into a very human, subjective situation. The scientific mind tries to rationalize the most awful shit like it’s solving an equation. Harris has become corrupted by his ideological beliefs, he was once a curious student, now he is a victim. For someone who has read so much Orwell and done so much meditation, it’s amazing he doesn’t have the introspection required to see this. I guess corruption, coupled with confirmation bias, is an all too powerful cocktail. He’s done!
You're clearly confused and unable to grapple with complex problems which require us to step outside of simple, knee jerk, emotional responses and into nuanced critical thinking and rationale to get them solved. You are not a serious participant in this discussion.
As a fan and a follower I'm consistently amazed by how blind you are to your own personal bias about Israel.
Your persistent canard, "If the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be peace in the region. If the Israelis put down their weapons, there would be a genocide." is patently false. Throughout history we see that the people with power become the abusers. Israel becomes more of a bully every year -- and it's not just Netanyahu driving that.
Don't you see the horrific irony of a nation created in response to genocide that is now conducting genocide in Gaza!?! I guess, "Never again" means, "Never again, unless we're the ones doing it."
Your recent comments about the ingenuity of the IDF (e.g. with regard to the cell phone / pager attack) complete overlook the cruelty and indiscriminate nature of the attack -- which definitely hit children and innocent civilians as well as Hezbullah.
Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is a huge problem. There are no easy answers in the Middle East, period. But that being said, I argue that jihad-culture is not the fundamental problem here. The problem is theocracy, regardless of creed. Theocracy is the problem here, whether it's Jews in Israel, Muslisms across the Arab world, or Christian Nationalists right here in America.
I like, admire and respect you very much. I've read all of your books, subscribe to the podcast, watched every internet video and have internalized much of your philosophy.
But I don't believe you are capable of escaping your tribal confirmation bias on this subject. And if you can't, who can? Very depressing.
Its like you didn't even read this note at all, how do you claim to be a fan when you willing close your ears to what he is telling you? Sam has spent so much time on the genocide lie and the morality of the conflict and you repeat the same tired holocaust inversion terms
I don't think we live in a world where someone who believes Israel's committing a genocide is going to sit through 2 hours of Sam Harris and Douglas Murray, but maybe that's just me being too cynical
October 7th gave us a great taste of what would happen if Israelis put down their weapons. The fact that you can’t see that is mind blowing. Do you know Israelis? We want peace. I want peace. My friends want peace. My community wants peace. I want peace for myself and for Palestinians. The second Hamas puts down their weapon this war can end and we CAN have peace. So yea, that quote holds true.
Ben Gvir wants peace? The thousands of teenagers chanting genocidal chants want peace? I hate to break it to you but secular peaceful Israelis aren't the only people who exist in Israel.
How does bringing up extremists prove your point? Every country has them including your own. Does the fact that there are people where you live who hate minorities and foreigners mean that all of your neighbors are hateful people?
Poll after poll has demonstrated that a majority of Israelis want peace
Sure...but then you have to say that the extremists on the other side don't prove your point. You may point to a poll that says "oh well most of them are extremists" but then you'd have to temper that with the fact that their side is quite a bit more powerless, young, poor, and suffering than your side...which means they get more benefit of the doubt than your side does.
I mean bomb whoever you want and deal with the consequences, but as an American I'm really not interested in paying for it. We are currently being run by a god damn idiot lunatic and the significantly smarter lunatic running YOUR country is tricking our lunatic into doing things we don't want him to do! Should I not be upset about that? Give me a break.
That you assert that Trump is being manipulated by smart sneaky Netanyahu is an example of a very traditional anti-Semitic meme. It says a lot about you.
You only have to remind yourself thatTrump astonishingly ordered Netanyahu to turn back the Israeli jets from taking revenge for the hospital—and BB obeyed!—to realize that it’s TRUMP who is doing the manipulating, and BB OBEYS.
Silly. BB plays smart politics in order to control his country and keep his ass out of prison. Trump is an agent of chaos to be manipulated and maneuvered around. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Jewish or non-Jewish people. I don't give a shit about that. I love the Jewish people, wholeheartedly. For you to call what I said anti-semetic because it mildly reflects a very broad trope is to make a straw man of my argument. Trump also tweeted for Israel to stop, the wars over, turn around, and they didn't do that…so what are you talking about?
Art Exckstein, it's not an anti-Semitism meme there are literally clips of Netanyahu bragging about doing this. He takes pride in being able to manipulate politicians.
Oh yes the old canard of how Americans are tired of paying for Israeli bombs . Honey, you “pay” for the bombs by paying your workers to make them. You want to destroy the American military industrial complex, one of the last sources of reliable American jobs by ending foreign “aid”? Go right ahead. Sounds like a winning political and economic move. Bravo!
No, you misunderstand, honey. We pay for Israeli bombs in anti-American sentiment around the globe and the proliferation of terrorism ala 9-11.
But I hear your argument. You believe that if it keeps the America economy afloat we should whole heatedly embrace burning, smashing, and vaporizing people we have no conflict with. Sounds a bit heartless, but I get the logic.
The Palestinians get more benefit of the doubt because they're poor and they suffer? Do you know anything about the Palestinians, their history and their worldview? Has the thought ever occurred to you that some (most?) of their suffering is of their own making?
They have declined statehood 5 times. They have an entire UN agency dedicated to their cause and they receive more aid than any group of people on Earth. So what do they do? They vote a genocidal death cult into power and build rockets and tunnels so they can keep fighting a war that could have been over 75 years ago. If only they could give up their obsession with hating Jews and this fantasy that someday they'll drive them all out to sea, they could someday live normal, peaceful lives.
It's pretty crazy that people feel so free to define Israel as a monolithic radical orthodox community when it is so deeply pluralistic that it seemed to be in danger of self-destructing prior to Oct. 7th.
No, every country does not have extremists at the highest positions in the land. The equivalent would be the US having a Christian nationalist 4th in command who wanted to expel black people and Hindus and wasn't quiet about it
There are numerous European and American states with hateful, racist , antisemitic people in all levels of power. We are living in an age of populist revival . Come off it
There's a difference between dogwhistles/ rhetoric and full out wishes verbatim.
There's also a difference between someone spewing anti Romani hate, and one doing so while actively engaged in the killing of over 40k Romani civilians .
The fucking Vice President of the United States is a Christian Nationalist who believes in the Great Replacement theory. What planet are you living on?
Laughable ... "People with power become the abusers" is more of an explanation to you than every child in Gaza being taught to hate Jews and to glorify martyrdom from the day they are born?
"People with power" is every democratic nation, but you don't see France or the UK embroiled in endless wars — they are living their prosperous, peaceful lives, because they aren't routinely invaded by death cults. Nor do they spend $100K per rocket for an Iron Dome to protect their citizens from daily attacks on 6 jihadist fronts.
Guess what. When these countries were actively involved in commiting atrocities they did face constant terror attacks. The US and the natives is an example
I truly find it miraculous every time I see someone confused in this way regarding this point. Hamas' actions towards Jews and their stated goals of annihilating all Jews has absolutely nothing to do with territorial disputes or past grievances. Their motivation comes simply from the fact that they are Jews and therefore apostates which, by their interpretation of their holy book, means they have a duty to murder them and doing so well bring about great reward. That's it. This is so clear that I must conclude that anybody who doesn't understand this is either illiterate on the subject matter or intentionally dishonest. Again, (just as Sam repeatedly illustrates) land disputes and territorial seizures are completely irrelevant when it comes to analyzing the ethics of this conflict.
Right, Israel is as much a Jewish Nation as The UK is a Protestant Nation, unlike countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that are actually governed by Theocrats. I’m not a Bibi fan but he isn’t a theocrat.
I think the issue of Israel being a theocracy and being a "Jewish Nation" are two separate things. I agree it is not really a theocracy, but it is clearly more of a "Jewish Nation" that your UK example. It's literally the only reason it exists. The UK, as of now, less than 50% consider themselves "Christian", much less Protestant. Despite this, it is still the UK.
that is not the insult you think it is. Everyone who believes the Jewish people have a right to their own state in their ancestral homeland is a Zionist.
It’s a matter of degrees and the difference in degrees is so vast it’s almost a difference of kind. When Westerners are defending Jihadists there’s something VERY wrong.
I think a big problem with Israel's public perception is that their actions have made it easy for many people to be swayed by the colonial oppressor interpretation. When you look at the country's expansion into Palestinian land over the years, I think it's fairly easy to see how lots of Westerners would interpret Israeli expansion as a key factor in driving radicalization of the Palestinian population. It's very easy to see Hamas being supported as a self-defense strategy, if one knew very little about Hamas.
I'm confused on why it's ascribed to "tribal confirmation bias". Why not just consider him to have a wrong view? What about it MUST reduce to his being a (secular) Jew? Seems a bit antisemitic to be honest.
Also confused how the pager attack was either "indiscriminate" or "cruel".
The only steel man I can give to your argument is that when Sam says "peace in the region" I think that is a gross exaggeration. Perhaps it would be best to say peace in Gaza. But I believe the point he is really trying to elude to is if all Jihadists and Islamists threw down their weapons there would be peace in the region which is what all rationally ethical people want. But that would be, unfortunately, an act that completely contradicts the fundamental tenants of being a true believer of and practitioner Jihad. So what are the tolerant then suppose to do?
Doesn't this perspective suffer the "all religions are created equal" fallacy? Islamic theocracies are clearly the greatest risk to secular democracies specifically because the fundamentals enable proliferation through violence. All other theocracies pale in comparison.
Yes, I agree with most of what you said here. It’s clear to me that Harris has two major blind spots. The first is that he never fully addresses the inequality that exists even within Israel proper, and I don’t just mean Jews vs Arabs, there is a hierarchy within the Jewish people that goes like this: German Jews, other European Jews, educated Jews from the region (mostly Iraqi Jews), other Jews from close by the region, North Africa Jews and other African Jews at the bottom. Zionism at its core is an Ashkenazi project, only extended to Sephardic Jews after the horrors of the Holocaust reduced the Ashkenazi population by so much. Arab Israelis do not have the same rights and opportunities as Jewish Israelis. This inequality increases exponentially when we get to Gaza and the West Bank.
Secondly, Harris seems to have a very poor understanding of what it is like to be a subjugated people, what the long term effects are of dehumanizing people generation after generation. These people are broken, that is why they voted for Hamas in the first place. Harris never tackles this aspect of the conflict. As a proxy, why did the people in the north of Ireland vote for Sinn Fein in the 1980’s?
Ironically, the Jewish people have been the most subjugated and dehumanised people on Earth, since the 1st written word. A deep dive into history shows this plainly. Palestinian people are subjugated by their own rulers and perhaps this is better understood through the lens of Stockholm Syndrome.
Necessity is the mother of invention and boy have Israel created something from nothing. Even their greatest feats are used against them.
To suggest Sam has a blindspot because Israel dares to have inequality within its culture, suggests that Israeli people can't even be 'human', with all the human flaws that we ALL have. Ironically, that seems like another form of dehumanisation.
Yes Henry you're absolutely right - Zionism was born from inequality. Zionism protects the community from the psychological anxiety of annihilation. It reflects the very tenets of human nature: the need to feel safe, belong, rise against injustice AND the fragility of human nature: bids of power, oppression, blind spots, moral accountability. This is what it is to be human.
Perhaps the moral strength of Israel is wobbling under their very new position of power. Is this not the time where friends and allies come in to help steady the ship? Not throw grenades to sink it.
Sam has a PhD in neuroscience. As a moral philosopher he has studied the worst atrocities in history as well as the investigations of human propensities (and possibilities). Somehow you get to speculate about Sam’s “…very poor understanding….”
Consider this: there is NO excuse whatsoever for 10/07. Sam demands (not expects) more of people. Perhaps you might consider the same and stop making excuses for jihadists.
As a proxy, Russia and its apologists declared the “threat” from NATO as sufficient to attack Ukraine. Again, I submit that NOTHING, EVER justifies that atrocity.
Yeah but a phd in neuroscience doesn’t make his opinion on the conflict any more valid than anyone else. And in fact I don’t think his moral philosophical background does either.
Yes 10/7 was horrific, Hamas are scum, yes…but Israel have behaved appallingly towards the Palestinian people for 75 years. Harris never goes into depth on that aspect of it.
I wonder how he would get on in a debate with his old friend Hitchens on this topic, not very well I think.
I was addressing your second point. I’m suggesting that moral philosophy is relevant to an, “…understanding of what it is like to be a subjugated people…” and that neuroscience is relevant to, “…the long term effects are of dehumanizing people generation after generation.” And there is crossover.
"...[A] phd in neuroscience doesn’t make his opinion on the conflict any more valid than anyone else. And in fact I don’t think his moral philosophical background does either." Then what is best brought to bear on the conflict, and why are you even here?
‘Then what is best brought to bear on the conflict, and why are you even here?’ - I’m here for opinions, history, perspective, understanding and maybe truth. You?
"Harris seems to have a very poor understanding of what it is like to be a subjugated people"
I assume from this criticism that you, Henry, have lived in subjugation for some portion of your life. Can you provide a bit more information on your specific expertise in this area?
I’m from west Belfast. Nowhere near the same level of abuse the Palestinians have suffered, but the Irish/catholic/nationalist people in the north of Ireland were treated as second class citizens since the state was formed in 1921. Not to mention the 800 years before that. What about you, any personal experience of being treated like shit as a people?
FYI I’m from west Belfast, they were the largest party in the area then and still are now. Also fyi, for the point of this analogy, think of west belfast as Gaza. Some more fyis, Sinn Fein are now the latest party in the north of Ireland and hold the first minister position and the IRA had a stated aim to keep bombing the UK until Ireland was free, they agreed to stop and now have a legitimate chance of unifying the country. Peace and respect changed everything.
I would expect from someone that is such a huge fan, read all of Sam's books, watched all videos, and listened to all podcasts to learn how to think critically. If Israel wanted to commit a genocide, this war would have been over in a week. Not a single Israeli soldier would die after October 8th.
This is the most stale talking point around and at this stage it’s the only one you hear. The most effective genocides are those that are done in a calculated manner, not so quickly that the world steps in and does something about it, think of dropping nukes that would IMMEDIATELY turn the entire world against Israel, but enough that you manage to reduce almost an entire city to rubble within a couple of years, which at this point is already the equivalent of several nukes. Genocide smart and have the right connections, and you can get away with it, that’s the lesson here.
What are you talking about? You know some one-day genocides you wanna tell us about? All you've admitted here is that you know Israel has greater power than Palestine, and you think you know how they'd use it if they wanted to. But you don't. You showed your entire hand, and it's all junk.
I know googles AI ain’t the best, but this is how it defines genocide:
Genocide is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. This destruction can manifest through various acts, including killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting conditions of life intended to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births, or forcibly transferring children of the group. It's a crime under international law, specifically defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It would be a bizarre genocide when the alleged genociders warn residents to evacuate areas before they conduct operations and provide food distribution sites to feed the population.
Sounds like you dont agree with googles definition of genocide. It’s not just about killing, it’s about destroying a people. Also, even your boy Sam alluded to the dodgy goings on at the food distribution sites. Not to mention IDF members openly talking about shooting innocent civilians.
Also, smotrich Ben-gvir and bibi have clearly stated their plans for Gaza. The most generous interpretation of which is ethnic cleansing with a sprinkling of genocide.
Only seeing the last couple of sentences of your previous message now. To say smotrich and Ben-gvir have no control, over the conflict (it’s not a war), is bonkers.
There are many things to say about bibi, but the most damming is that he wanted Hamas to seize and hold power, and was happy for them to spend the billions of aid dollars on tunnels and weapons rather than on their people, because it virtually ensured there couldn’t be a two state solution. And on a slightly more conspiratorial route, also ensured an attack like Oct 7th…and therefore this response and the take over of Gaza.
You just don’t get it Steve. You’re missing the point and you don’t even see it’s your own internal bias. This is all the energy I’m giving you. Stay sharp Steve
The founder of the Palestinian nationalist movement, Haj Amin al Husseini, was a Nazi war criminal who lived comfortably in Berlin on SS funding. The Arab world later expelled nearly a million Jews after Nazi anti-zionist propaganda spread by him fueled mass antisemitism. Europe and the Middle East were dangerous for Jews before Israel existed.
I wish people like you would acknowledge the power of antisemitism when weaponized as an ideological tool as it has been in the Palestinian context. Their school systems have been used to indoctrinate children with hatred, even teaching them how to stab Israelis. The imbalance of power persists not because peace is unattainable, but because the Palestinian leadership - including Hamas - does not seek coexistence or two states, but the destruction of what remains of Jewish life in the eastern hemisphere.
Steve, it's a sign that you need to grow. Sam is infinitely wiser than you, infinity. Read, contemplate, and learn. Sam is, as he is mostly, correct. On the scale of probability, Sam is 99.9% more correct than you. And on that note, take some time to let the paradigm shift occur, you'll be a better man for it.
Recently I was having a debate with a friend about the "Just asking questions" trope. He was defending a holocaust denier on that Joe dude's show. His argument was that it was just exploring a different point of view. The debate ended abruptly when I asked if Joe should have a pedophile on his show in order to discuss that as a valid sexual point of view. The legal differences between denying the holocaust and abusing children aside, we all need to stop "just asking questions" that already have clear answers.
Saying hi from Israel. My friends son just had his feet blown off yesterday - but she’s just grateful he’s alive. We are all living through unspeakable tragedies here.
As a reasonable Palestinian voice I’d like to recommend Ahmed Fouad Alkatib. He’s pro Palestinian anti Hamas .
Ahmed Fouad Alkatib was interviewed by Noam Weissman on "Unpacking Israeli History". My views on Israel Gaza are virtually indistinguishable from Sam Harris, and remain unchanged after listening to the interview, but I learnt some important points from Alkatib, such as Palestinians voted in Hamas out of desperation and without a clear view of Hamas' death to Jews charter. I recommend listening to the podcast, and I would very much look forward to a discussion between Harris and Alkatib, thank you for suggesting it.
I also want to add how sorry I am to hear of your friend's son's horrific injury. IDF soldiers for the most part go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, at the risk of their own lives.
"While Israel has its own religious zealots on the far Right, they do not represent Israeli society nearly to the degree that Hamas and other jihadist groups represent the will of the Palestinian people."
I wish Hitchens was here. Sam, this is why you need to solve your complete impenetrable blindness on this issue, you have proudly immersed yourself in an echo chamber and as a long time fan this has been increasingly depressing to witness. You are wrong about extremism in Israel, and there is polling out there about what Isreali's think should happen to Gazan's. The Pennsyvania state university did polling of Israeli's and found that:
Look at those numbers. 47%. That's the number of people that believe EVERY WOMAN AND CHILD should be killed in Gaza, about the same as the number of Palestinians that support Hamas. What explains your eagerness to find and cite polling for Gazan's but not of Israeli's, other than what appears to be tribal thinking?
Much of what you say about Islamism is accurate and I've been with you for many years on this and I'm firmly on the left, but you are completely blind in one eye. You can find limitless footage of Israeli crowds chanting some of the most depraved things you can imagine. The extremists in Netanyahu's regime are not just a couple of fringe loons, they're fucking everywhere, their views are worryingly prevalent in Israeli society, all of the data shows this. If you listen to almost any Israeli politician speak in Hebrew for more than a minute it doesn't take long to hear them speaking in openly genocidal language. They speak not about what they WANT to do but what they ARE doing, currently, deliberately, they're not errors they are policy, they only wear the mask when they speak English.
As a wise man once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, if someone tells you what they believe and why, BELIEVE THEM. I'm asking you to believe them, Sam. Believe these people when they literally tell you that they want to cleanse Gaza, by killing them or displacing them. Listen to Ben Gvir, listen to Smotrich. Listen to Netanyahu himself. We're talking about a man who sat behind Trump smirking like a gremlin as Trump got up on a podium and explained in detail how they plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza. A greater Israel was always the goal.
You call out anti-Semitism and you're absolutely right, there is an increase, though it's all too common to be smeared as an anti-Semite when criticizing Israel. There is also an increase in Muslim bigotry. I know you don't like the "I" word so I won't use it, but we do actually need a word that describes it. You speak about hate crimes against Jews but nothing about hate crimes against Muslims. Here's one you probably don't know about - After October 7th a 6 year old Palestinian-American boy living in Illinois with his mother were attacked, the boy was stabbed to death by a Zionist lunatic, his name was Wadea al-Fayoume. If you haven't heard about this, WHY? Ask yourself this.
Why does this not get mentioned? Ever? Have you seen some of the bile and hatred being directed at Zohran Mamdani? You don't need to agree with all his views to understand that this too, is unacceptable. What's more funny is that I can't imagine OTHER POLITICIANS speaking in this way about a Jewish candidate without being completely cancelled, but they can with Mamdani, without consequence.
Why? Perhaps because that stabbing is a single incident committed by a “lunatic.” Are you insisting that Sam list every single act of violence committed by both sides? Going back how far? I don’t mean to exaggerate your insistent inquiry, but what would satisfy you?
Sam is describing (global) jihad versus, “…a frontline state in the larger conflict between open societies and militant Islam. “…a pluralistic democracy, committed to values that its enemies despise: free speech, women’s and LGBT rights, and scientific progress.” He’s getting to the root of the problem, not engaging in the endless reprisals of the multi-millennial antagonists.
It seems you're somewhat confused about what the point was there. He correctly talks about Jewish hate crimes and references their increase in frequency, they are awful and should be condemned. The point is that he has, to my knowledge, not mentioned hate crimes against Muslims which are also on the rise in this climate. No he does not need to mention ALL of anything, but there is no acknowledgement that hate crimes against Jews *AND* Muslims are on the rise, it is not just one of them.
I don't know why you're putting lunatic in quotations like that, that child was stabbed to death by a Zionist lunatic specifically because the child was a Palestinian American, so he was definitely a lunatic and it was a hate crime. The recent examples of hate crimes against Jews made headline news all around the world, the Palestinian-American boy being stabbed to death, did not. Unfortunately. I am willing to bet money that Sam and you, had not even heard of this case. Why is that? Has it even occurred to Sam that it might not just be Jewish people?
I was quoting your use of the word "lunatic," not questioning it. I was, however, juxtaposing it with the mass lunacy of global jihad.
I'm not the least bit confused. You seemed to have missed my point that what you're writing is orthogonal to what Sam is writing. You're involved in the tit-for-tat ledger. Sam is writing that the moral baseline, the sum of current world views, is strongly skewed: open societies versus death cult. A very different kind of ledger.
You're trying to leverage that one tragic incident. You think it's relatable compared to the mass carnage. You might consider that you're actually desecrating that situation.
If you believe for one moment that I'm demanding he also list every anti-Muslim hate crime then you were definitely confused about the point being made. The point is that there never seems to be any general acknowledgement at all that there is any rise in hate crime against Muslims, which is also occurring due to the current climate. Even though both are important, only one gets any mention. It is not one tragic incident, both groups are experiencing an increase in hate crime around the world, and I would certainly use harsher words than you did to describe the specific hate crime I mentioned. This is not "tit-for-tat", that's not what this is. We should be discussing both realities, that hate crimes against both Jews and Muslims are on the rise.
Sam is a big free speech guy, and I followed him in part because of that, but even despite his hatred of Trump I don't see him speaking about the egregious and disgusting violations of the first amendment against pro-Palestine people in the Trump regime at the behest of Israel, things that are FAR worse than Ben Shapiro getting deplatformed, and yet he's nowhere to be seen on it. Rümeysa Öztürk was abducted in broad daylight by ICE freaks wearing masks and detained without charges, illegally and in poor conditions for months, BECAUSE OF AN OP-ED. No mention of any of this from Sam, why? This should be Sam's wheelhouse, you can get in a criticism of Trump and champion the first amendment. But nothing. Same with Mahmoud Khalil. Crickets. We should all be screaming from the top of our lungs about these violations, ESPECIALLY the free speech warriors from the 2010's. The free speech warriors that are also today sympathetic to Israel DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. None of them do. It's baffling to me and to many others.
I would draw your attention to the podcast with Yuval Noah Harari - when Sam referred to a tiny minority or Jewish settlers as an irrelevance compared with the vast majority of Israelis who wanted peace - Yuval made a comment that this wasn’t the case in his experience but this wasn’t picked up by Sam.
Yuval is a fringe leftist in Israeli society. Most ideas he articulates so well are recycled from Sam and other leading thinkers. From Harari's point of view, the Israeli far right is a significant problem. But even he will acknowledge the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians is not because of the settlers but because of the existence of a Jewish nation in the middle east.
If you want to get perspective from someone who understands this conflict, please refer to the podcast with Haviv or better yet look for interviews with (or books by) Beni Morris.
From his perspective? So the Israeli far-right, which is prominent and influential in the regime and in the population, is only worrying from a fringe leftists perspective? You're definitely underselling it.
For the love of God, don't go to either of those people. Benny Morris in particular, simply watch his recent appearance with Norman Finkelstein on Piers Morgan to watch him be reduced to a puddle of goo when confronted with even the most basic, undeniable realities. No amount of knowledge saves you from denial. Embarrassing stuff.
This was a very telling episode, I think Harris was disagreeing with a lot of what YNH was saying, he even seemed disappointed YNH wasn’t singing the same tune as himself, only to quickly state that he hasn’t been following things closely in Israel for some time. I’m in shock at what Harris has become, all credibility is gone.
I would argue, that since the Harari interview Harris no longer refers to the toxic religious right extremists as a rounding error. So consciously or not Harris has adjusted his rhetoric on this basis. In addition, if you read Harris's point 4 above "the growing influence of religious extremists" he clearly delineated his adjustment from rounding error to growing influence...
Those survey questions are very strange and the answers don't line up with any other survey taken of Israelis.
Pew research shows only 30% of Israelis want any expansion of the war in Gaza and 90% support the United States assisting in a diplomatic end to the war.
Which direction have rockets been going in for many years now? Gazans voted for the rocket firing lunatics so, what would you expect Israelis to think? Sam is probably one of the clearest individualist thinkers you will find - by all means disagree with him but he has no chamber in which to echo. He knows what he thinks and is clearly not a member of a chamber.
Sam I've long appreciated your intellectual rigor, especially your commitment to moral clarity in difficult debates. But I have deep disagreement with you on this. While you rightly condemn religious fanaticism and antisemitism, your framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overlooks critical facts and perpetuates a dangerously one-sided narrative.
You write that the “history of the Middle East is of no relevance,” yet the present cannot be understood (or ethically judged) without it. The occupation of the West Bank, the 17-year siege of Gaza, and the expansion of illegal settlements are not relics of the past; they are daily, lived realities for millions of Palestinians. These are not abstract grievances. They are expressions of structural violence - documented by B’Tselem, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, who all describe the situation as apartheid. If you value open societies and liberal democracy, surely a system that denies people basic rights on the basis of ethnicity must concern you.
You repeat the line that “if the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be peace; if the Israelis put down theirs, there would be genocide.” But this is a false binary. It ignores the fact that Palestinians have already tried unarmed resistance: protests, petitions, even negotiations. They’ve been met with tear gas, bullets, demolitions, and imprisonment. If peace simply required disarmament, why have those who pursue it without weapons been so relentlessly crushed?
You rightly warn of religious zealotry. But why does that critique apply so freely to Hamas, yet not to members of Israel’s far-right government - some of whom openly advocate ethnic cleansing and claim divine justification for expanding settlements? These are not fringe figures; they hold power in the Israeli cabinet. Their rhetoric and policies have real consequences for Palestinian civilians, yet you treat them as unfortunate caveats rather than urgent threats to your entire moral thesis.
Perhaps most concerning is your dismissal of genocide claims as “blood libels.” The International Court of Justice (no enemy of Israel) found the risk of genocide in Gaza to be plausible. This is not a Twitter slur. It’s a legal judgment, prompted by the scale of civilian death, starvation, and the dehumanizing rhetoric from Israeli leaders. If the deaths of (at least) over 30,000 people (including thousands of children) and the use of famine as a weapon don’t at least raise the question of genocidal intent, then what does?
You also claim that there is “no clear line” between Hamas and Palestinian society. That is an extraordinarily dangerous generalization. It collapses the identity of an entire people into that of a militant group. It erases the rich spectrum of Palestinian civil society - teachers, doctors, writers, activists - many of whom have dedicated their lives to non-violent struggle. To see only jihadism is to ignore the humanity of millions.
I understand that October 7 shook you, as it did the world. The atrocities committed that day were abhorrent. But Israel’s response cannot be morally justified by invoking that horror without limit or context. Retaliation is not above law. Nor does it excuse the systematic destruction of a civilian population already living under siege.
Sam, you speak often about the importance of consistency in our moral reasoning. But that consistency falters when you demand moral nuance in defense of Israel, while denying it to Palestinians. You say your support for Israel is not tribal, but ethical. I urge you, then, to consider this: ethics require us to hold all actors accountable, especially those with overwhelming power.
If your concern is for the preservation of open societies, then we must also speak out when a democracy uses its power to dominate a stateless, occupied people. There is no moral clarity without full vision. The tragedy in Gaza demands more than condemnation of jihadism. It demands a reckoning with occupation, with power, and with our shared humanity.
Hamas could have ended this war months and months ago by putting down their weapons and there would be no genocide. If Israel put down their weapons are we not to assume that Hamas would do what they say they want to do, and commit genocide?
The reason not to delve into the history isn’t because it isn’t relevant or important. It’s because people with preconceptions about who holds moral high ground are destined to be lost in a charitable reading of history for only their side. There is no where to go in conversation when this happens.
I feel like you’d have to be pretty damn stupid to think one of the most prominent atheists of the past 20 years is biased because of a love of Judaism
I think the two positions are not mutually exclusive. I myself am an atheist and I love Judaism. Judaism is more than a religion - it is a culture that I am proud to be a part of.
I'm not religious either, and I have superficially studied religions and watched how people in different cultures and religions behave.
Judaism to me seems if not the only, but the major religion that follows truth wherever it might lead. I've always admired that about the culture, if not the religion.
I think there’s an important distinction, that maybe I didn’t make clear enough here. Jews have obviously contributed much to the world, in terms of finance, comedy, all sorts of stuff. But a lot of the most famous ethnically Jewish individuals are completely divorced from the religious stuff. I’m not Jewish, but I have a lot of respect for them.
Not stupid, it starts with an A(ntisemite)! Yes, as the reasoning goes: “Even though you’re not religious, you’re still a Jew and therefore incapable of approaching matters regarding Israel with logic and objectivity.
Sam Harris is still a Liberal Free Democrat and therefore incapable of approaching matters regarding Islam (which is none of these things) with logic and objectivity.
Sam, I'm saddened that ignorance and bigotry in our world are so pervasive and persistant that you need, yet again, to make clear this position. But thank you for doing so, from the bottom of my heart. You have the recognition and standing that gives this perspective power and the chance to be heard. My conversations with friends also continue - I find that mostly they are the stereotypical humans - "wishful thinkers" who can't accept that Hamas & co really are that evil. But I will persist - as do you. Thank you!
This hits on a point that I don't think is made enough. People don't believe Hamas's intentions so they end up justifying it using explanations that are more palatable to their own culture/ideology.
I’m a fan of most of your views Sam but i can’t even listen to you about Israel and your justifications for their continued abuse. You leave no room for Israel to be wrong let alone diabolically wrong in their approach and this makes you seem unreachably buried in and hardened by your own bias. You’re never going to convince the younger generations who support the plight of ordinary palestinians, and attempting to convince them of the errors of their thinking just makes you look tone deaf. Not everyone who opposes and resents Israel and its disastrous government is a Hamas lover. Netanyahu is not a new villain, he’s been an evil better dressed version of any shithead despot you care to name since the beginning and should never have had the world’s support.
Attempting to defend Israel at this point seems disturbingly similar to trying to defend Trumps Big Disaster Bullshit. You can try to defend it as much as you want but the better option would be to slink into the shadows of shame and hide out at least until the bombing subsides. Israel is as guilty as charged and more.
How should Israel have responded to October 7th, in your opinion? Do you believe Hamas and the Palestinians who joined them were justified in their actions that day?
Good question. Funny how it always clears the room. When I watch debates on this topic that question always comes up, and the pro-Hamas debater always changes the subject by bloviating about 1948 and spouting off with the usual Al Jazeera agitprop talking points. I have literally never heard a single full throated answer to this totally valid question.
Their actual feelings are that Israel is guilty for existing and therefore, should accept any harm (even to the point of nonexistence) that comes to them as "justice" for Palestinians.
Probably a briefer more strategic and targeted offensive. Followed by a ceasefire, hostage negotiations, and peace talks.
Not a multi-year campaign of slaughter, destruction, and starvation resulting in the death of 57,000 Palestinians, the wounding of 135,000, and 1.8 million facing "extremely critical" levels of hunger. At this moment, 93% of the Palestinian population is experiencing acute food shortages.
The deal of "return the hostages and the war ends" was always on the table. There is no further begging and pleading Israel could do after a straightforward offer. You guys always turn into armchair generals: "I would have just done it faster and more targeted (lol)" and have nothing to say to the reality that Israel started with negotiations and has taken crazy precautions not to kill civilians like warning the enemy of strike locations
Yes, you're absolutely right. I know it's silly for a layperson like me with very limited knowledge to pretend to know what should have been done.
I just find it hard to believe that Israel is minimizing harm when the death toll and number of people wounded is so high. When people are starving and suffering yet they repeatedly cut off aid. When you hear about doctors and journalists seemingly being deliberately targeted. And when the UN has accused Israel of war crimes.
I find it hard to believe that the route Israel is taking is the only possible option or the best option.
So you don’t know what you would have done differently, but you know that the end result is bad so something should have been done differently. I don’t see any insight.
Yes actually. The burden isn't on me as someone with no military experience to come up with an alternative military action that Israel should have taken. No matter what I say, how well researched, or how well thought out, any answer I give wouldn't be good enough for you. It's a ridiculous question and a ridiculous expectation.
Perhaps there are military strategists or even those within the Israeli government who would have done things differently or have a different ideas, I don't know. Could be worth looking into I suppose.
But yes, all I know is that this genocide is immoral, unethical, and inhumane and that responding to hate and bloodshed with even more hate and bloodshed seems ineffective and dangerous as well as just plain wrong.
Israel isn't made up of jihadists, so I believe they have the responsibility to take a higher road and to not stoop down to Hamas' level.
1) Netanyahu (not Israel - war crimes target an individual) has been accused of war crimes by the ICJ, a much more independent subbody of the UN proper and the charges are credible as well. Since Netanyahu will never sit for trial we may call them true. These charges, however, are for withholding aid unnecessarily (which Bibi likely did do, the only question is if it caused deaths), not for indiscriminate civilian killings by the military.
Bibi deserves whatever he gets for his conduct during the war, but it's not an indictment of the war itself. If Bibi were hauled away the war would continue and the current shooting/bombing policies would remain in place as they weren't the target of the indictment.
2) When we're talking about excess civilian deaths in the war in Gaza, it's important to note there is a faction of the Israeli government (that is not currently in power) that is unabashedly in favor of genocide. Anyone who tells you otherwise is coping. The radical faction's position is this: "No one is boycotting Turkey for the Armenian genocide. If we killed the Gazans today, sanctions would be gone by next year and no one would remember in 2 years. Any alternative is death for Israel".
Given that Israel always has this option, the logic of going in and killing extra civilians would be to end the war quickly by killing any possible terrorist, or just everyone period, and go then back to 'peace' before the world could respond - this is essentially the strategy of all modern genocides. Given that Israel is taking precautions and the war is dragging on way longer than they would want - it seems weird to say they have intentionally killed 10,000 extra people in a population of several million for no political or military benefit.
You may have noticed, I'm not some fan of Israel. I'd be open to a real military analysis showing extreme IDF carelessness and I believe that some IDF soldiers will be tried for war crimes (we had war crimes in Iraq too and we sent people to jail). However, when I lump you in with "you guys" it's because I've seen a lot of attempt at this, specifically, and they aren't very convincing - usually an eventual admission of "I don't really know, it's a feeling". It's much better to start at point 1 and 2 above and try to determine moral culpability by faction from there.
Andrew Hastie is no less of an armchair general than the people he's accusing others of being. He just hasn't bothered to look up what irony means and he confuses his opinion for something more than it is. Yet another foot soldier in the long line who tries to dodge uncomfortable truths to bolster his view of who the real victims are. He even uses 'lol' as his bugle. It's so cute.
And yet, enough food was delivered to Palestine during the ceasefire earlier this year to feed the entire population for 6 months. What happened to that food? Aid to Gaza === money and power for Hamas. Until Gazans can throw off the shackles of the warlords they elected, they'll keep dying. They're lucky they attacked a country like Israel, which has conducted the most moral urban war in history. Please do listen to Sam's episode with John Spencer.
I've listened to many hours of Sam's podcasts on this topic as well as several others. I've read plenty of articles. I've spoken to one of my best friends who is Israeli and is against this war (although her parents are in support of it)...
As stated many times, I still walk away with the conclusion that this can't be the only way to respond to Hamas or October 7th. I strongly disagree that it's been the most moral, accurate, or strategic military offensive in history. There are plenty of reputable sources who say otherwise (as I mentioned elsewhere) and the statistics don't bear this out.
So primarily I disagree with that as well as the belief that what Israel is doing will ever work. I don't have to be a military strategist or an expert to know that more fear, terror, or violence will ever solve anything or bring about lasting peace, stability, or safety in the region.
So to conclude here I believe that this offensive is not minimizing civilian death or harm and that Israel's strategy doesn't seem like an effective one. That's why I oppose this genocide no matter how many times Sam or others try to eloquently logic their way about it.
Thanks for the response. I find it fascinating that someone who's listened to "many hours of Sam's podcasts" openly admits that no logic (or, presumably, facts) can change their mind.
This is identical to the religious thinkers with whom Sam spent the early part of his career debating. Whenever backed into a corner, they fall back on "yeah, but faith," as if that's any explanation.
You're right, this is concluded because you've demonstrated an ossified belief system immovable by logic, so why waste mental energy engaging? However, it's curious why you inject yourself into these discussions. Is it to change people's minds about the conflict? Can you at least step back and see how unfair it is to seek to change others' views when yours are set in stone? This kind of mindset pervades social media, and Sam is seeking to cultivate a community of open-minded thinkers.
I hope you don't take this personally. You appear to be very compassionate towards the suffering of others. It's just the ubiquitous meta-cognitive heuristic of abdicating logical discourse in favor of sacred cows exhausts and saddens me.
It was more of a jab at Sam and others who attempt to justify something so horrific and immoral with logic. Yes, some of my views are immovable because they're based on strong convictions and compassion like you said
I'm not on here attempting to change anyone's mind because that seems impossible to do. Just sharing my views, seeing where it goes, if there's anything more to learn, and it also seems important to speak my mind when so many others are just praising Sam for this essay. Felt important to speak up. Thanks for the conversation
I feel like you’re overlooking the fact that Hamas is not willing to do a ceasefire or significant hostage negotiations. Tried and failed many times. Hamas could have ended this war long ago
I don't know enough about all the negotiations and hostage deals, who broke the ceasefire arrangements or when or why. It doesn't really change my mind is why I don't mention it. It doesn't give Israel a pass to do whatever they want for however long they want. Bombing an entire population into oblivion (which also killed many of the hostages according to several reports) doesn't seem like an effective or ethical strategy. Nor does cutting off aid and starving the Palestinian people.
You act like what Israel is doing is the only way. The only possible imaginable scenario or option. It's the best operation in history even though it's killing and starving tens of thousands of people. I strongly disagree with that.
I have no idea. But I'm floored by the lack of empathy towards Palestinians that comes from people who are in support of this. Read and watch all about it... nothing justifies this amount of suffering and it really doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Slaughtering, wounding, and starving a population to this degree isn't going to make Israel safer in the long-term... it will only generate more enemies and more violence
I'm shocked by the lack of empathy and support for the millions of Muslims who don't happen to be suffering in Palestine. 85k children starved to death in Yemen, hundreds of thousands tortured and killed in Syria, 87% of women in Egypt forced to undergo FGM. How must it feel to be one of those Muslims and see the whole world in a hissy fit for Palestine, which started a war with a superior enemy?
It strikes me as a kind of soft bigotry towards Muslims. You're OK with them slaughtering, wounding, and starving each other. Still, when Israel defends itself (yes, until Hamas is completely uprooted as a viable power source in Gaza, this is a defensive war), you villanize Israel for conducting war against an enemy whose primary strategic asset is the death of its civilians.
By their silence on Muslim v Muslim violence and complete moral confusion about Gaza, the left has shown they hold Israel to a much higher ethical standard than Muslim countries. How is that anything other than the soft bigotry of low expectations? As a supporter of Israel, I thank you. We hold ourselves to a high standard, and I'm so proud of the way the IDF has conducted this war while minimizing civilian casualties.
I'm sorry, this argument is nonsensical. So we can't speak out against what's happening in Gaza without also speaking out about every other tragedy in the world?? It doesn't mean there's a lack of empathy, it means that those situations aren't being reported on in our media and most people are unaware of them.
I strongly object to your opinion that Israel is minimizing civilian casualties. You state it as if it's an irrefutable fact. But there are plenty of reputable sources, as well as what we can see with our own eyes, which say otherwise. The UN doubts that claim. And Israeli military generals and soldiers themselves have been speaking out and defecting saying Israel isn't doing enough to minimize harm to civilians.
I have to agree with you. I'm so saddened that Sam seems almost blind to the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Yes Hamas are a Jihadist threat to liberal democratic values but I'm afraid so is what the Israeli government doing in the destruction of Gaza and indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians. I find thar after decades of following Sam's work I cannot listen to him on this subject anymore.
My guess is PTTP's mindset is that Israelis should have realized the error of their ways on 10/7, accepted that the rape, torture and execution of families and youth was a moral lesson and either offed themselves or gone back to the imaginary white supremacist colonial state from which they originated.
I’m not a military expert and judging by your fox news style question your expertise is even less worthy of listening to. So its best lay people like us don’t speculate on what Israel should have done. But what they did do is open season for anyone with two eyes and a heart to weigh in on. But hey Im not American or Israeli so I’m not blinded by my own delusions of exceptionalism. What Israel did is as atrocious and incompetent as what America did after 9/11 and no matter how many facts are pointed out to people like you and your comrades in ignorance nothing will disturb you from your perch when you have fingers in your ears and your eyes turned inwards
Oops, looks like you missed several parts of the article. Don't worry, I copy-paste them here for you.
> Whatever [Israel’s] flaws—and there are many
> I won’t be surprised if some members of the IDF are found guilty of war crimes. Worse, it seems likely that many soldiers have been routinely given jobs—the guarding of food-distribution centers, for instance—where predictable encounters with civilians have led to pointless killing.
> There are also reasons to be alarmed by Israel’s current political trajectory—chief among them, the corruption of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the growing influence of religious extremists within his government, and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.
Those are not proofs of Sam leaving room for Israel to be wrong. They are exemptions for Sam to excuse himself in advance because he knows there's an extremely high chance he'll need to pull the plug on this take. He's backing two bullies: Israel and the US. He can't get away from bullies; maybe he grew up among rich bullies and has no idea what standards he should keep. Guy was friends with Elon Musk. He's socially stunted and it affects how he thinks. it's pretty obvious. Hope this helps.
I agree with you until the personal attack on the extent of Sam’s emotional reach. I know stunted people well and can recognize them immediately by my desire to leave their presence ASAP or when I start yawning or feeling nauseous. Its why i can’t entertain Trumpists. They lack emotional maturity and either bore me to tears or make me sick.
I don’t think Sam is anywhere near that.
In most areas i admire his intellect across the spectrum but i PERSONALLY (emphasis added to point out that unlike others here, i don’t claim to have anything besides an opinion) I wholeheartedly reject his apologetic position on Israel or how dangerously close his narrative is to branding anyone who doesn’t agree as anti semitic, misguided or a Hamas supporter. That is an emotionally retarded position to take and shows as much intellect as MAGA going after DEI. Its loaded with gross stereotypes, devoid of data and based almost entirely on a different type of ignorant propaganda. Its brain dead and rampant in our present moment in the fever swamp and if i could I’d kick it in the balls. Whether its on the left, right or buried up the middle, i don’t care where it is on the political, religious, or geopolitical spectrum. I have the same amount of contempt to offer to propaganda peddlists who try to arrogantly steal the position of holier than thou. 🖕to all of them. Israel is no better than Palestine and their official military junta is behaving no better than Hamas. They’re both fucking disgraceful monsters who deserve to be judged as nothing less.
Idk man, I’m an autistic woman who’s been around high resourced autistic men pretty much her whole working life and I think I see something you’re blind to. But whatever, Sam matters very little compared to Gaza, and on Gaza we agree. No one is free while Palestine is oppressed like this. Our empire is now the aggressor.
What do you see that I’m blind to? I’m sure there’s a lot of things but what specifically?
I can’t think of a time when the empire hasn’t been the aggressor since it dropped the bomb and showed how aggressive its willing to be at a moment’s notice. Deterrence is its own form of aggression. And the argument that America is the moral leader has always had as many holes in it as a tea bag. Its the economic hitman is what it really is.
I think he’s socially stunted in the obvious autistic ways. Monotropic, can’t zoom out of his special interests, defiant and angry if called out on inconsistencies, great at masking and intellectualizing his anger, and great at cognitive dissociation. Also extremely high tolerance for saying an unpopular position. I have always suspected that the organized atheist / skeptic movement is a movement with type 1 autism as the cultural norm. The same goes for academic psychology, law, journalism, and politics. Certain fields grab us, and because we have an under diagnosis issue, we don’t know our own limitations. We become the golden children and can fuck things up with our blind spots.
I appreciate your earnest attempt to address my lack of enlightenment so I can finally see the truth in all its bloody but sacred glory but I don't need to read full articles to have an opinion. I don't need to deeply contemplate all the clauses and caveats to have issues with the general thrust of an argument. I can just disagree. Without having to be held to account by first year university students who've just learned how to use cut and paste.
As I said, I respect Sam and appreciate his views on most things. But not this one. And you chiming in like an annoying mosquito isn't going to change that. So if you have something intelligent to add why don't you do that instead of just trolling my opinion as a way to earn yourself some likes for your instagram page.
Haha, what a response, a bundle of arrogance sitting awkwardly beside the admission that you were too lazy to read for 10 minutes before writing your scathing review
If that was the extent of your intellect you should quit your liberal arts school and take that job at 7/11. If Israels atrocities fail
to move the dial on your walmart moral conscience sufficiently and jolt you into outrage you should run and hide little rabbit, bury your head in your burrow and keep pretending these atrocities that look remarkably similar to genocide are just collateral damage. Im sure its less scary than looking into the blackness of your burned out soul.
I’m waiting for comments that aren’t so sycophantic. Sam, your intellectualism blinds you to ethical complexities and your privilege blinds you to others’ suffering. You have ideas about all of these, but you haven’t born witness to them. Until you do that, I can only appreciate your point of view as I would the results of a laboratory experiment. You talk about the importance of separating Islam from the humans who practice it, but this argument is sterile until you have spent some time with a grieving and bereft Palestinian family, or besieged West Bank community, or attended the so-called aid depots where IDF soldiers have admitted to shooting civilians for no reason other than to show them who is in charge. It is possible to bear witness to this suffering and you have the means to do it. I invite you to leave the confines of your ivory tower and explore the gaps in your understanding.
The suffering of Palestinians has been entirely at the hands of Hamas and their proxies. Intentions matter, and they have been stated clearly and unequivocally for decades. You try living next to a neighbour who wants you dead and see how your ethics survive. Israel has maintained the only open society in the region despite every reason to capitulate to unrestrained hostility. Every offer of peace and statehood over the past 75 years has been rejected in favour of a cult of death.
Once again, asmuch as it pains me to say, I totally agree with this sentiment. We cannot ever escape the fact that we are all shaped to a large or lesser degree by our social circle, education and cultural environment - and Sam is no different in this respect.
so you let those people murder your own children b/c they hold babies. I get you. You want them to be good Jews who allow themselves to be slaughtered. Jewish babies, they're ok to kill right?
no Jonathan, Israel just kills the babies regardless if they're being held by anyone or there is any Hamas present. Listen to Ben Gvir or Smotrich speak, they about say as much.
sounds like another blood liber. I don't judge my fellow Americans based on Trump, Bannon and Miller, I'm not going to judge Israel based on their extremists either. And if you listen to Hamas speak, they plan on doing Oct 7th again and again and again until there are no more Jews so... what are they supposed to do?
When I say Israel I obviously mean the regime. Those in power. You need not judge random Israeli's for what they say, of course not, but you should consider if these incredibly influential people are heavily involved in what is happening here. These aren't some fringe lunatics that nobody listens to, they have extremely high positions of power.
this is true, but if someone came to Philadelphia and killed thousands of my neighbors, family and friends because they where protesting Trump, I'd still be pretty pissed off and would want to make sure they could never, ever do that again, regardless if I share their hatred of Trump.
What you perhaps don't realize is what the people of Gaza feel every day. At this point it would be difficult to find any one person there who hasn't lost someone, how many people are radicalized by this? Pushed into the arms of an ideology like Islam? It's why dropping bombs will rarely deliver peace, only create even more of the problem to begin with.
It's also assuming that those in power in Israel are good faith actors when they just aren't, they're corrupt, and they're absolutely mad. Like our response to 9/11, it really has little to do with terrorism and more to do with using such things as an excuse to do what they already wanted to do, they just get to do it much faster now. The suffering is the point. The goal is to traumatize the population to such an extreme that they can never recover, and that is what we are witnessing in real time.
Jonathan, I understand the emotion behind your response, but I never mentioned religion, ethnicity, suggested anyone passively accept slaughter, or invoked the idea of “being good Jews.” Let’s zoom back out to concepts and principles.
My point is narrower: if we accept the killing of children as collateral simply because someone uses them as shields, we erode the very foundation of moral high ground. My argument is about restraint — and the burden that comes with claiming moral superiority — no matter who we’re talking about.
OK, I'll play. What's your solution, when your enemies really do want to genocide you and have claimed Oct 7th was just a first strike of many? Who have a history of suicide bombers who want nothing more than to blow up and kill as many civilians, women and children as possible? When they feel that dying so they can kill you is wonderful? Who have no moral issues with literally hiding behind babies? How are you going to defend your people? When do you say "yeah, if the moral high ground means sacrificing more of our own children then fuck that, we're done." - the duty of a state is to protect its citizens, how are you going to protect them? Please tell me what they should do, and how you would defend your people if it was you running things.
Jonathan — I get it. There’s rage. Fear. And the desire to protect your people at all costs. But this isn’t about letting anyone be slaughtered. It’s about how we fight back without losing ourselves.
The answer isn’t pacifism, to me it’s superiority of mind.
We need CIA/Mossad-level/High Intelligence/TradeCraft thinking here. Strategic mastery. Remember when Mossad rigged Hezbollah operatives’ pagers to detonate remotely across Lebanon, injuring targets with surgical precision while avoiding harm to bystanders?
That’s the level of 3D chess we’re talking about. That’s warfare with precision and restraint. I’m not claiming to have a perfect answer. But I am saying: brute force that kills children (even if the enemy hides behind them) isn’t strength. It’s surrender to moral erosion. And it hands your enemies the narrative they want.
Here’s what smarter warfare "could" look like:
1. Intelligence first: Break networks from the inside. Disrupt. Deceive. Hunt leaders with finesse. Don’t let martyrdom become marketing. Make capture more terrifying than death.
2. Turn human shields into propaganda failures: Broadcast restraint. Use drones, comms, and AI to warn civilians. Let the world see who’s hiding behind children, and who chose not to shoot through them. This kind of transparency doesn’t just save lives. it helps reframe the dominant “genocide” narrative by showing that Israel is exercising moral discipline under impossible conditions.
3. Moral deterrence > mass retaliation: Declare this simple truth: If there are children in the room, we won’t fire… but make no mistake we will find you. Make them live in fear of justice, not glory.
4. Redefine winning: The job isn’t just to keep your people alive, it’s to do it without becoming the monster your enemy needs you to be.
Look, this isn't easy. It’s messy, imperfect, and slow. But in my view that’s the cost of claiming moral high ground. And if we don’t start demanding creative responses from people trained in the art of complex warfare, we’ll be stuck in this cycle forever, reacting, hardening, and losing what made us human.
I get that it may sound overly simple at first blush. But I’d argue that the simplicity is exactly the point.
A child is a child. The moral gravity doesn’t shift based on who’s holding them. If we start making exceptions, even for tactical reasons, we risk justifying the unjustifiable.
My comment isn’t meant to flatten the complexity of the conflict. It’s to insist that some moral lines, especially involving children, should remain bright, even in war. That’s what makes them moral.
Lol you're missing the part where before picking up the baby, your neighbor has just raped, maimed, and burned most of your family alive while promising to do it over and over again and firing rockets at your head. What happens then, Paul? Do you let yourself and your remaining family members die so long as the baby doesn't get hurt? I should hope not.
Maybe the person holding the baby shouldn't have put everyone is such a terrible predicament in the first place.
Absolute gold as always. So proud to be a subscriber. I still think about your episode "The Bright Line btw Good and Evil," early after 10/7, as the best thing ever said about the conflict. And now this rises to the top. Especially these lines:
"The spread of Islam presents a profound challenge to open societies. While we cherish tolerance as a foundational value, tolerance of intolerance eventually becomes self-destructive."
💯🙏
What "corruption" are you accusing Netanyahu of? He hasn't been convicted. Netanyahu is exactly the sort of hard-line leader any free, secular democracy would be expected to end up with after decades of Islamist attacks. He might just be the first leader to achieve lasting peace with all Israel's Arab neighbours.
Exactomundo! Any country with a leader as smart and tenacious at protecting it is lucky beyond belief in a world where most governments care nothing for their people and often murder large number of them Case in point is Palestinian Gaza or Iran where one wrong move or word can get you killed.
Any honest person needs to examine the circumstances of the accusations against Netanyahu.
Very good point. The world hates this strong, non-apologetic leader of the Jewish nation. Bibi's political dealings in Israel are not outside of the norms in other liberal democracies, and should not be the world's concern during this war. These issues are for the Israeli public to vote on. Bibi will be replaced when a better alternative will present itself (likely Bennett).
Apparently, Netanyahu cannot be tried while in office, much like our President. (I stand corrected. This is not true. I mis-remembered something that i had read awhile ago. ) It is said that he is clinging to power in order to avoid prosecution (correction: with a full independent inquiry). It is also said that he coddled Hamas and is partly responsible for the lack of readiness on October 7th. Did he set the house on fire, so that he could call the fire engines and stay in power? I do not think so but what happened on Oct 7th was very uncharacteristic of Israeli readiness.
He’s in court 3 to 4 days a week, depending on the week. What in the world are you talking about. You can in fact be tried while in office as is being demonstrated now and in the past with the Israeli jurisprudence.
In addition, he was out of power for nearly 2 years, during which time the more serious charges against him fell apart in the courtroom.
Please do at least a minimum amount of googling before spewing nonsense.
I stand corrected on his being tried while in office. My mistake. Conviction does not force resignation. However, there are serious allegations and criticisms of him about his government's lack of preparedness and strategic decisions that may have indirectly contributed to the conditions leading up to the Oct 7th assault. IDF documents revealed that Netanyahu's staff received alerts about unusual Hamas activity hours before the attack but did not escalate for some strange reason? He denies this. Critics argue that Netanyahu's refusal to step down or allow a full state commission of inquiry reflects a desire to avoid accountability while in office. Around 70% of Israelis support an independent state commission but Netanyahu resists this because he would lose control of the process. There appears to be a pattern of bribery in his behavior with 3 cases being tried. An independent commission would be the best way to get to the bottom of it. We will see if attacking Iran turns out to have been the best way to solve the problems Israel is confronted with. I am a Zionist with my father having been a holocaust survivor. I just do not believe that Netanyahu is the best leader for Israel at this time.
Not true - his trial has been underway for some time.
Your conspiracy theory is noted
Maybe all of our Western leaders should be under indictment and "clinging to power" as you say - it certainly got the best leadership out of Netanyahu.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/9/benjamin-netanyahus-corruption-trial-what-you-need-to-know
Your citing Al Jazeera? I certainly think there may be corruption, but find a real source
It’s amazing how anyone can simply dismiss the source of something they don’t agree with.
Do you really want to follow the lead of MAGA?
Just say “Fake News!”- it’s faster and just as ineffective.
You mean a source that’s owned and published by the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, I think I can dismiss that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/30/benjamin-netanyahu-corruption-trial-delayed-ntwnfb
Cool.
Dismiss this one too bc it doesn’t say what you like.
FYI it says exactly the same info.
Fake News!
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-corruption-trial-divides-israeli-public-2024-12-09/
At the risk of repeating what the parent comment said, he has not been convicted of anything. Israeli Justice similar to that of other western nations. Innocent until proven guilty.
um...yes, thanks Frank. I think both articles I posted makes that clear.
I assume she meant blocking aid to Gaza and then killing starving people.
Amen.
You are insane
I started listening to Sam Harris about 10 years ago. I agreed with his stance on extreme Islam. Like Harris, I believed the aggressive proselytizing was something to be scared of, but more importantly to me, I believed the brutalizing of >50% (women and gay people) of the population within Muslim societies was the bigger, more egregious, problem. There is something particularly heartbreaking about that to me. I believed Harris also cared deeply for the internal victims of extreme Islam.
My question to Harris and his fans now is, why doesn’t he seem to care for them now? Innocent women and children are being slaughtered. This, along with the release of the remaining hostages, is all we should be thinking about at this moment.
I can almost hear Harris get around this by blaming it all on Hamas using the innocent as human shields. Fuck Hamas, they truly are scum. However, it takes two to tango for the slaughter to continue. Israel are the ones dropping the fucking bombs. They are supposed to have one of the most sophisticated militaries on the planet, why can’t they be more surgical? Send in more boots on the ground to seek out and kill hamas, rather than murder hundreds in the pursuit of a couple of terrorists.
The only answer I have for this is that Israel, and Sam Harris, value a Palestinian life way way less than an Israeli life, and in Israel’s case always have done.
He kinda spells its out. Because the vast number of people in the region still support Hamas. Im sure if that wasnt the case, Israel probably would be a little more careful. But they do support Hamas. The answer that no one wants to admit, is to completely fully eliminate the problem, about 6-10 countries in the middle east need to be exterminated entirely.
I’d like to see the polls on current support for Hamas in Gaza.
I’d also like to hear Harris discuss why they voted for Hamas in the first place, what drove them down that path. I would suggest a lack of basic freedoms, living in an apartheid state and straight up being treated like shit by the people who stole their land had something to do with it.
Also support for Hamas isn’t a good enough reason for mass murdering people, especially with the levels of propaganda at play in the region.
Was support for Hitler good enough reason for the allies to kill all those thousands and thousands of German civilians in endless bombings and combat as they moved in Germany? How else were they supposed to end Nazism?
The problem in Gaza is that it is almost impossible or perhaps impossible to distinguish who is supporting Hamas and who is not. There is most likely a wide range of degrees of support from religious fanatics endorsing everything Hamas does to people who truly hate Hamas and everything they stand for (the true victims of this war), and most likely there is everything in between. If most of the population was totally against Hamas and did not cooperate or help Hamas, I don’t think they could stay in power so long like they are doing. It’s a mess and a very complex problem. It’s a tragedy but it seems to me too many palestineans are not ready to do anything to get rid of Hamas even in their desperate position. I feel terrible for anyone there who truly hates Hamas and their philosophy and are trapped in Gaza. They may not be a majority and that is what makes this problem so complex.
Fair points about Gaza, but to answer your question about the allies razing German cities to rubble, or the Germans flattening Warsaw or the US dropping nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no these were all compete unnecessary, they were wrong then and it is wrong now in my opinion. Also I dont think WW2 is comparable at all to the situation in the Middle East.
Well Harris gives the numbers and the sources for the polls, so read the article and youll find those. He also explains why they keep voting them in. Its very abundantly clear that you didnt even read the post, so Im not sure what youre doing commenting.
Harris cites only 38% of people in Gaza still support Hamas. So how is that the vast number as you put it? He had to expand the poll to the West Bank to get it over 50%. Hamas are not in control of the West Bank, so not relevant. He’s is doing everything he can to convince people like you, and possibly himself, that it is still ok to slaughter women and children. He has lost all credibility.
I read it. It’s totally fucking clear you are not paying attention, there hasn’t been an election in Gaza since 2006, so who is still voting them in? Go back to sleep Jimmy.
Just so we’re clear: you’re advocating the extermination of every man, woman, and child in half a dozen countries—because of polling data. That’s not “tough realism.” You’re talking about the extermination of hundreds of millions as if it were even remotely within the realm of decency.
What’s your preferred method—bureaucratic famine, a network of desert gulags, or do you want to bring this into the 21st century with megaton warheads?
This may be nitpicking, but Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention captures it perfectly: “destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Congratulations—you’ve reverse-engineered the textbook definition of evil. This is truly thinking outside the Enlightenment box.
If this was meant as dark humor, it failed. If it was serious, it’s obscene.
Atrocities may be driven by monsters, but they are powered by apathy.
Yes, thats pretty much exactly what Im advocating for. Unashamedly. Preferably not via nukes, but 🤷♂️ whatever needs to be done to eliminate radical Islam. Its bot reverse engineering evil, the evil is already there fully engineered. We've "tolerated" these groups for centuries, and what happens? They come back as an even bigger threat, every single time. Thats why i said its a harsh truth. But its still a truth nonetheless.
I wasn’t really wondering if you were ashamed of what you wrote.
Genocide advocates usually aren’t.
That’s kind of the pattern.
Eichmann? He just showed up for work. Punched in. Pushed papers. Oversaw the trains.
Omar al-Bashir? Killed hundreds of thousands. Denied it. Blamed the West.
Mao? Killed tens of millions and reportedly said—“Aren’t there still people left?”
If they’d had smartphones, they would definitely have ended with 🤷♂️.
But it wasn’t predestined. The bad guys in history didn’t start with “war criminal” on their high school career plan.
Hitler wanted to be a painter.
Stalin trained as a priest.
Mao worked in a library.
Pol Pot studied in Paris.
If I had a time machine, honestly, I wouldn’t go back to shoot Hitler. I’d go to Vienna in 1909, buy his paintings—maybe lie a little—tell him they were quite good. Who knows—maybe we’d have more bad watercolors and fewer mass graves.
But don’t misunderstand me—I don’t see you as a monster from history.
I don’t see evil dictator energy here. Not the camp director with the eyepatch. Not even the guard with the snarling dog and two seconds of screen time.
Just bureaucrat #16, refining the train schedule for improved throughput.
No ideology—just procedures.
An important, but ultimately replaceable and forgettable, cog in the machinery of evil.
You’d have done well in Vichy France.
I’m not writing this to change your mind—or to hear more of your thoughts, if that’s the word.
I’m writing it because I needed to. And for the idle reader who might have stumbled across your comment and, for a moment, thought this is the vibe to go with. It isn’t.
Move along. There’s nothing to learn here.
Other people have expressed the same odious ideas—just in full sentences, with proper spelling and grammar—and they were wrong too.
It is the vibe. When a groups primary objective is imposing their set of rules (sharia) upon the entire world, and when they feel a divine right to use terrorism to accomplish that goal, and when theyve been very clear about their intentions (ACTUAL genocide of the Jews), yes, the answer is to kill them all. We have tried for centuries to get muslims to reject those beliefs, but those beliefs are the core of Islam, they cannot be changed. The worlds governments have tried everything to ignore and pacify and bring peace to these people. They dont fucking want it. They want to spread their doctrine to every corner of the world, through violence if neccessary. Kill. Fucking. All of them. And end this terroristic regime.
You've clearly never served in the military, and have no knowledge about the impossible challenges and unique horrors faced in urban warfare. Particularly when facing an enemy who embed themselves within the civilian population, using them as human shields. An enemy who uses the death of civilians as a tactic to further their aims. Urban warfare is never surgical or precise. It's all too human.
You obviously have no clue about my background or my knowledge. Keep on playing make believe though.
You seriously need to listen to all of the podcasts and say I’m on other podcast about this issue.
I don’t understand what this means, sorry.
The spread of Islam must be stopped, yes. But Isreal needs a new guy. Pretending netanyahu is the leader democratically is Putin levels of delusion.
This guy has been lying about nuclear capabilities for years and has used the US to bomb and terrorize isreals Arab neighbors for decades. Realize that the US has invaded every one of Israel's neighbors besides Iran at this point. Keeping them destabilized and killing and democratic leaders.
Even the worst of the worst (Trump 2, Bibi 3?) in most aspects, may get things right. The Iran nuclear ambitions (purity, 3% for civilian use, not 60% and billions/decades hiding/securing can only be for weapons) Was a clear, essential one.
This is what happens when a scientific mind bumps into a very human, subjective situation. The scientific mind tries to rationalize the most awful shit like it’s solving an equation. Harris has become corrupted by his ideological beliefs, he was once a curious student, now he is a victim. For someone who has read so much Orwell and done so much meditation, it’s amazing he doesn’t have the introspection required to see this. I guess corruption, coupled with confirmation bias, is an all too powerful cocktail. He’s done!
You're clearly confused and unable to grapple with complex problems which require us to step outside of simple, knee jerk, emotional responses and into nuanced critical thinking and rationale to get them solved. You are not a serious participant in this discussion.
Awwwwww shucks
When logic and rationality surpass humanity, we become less of a human and more like a robot.
Oh God, I remember hearing this from all corners of debates in high school. Everyone imagines they're using this rule already. It's useless.
I think you have a very reasoned and reasonable position on this issue.
As a fan and a follower I'm consistently amazed by how blind you are to your own personal bias about Israel.
Your persistent canard, "If the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be peace in the region. If the Israelis put down their weapons, there would be a genocide." is patently false. Throughout history we see that the people with power become the abusers. Israel becomes more of a bully every year -- and it's not just Netanyahu driving that.
Don't you see the horrific irony of a nation created in response to genocide that is now conducting genocide in Gaza!?! I guess, "Never again" means, "Never again, unless we're the ones doing it."
Your recent comments about the ingenuity of the IDF (e.g. with regard to the cell phone / pager attack) complete overlook the cruelty and indiscriminate nature of the attack -- which definitely hit children and innocent civilians as well as Hezbullah.
Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is a huge problem. There are no easy answers in the Middle East, period. But that being said, I argue that jihad-culture is not the fundamental problem here. The problem is theocracy, regardless of creed. Theocracy is the problem here, whether it's Jews in Israel, Muslisms across the Arab world, or Christian Nationalists right here in America.
I like, admire and respect you very much. I've read all of your books, subscribe to the podcast, watched every internet video and have internalized much of your philosophy.
But I don't believe you are capable of escaping your tribal confirmation bias on this subject. And if you can't, who can? Very depressing.
Its like you didn't even read this note at all, how do you claim to be a fan when you willing close your ears to what he is telling you? Sam has spent so much time on the genocide lie and the morality of the conflict and you repeat the same tired holocaust inversion terms
lol "how do you claim to be a fan"!
If someone really believes the things in this comment then there's no way they're sitting through those podcasts, like at all lol
You are SO wrong.
I don't think we live in a world where someone who believes Israel's committing a genocide is going to sit through 2 hours of Sam Harris and Douglas Murray, but maybe that's just me being too cynical
I’m that person.
Explain how Sam's opinion is biased and yours is not?
are you asking me or jacob?
Actually the Steve post. I got lost in the thread. 😀
Ha, no problem, easy to do! 🥰
October 7th gave us a great taste of what would happen if Israelis put down their weapons. The fact that you can’t see that is mind blowing. Do you know Israelis? We want peace. I want peace. My friends want peace. My community wants peace. I want peace for myself and for Palestinians. The second Hamas puts down their weapon this war can end and we CAN have peace. So yea, that quote holds true.
Ben Gvir wants peace? The thousands of teenagers chanting genocidal chants want peace? I hate to break it to you but secular peaceful Israelis aren't the only people who exist in Israel.
How does bringing up extremists prove your point? Every country has them including your own. Does the fact that there are people where you live who hate minorities and foreigners mean that all of your neighbors are hateful people?
Poll after poll has demonstrated that a majority of Israelis want peace
Sure...but then you have to say that the extremists on the other side don't prove your point. You may point to a poll that says "oh well most of them are extremists" but then you'd have to temper that with the fact that their side is quite a bit more powerless, young, poor, and suffering than your side...which means they get more benefit of the doubt than your side does.
I mean bomb whoever you want and deal with the consequences, but as an American I'm really not interested in paying for it. We are currently being run by a god damn idiot lunatic and the significantly smarter lunatic running YOUR country is tricking our lunatic into doing things we don't want him to do! Should I not be upset about that? Give me a break.
That you assert that Trump is being manipulated by smart sneaky Netanyahu is an example of a very traditional anti-Semitic meme. It says a lot about you.
You only have to remind yourself thatTrump astonishingly ordered Netanyahu to turn back the Israeli jets from taking revenge for the hospital—and BB obeyed!—to realize that it’s TRUMP who is doing the manipulating, and BB OBEYS.
Silly. BB plays smart politics in order to control his country and keep his ass out of prison. Trump is an agent of chaos to be manipulated and maneuvered around. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Jewish or non-Jewish people. I don't give a shit about that. I love the Jewish people, wholeheartedly. For you to call what I said anti-semetic because it mildly reflects a very broad trope is to make a straw man of my argument. Trump also tweeted for Israel to stop, the wars over, turn around, and they didn't do that…so what are you talking about?
Art Exckstein, it's not an anti-Semitism meme there are literally clips of Netanyahu bragging about doing this. He takes pride in being able to manipulate politicians.
Trump is controlled by Israel disproportionately relative to other countries. Doesn't require any conspiracies to see why.
Oh yes the old canard of how Americans are tired of paying for Israeli bombs . Honey, you “pay” for the bombs by paying your workers to make them. You want to destroy the American military industrial complex, one of the last sources of reliable American jobs by ending foreign “aid”? Go right ahead. Sounds like a winning political and economic move. Bravo!
No, you misunderstand, honey. We pay for Israeli bombs in anti-American sentiment around the globe and the proliferation of terrorism ala 9-11.
But I hear your argument. You believe that if it keeps the America economy afloat we should whole heatedly embrace burning, smashing, and vaporizing people we have no conflict with. Sounds a bit heartless, but I get the logic.
The Palestinians get more benefit of the doubt because they're poor and they suffer? Do you know anything about the Palestinians, their history and their worldview? Has the thought ever occurred to you that some (most?) of their suffering is of their own making?
They have declined statehood 5 times. They have an entire UN agency dedicated to their cause and they receive more aid than any group of people on Earth. So what do they do? They vote a genocidal death cult into power and build rockets and tunnels so they can keep fighting a war that could have been over 75 years ago. If only they could give up their obsession with hating Jews and this fantasy that someday they'll drive them all out to sea, they could someday live normal, peaceful lives.
It's pretty crazy that people feel so free to define Israel as a monolithic radical orthodox community when it is so deeply pluralistic that it seemed to be in danger of self-destructing prior to Oct. 7th.
And at the same time claim that Hamas is an aberration in a sea of peaceful, well-intentioned Palestinians!
Here's something the else the majority of Israelis believe https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-jewish-israelis-share-genocidal-belief-there-are-no-innocent-people-in-gaza/
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/hamas-palestinians-pogrom-israel
"Hey pollsters...Come back You missed someone who wants to exterminate Gaza"
Do you realize the irony of justifying desiring to kill an entire people by showing that they are psychopathic (because they want to kill all of you.
How do you know that the Israelis are incorrect?
Because Israel blocked their exit and then IDF soldiers killed starving people seeking food.
And now American contractors are there, shooting live ammo and hand grenades, and given carte blanche to do anything.
It's not hard to follow the situation if you get your news outside of Sam Harris.
No, every country does not have extremists at the highest positions in the land. The equivalent would be the US having a Christian nationalist 4th in command who wanted to expel black people and Hindus and wasn't quiet about it
There are numerous European and American states with hateful, racist , antisemitic people in all levels of power. We are living in an age of populist revival . Come off it
There's a difference between dogwhistles/ rhetoric and full out wishes verbatim.
There's also a difference between someone spewing anti Romani hate, and one doing so while actively engaged in the killing of over 40k Romani civilians .
The fucking Vice President of the United States is a Christian Nationalist who believes in the Great Replacement theory. What planet are you living on?
give it time!!!
Agree!
Laughable ... "People with power become the abusers" is more of an explanation to you than every child in Gaza being taught to hate Jews and to glorify martyrdom from the day they are born?
"People with power" is every democratic nation, but you don't see France or the UK embroiled in endless wars — they are living their prosperous, peaceful lives, because they aren't routinely invaded by death cults. Nor do they spend $100K per rocket for an Iron Dome to protect their citizens from daily attacks on 6 jihadist fronts.
Guess what. When these countries were actively involved in commiting atrocities they did face constant terror attacks. The US and the natives is an example
Correct. When we were busy stealing Indian lands - we were constantly attacked by Indian Jihaddists.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic but yes there was dozens of wars and attacks on the invading Europeans. Just not called jihad
I truly find it miraculous every time I see someone confused in this way regarding this point. Hamas' actions towards Jews and their stated goals of annihilating all Jews has absolutely nothing to do with territorial disputes or past grievances. Their motivation comes simply from the fact that they are Jews and therefore apostates which, by their interpretation of their holy book, means they have a duty to murder them and doing so well bring about great reward. That's it. This is so clear that I must conclude that anybody who doesn't understand this is either illiterate on the subject matter or intentionally dishonest. Again, (just as Sam repeatedly illustrates) land disputes and territorial seizures are completely irrelevant when it comes to analyzing the ethics of this conflict.
Their Charter says otherwise. A historical view says otherwise. Their behavior says otherwise.
There are thousands of Christians in Gaza that though discriminated against, are still alive.
Also, their motivation really isn't relevant. History tells us that if this group didn't arise, a different group for the same purpose would rise up.
No it doesn't. No it doesn't. And their motivation and ideas are supremely relevant. You are not a serious participant in this discussion.
Ok bud. Arrogance over reason is my motto too.
France and the UK living prosperous, peaceful lives? Check your work.
Israel is not a theocracy. Comparing it to any Islamic country disqualifies you from consideration.
Right, Israel is as much a Jewish Nation as The UK is a Protestant Nation, unlike countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that are actually governed by Theocrats. I’m not a Bibi fan but he isn’t a theocrat.
I think the issue of Israel being a theocracy and being a "Jewish Nation" are two separate things. I agree it is not really a theocracy, but it is clearly more of a "Jewish Nation" that your UK example. It's literally the only reason it exists. The UK, as of now, less than 50% consider themselves "Christian", much less Protestant. Despite this, it is still the UK.
Sure but he’s certainly a Zionist.
that is not the insult you think it is. Everyone who believes the Jewish people have a right to their own state in their ancestral homeland is a Zionist.
When people use it as an insult, it immediately signals their ignorance of the subject.
yeah it's almost as much as a tell as the people who are constantly using the word "hasbara"
Calling the most targeted and specific attack ever conducted in military history "indiscriminate" is absolutely insane.
If that operation does not clear your bar, no war or military action ever, in the history of all human warfare, has or will.
In fact it was extremely “discriminate.”
It’s a matter of degrees and the difference in degrees is so vast it’s almost a difference of kind. When Westerners are defending Jihadists there’s something VERY wrong.
I think a big problem with Israel's public perception is that their actions have made it easy for many people to be swayed by the colonial oppressor interpretation. When you look at the country's expansion into Palestinian land over the years, I think it's fairly easy to see how lots of Westerners would interpret Israeli expansion as a key factor in driving radicalization of the Palestinian population. It's very easy to see Hamas being supported as a self-defense strategy, if one knew very little about Hamas.
Yes but those frequently presented maps are not literate. I recommend this article and video accompanying it - https://newideal.aynrand.org/did-israel-steal-palestinian-land/
I'm confused on why it's ascribed to "tribal confirmation bias". Why not just consider him to have a wrong view? What about it MUST reduce to his being a (secular) Jew? Seems a bit antisemitic to be honest.
Also confused how the pager attack was either "indiscriminate" or "cruel".
The only steel man I can give to your argument is that when Sam says "peace in the region" I think that is a gross exaggeration. Perhaps it would be best to say peace in Gaza. But I believe the point he is really trying to elude to is if all Jihadists and Islamists threw down their weapons there would be peace in the region which is what all rationally ethical people want. But that would be, unfortunately, an act that completely contradicts the fundamental tenants of being a true believer of and practitioner Jihad. So what are the tolerant then suppose to do?
Doesn't this perspective suffer the "all religions are created equal" fallacy? Islamic theocracies are clearly the greatest risk to secular democracies specifically because the fundamentals enable proliferation through violence. All other theocracies pale in comparison.
Yes, I agree with most of what you said here. It’s clear to me that Harris has two major blind spots. The first is that he never fully addresses the inequality that exists even within Israel proper, and I don’t just mean Jews vs Arabs, there is a hierarchy within the Jewish people that goes like this: German Jews, other European Jews, educated Jews from the region (mostly Iraqi Jews), other Jews from close by the region, North Africa Jews and other African Jews at the bottom. Zionism at its core is an Ashkenazi project, only extended to Sephardic Jews after the horrors of the Holocaust reduced the Ashkenazi population by so much. Arab Israelis do not have the same rights and opportunities as Jewish Israelis. This inequality increases exponentially when we get to Gaza and the West Bank.
Secondly, Harris seems to have a very poor understanding of what it is like to be a subjugated people, what the long term effects are of dehumanizing people generation after generation. These people are broken, that is why they voted for Hamas in the first place. Harris never tackles this aspect of the conflict. As a proxy, why did the people in the north of Ireland vote for Sinn Fein in the 1980’s?
Ironically, the Jewish people have been the most subjugated and dehumanised people on Earth, since the 1st written word. A deep dive into history shows this plainly. Palestinian people are subjugated by their own rulers and perhaps this is better understood through the lens of Stockholm Syndrome.
Necessity is the mother of invention and boy have Israel created something from nothing. Even their greatest feats are used against them.
To suggest Sam has a blindspot because Israel dares to have inequality within its culture, suggests that Israeli people can't even be 'human', with all the human flaws that we ALL have. Ironically, that seems like another form of dehumanisation.
Fair points Sherri, however in my opinion I don’t think Israel dares to have inequality, it’s completely baked into the Zionist project.
Yes Henry you're absolutely right - Zionism was born from inequality. Zionism protects the community from the psychological anxiety of annihilation. It reflects the very tenets of human nature: the need to feel safe, belong, rise against injustice AND the fragility of human nature: bids of power, oppression, blind spots, moral accountability. This is what it is to be human.
Perhaps the moral strength of Israel is wobbling under their very new position of power. Is this not the time where friends and allies come in to help steady the ship? Not throw grenades to sink it.
Sam has a PhD in neuroscience. As a moral philosopher he has studied the worst atrocities in history as well as the investigations of human propensities (and possibilities). Somehow you get to speculate about Sam’s “…very poor understanding….”
Consider this: there is NO excuse whatsoever for 10/07. Sam demands (not expects) more of people. Perhaps you might consider the same and stop making excuses for jihadists.
As a proxy, Russia and its apologists declared the “threat” from NATO as sufficient to attack Ukraine. Again, I submit that NOTHING, EVER justifies that atrocity.
Yeah but a phd in neuroscience doesn’t make his opinion on the conflict any more valid than anyone else. And in fact I don’t think his moral philosophical background does either.
Yes 10/7 was horrific, Hamas are scum, yes…but Israel have behaved appallingly towards the Palestinian people for 75 years. Harris never goes into depth on that aspect of it.
I wonder how he would get on in a debate with his old friend Hitchens on this topic, not very well I think.
I was addressing your second point. I’m suggesting that moral philosophy is relevant to an, “…understanding of what it is like to be a subjugated people…” and that neuroscience is relevant to, “…the long term effects are of dehumanizing people generation after generation.” And there is crossover.
"...[A] phd in neuroscience doesn’t make his opinion on the conflict any more valid than anyone else. And in fact I don’t think his moral philosophical background does either." Then what is best brought to bear on the conflict, and why are you even here?
‘Then what is best brought to bear on the conflict, and why are you even here?’ - I’m here for opinions, history, perspective, understanding and maybe truth. You?
"Harris seems to have a very poor understanding of what it is like to be a subjugated people"
I assume from this criticism that you, Henry, have lived in subjugation for some portion of your life. Can you provide a bit more information on your specific expertise in this area?
I’m from west Belfast. Nowhere near the same level of abuse the Palestinians have suffered, but the Irish/catholic/nationalist people in the north of Ireland were treated as second class citizens since the state was formed in 1921. Not to mention the 800 years before that. What about you, any personal experience of being treated like shit as a people?
Fyi: Sinn Feins support remained relatively modest until the movement for ceasefire and peace grew
FYI I’m from west Belfast, they were the largest party in the area then and still are now. Also fyi, for the point of this analogy, think of west belfast as Gaza. Some more fyis, Sinn Fein are now the latest party in the north of Ireland and hold the first minister position and the IRA had a stated aim to keep bombing the UK until Ireland was free, they agreed to stop and now have a legitimate chance of unifying the country. Peace and respect changed everything.
I would expect from someone that is such a huge fan, read all of Sam's books, watched all videos, and listened to all podcasts to learn how to think critically. If Israel wanted to commit a genocide, this war would have been over in a week. Not a single Israeli soldier would die after October 8th.
This is the most stale talking point around and at this stage it’s the only one you hear. The most effective genocides are those that are done in a calculated manner, not so quickly that the world steps in and does something about it, think of dropping nukes that would IMMEDIATELY turn the entire world against Israel, but enough that you manage to reduce almost an entire city to rubble within a couple of years, which at this point is already the equivalent of several nukes. Genocide smart and have the right connections, and you can get away with it, that’s the lesson here.
What are you talking about? You know some one-day genocides you wanna tell us about? All you've admitted here is that you know Israel has greater power than Palestine, and you think you know how they'd use it if they wanted to. But you don't. You showed your entire hand, and it's all junk.
Your whole argument fails with the misuse of the word “genocide”.
How would you define genocide?
I know googles AI ain’t the best, but this is how it defines genocide:
Genocide is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. This destruction can manifest through various acts, including killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting conditions of life intended to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births, or forcibly transferring children of the group. It's a crime under international law, specifically defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
What is Bibi’s intent with the people of Gaza?
It would be a bizarre genocide when the alleged genociders warn residents to evacuate areas before they conduct operations and provide food distribution sites to feed the population.
Sounds like you dont agree with googles definition of genocide. It’s not just about killing, it’s about destroying a people. Also, even your boy Sam alluded to the dodgy goings on at the food distribution sites. Not to mention IDF members openly talking about shooting innocent civilians.
Also, smotrich Ben-gvir and bibi have clearly stated their plans for Gaza. The most generous interpretation of which is ethnic cleansing with a sprinkling of genocide.
I disagree with your interpretation of what is happening.
> "Your boy Sam"
You realize you are a subscriber to Sam's podcast too right? Unless you just purchase a subscription to this substack to hate on him...
Smotrich and Ben Gvir are evil people, but also have no power in the war. And I'm not sure what you're referring to wrt Bibi.
War crimes, if they have occurred, still don't amount to genocide.
Yeah I’ve been a subscriber for years, I’ve a few months left on this years sub and will not renew. He has lost too much credibility.
Only seeing the last couple of sentences of your previous message now. To say smotrich and Ben-gvir have no control, over the conflict (it’s not a war), is bonkers.
There are many things to say about bibi, but the most damming is that he wanted Hamas to seize and hold power, and was happy for them to spend the billions of aid dollars on tunnels and weapons rather than on their people, because it virtually ensured there couldn’t be a two state solution. And on a slightly more conspiratorial route, also ensured an attack like Oct 7th…and therefore this response and the take over of Gaza.
You just don’t get it Steve. You’re missing the point and you don’t even see it’s your own internal bias. This is all the energy I’m giving you. Stay sharp Steve
The founder of the Palestinian nationalist movement, Haj Amin al Husseini, was a Nazi war criminal who lived comfortably in Berlin on SS funding. The Arab world later expelled nearly a million Jews after Nazi anti-zionist propaganda spread by him fueled mass antisemitism. Europe and the Middle East were dangerous for Jews before Israel existed.
I wish people like you would acknowledge the power of antisemitism when weaponized as an ideological tool as it has been in the Palestinian context. Their school systems have been used to indoctrinate children with hatred, even teaching them how to stab Israelis. The imbalance of power persists not because peace is unattainable, but because the Palestinian leadership - including Hamas - does not seek coexistence or two states, but the destruction of what remains of Jewish life in the eastern hemisphere.
Steve, it's a sign that you need to grow. Sam is infinitely wiser than you, infinity. Read, contemplate, and learn. Sam is, as he is mostly, correct. On the scale of probability, Sam is 99.9% more correct than you. And on that note, take some time to let the paradigm shift occur, you'll be a better man for it.
You're a moron if you think blowing beepers for jihadists is indiscriminate. No war is without civilian casualties, you're naive at best
Recently I was having a debate with a friend about the "Just asking questions" trope. He was defending a holocaust denier on that Joe dude's show. His argument was that it was just exploring a different point of view. The debate ended abruptly when I asked if Joe should have a pedophile on his show in order to discuss that as a valid sexual point of view. The legal differences between denying the holocaust and abusing children aside, we all need to stop "just asking questions" that already have clear answers.
Saying hi from Israel. My friends son just had his feet blown off yesterday - but she’s just grateful he’s alive. We are all living through unspeakable tragedies here.
As a reasonable Palestinian voice I’d like to recommend Ahmed Fouad Alkatib. He’s pro Palestinian anti Hamas .
Also sharing the link to an English article by a young Israeli think Oz Bin Nun https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/dangerous-myths-the-deadly-impact-of-anti-israel-narratives/
Be well and thx for all the work you do
Ahmed Fouad Alkatib was interviewed by Noam Weissman on "Unpacking Israeli History". My views on Israel Gaza are virtually indistinguishable from Sam Harris, and remain unchanged after listening to the interview, but I learnt some important points from Alkatib, such as Palestinians voted in Hamas out of desperation and without a clear view of Hamas' death to Jews charter. I recommend listening to the podcast, and I would very much look forward to a discussion between Harris and Alkatib, thank you for suggesting it.
Yes I listened to that podcast and it was great. It would be fantastic for Sam to have Alkatib on.
I also want to add how sorry I am to hear of your friend's son's horrific injury. IDF soldiers for the most part go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, at the risk of their own lives.
I’m so sorry to learn of your friend’s son’s tragic injury.
This level of moral clarity is incredibly rare today sadly
I feel totally clear on my position, and I think Sam is full of it. Hope this helps.
you should move to the middle east and see for yourself.
"While Israel has its own religious zealots on the far Right, they do not represent Israeli society nearly to the degree that Hamas and other jihadist groups represent the will of the Palestinian people."
I wish Hitchens was here. Sam, this is why you need to solve your complete impenetrable blindness on this issue, you have proudly immersed yourself in an echo chamber and as a long time fan this has been increasingly depressing to witness. You are wrong about extremism in Israel, and there is polling out there about what Isreali's think should happen to Gazan's. The Pennsyvania state university did polling of Israeli's and found that:
82% support expelling Palestinians from Gaza, 56% support expelling Palestinian citizens from Israel, and 47% agree that "when conquering an enemy city, the IDF should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command - killing all its inhabitants" ---https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/05/30/poll-israelis-expel-palestinians-gaza-genocide/
Look at those numbers. 47%. That's the number of people that believe EVERY WOMAN AND CHILD should be killed in Gaza, about the same as the number of Palestinians that support Hamas. What explains your eagerness to find and cite polling for Gazan's but not of Israeli's, other than what appears to be tribal thinking?
Much of what you say about Islamism is accurate and I've been with you for many years on this and I'm firmly on the left, but you are completely blind in one eye. You can find limitless footage of Israeli crowds chanting some of the most depraved things you can imagine. The extremists in Netanyahu's regime are not just a couple of fringe loons, they're fucking everywhere, their views are worryingly prevalent in Israeli society, all of the data shows this. If you listen to almost any Israeli politician speak in Hebrew for more than a minute it doesn't take long to hear them speaking in openly genocidal language. They speak not about what they WANT to do but what they ARE doing, currently, deliberately, they're not errors they are policy, they only wear the mask when they speak English.
As a wise man once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, if someone tells you what they believe and why, BELIEVE THEM. I'm asking you to believe them, Sam. Believe these people when they literally tell you that they want to cleanse Gaza, by killing them or displacing them. Listen to Ben Gvir, listen to Smotrich. Listen to Netanyahu himself. We're talking about a man who sat behind Trump smirking like a gremlin as Trump got up on a podium and explained in detail how they plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza. A greater Israel was always the goal.
You call out anti-Semitism and you're absolutely right, there is an increase, though it's all too common to be smeared as an anti-Semite when criticizing Israel. There is also an increase in Muslim bigotry. I know you don't like the "I" word so I won't use it, but we do actually need a word that describes it. You speak about hate crimes against Jews but nothing about hate crimes against Muslims. Here's one you probably don't know about - After October 7th a 6 year old Palestinian-American boy living in Illinois with his mother were attacked, the boy was stabbed to death by a Zionist lunatic, his name was Wadea al-Fayoume. If you haven't heard about this, WHY? Ask yourself this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Wadea_al-Fayoume
Why does this not get mentioned? Ever? Have you seen some of the bile and hatred being directed at Zohran Mamdani? You don't need to agree with all his views to understand that this too, is unacceptable. What's more funny is that I can't imagine OTHER POLITICIANS speaking in this way about a Jewish candidate without being completely cancelled, but they can with Mamdani, without consequence.
Why? Perhaps because that stabbing is a single incident committed by a “lunatic.” Are you insisting that Sam list every single act of violence committed by both sides? Going back how far? I don’t mean to exaggerate your insistent inquiry, but what would satisfy you?
Sam is describing (global) jihad versus, “…a frontline state in the larger conflict between open societies and militant Islam. “…a pluralistic democracy, committed to values that its enemies despise: free speech, women’s and LGBT rights, and scientific progress.” He’s getting to the root of the problem, not engaging in the endless reprisals of the multi-millennial antagonists.
It seems you're somewhat confused about what the point was there. He correctly talks about Jewish hate crimes and references their increase in frequency, they are awful and should be condemned. The point is that he has, to my knowledge, not mentioned hate crimes against Muslims which are also on the rise in this climate. No he does not need to mention ALL of anything, but there is no acknowledgement that hate crimes against Jews *AND* Muslims are on the rise, it is not just one of them.
I don't know why you're putting lunatic in quotations like that, that child was stabbed to death by a Zionist lunatic specifically because the child was a Palestinian American, so he was definitely a lunatic and it was a hate crime. The recent examples of hate crimes against Jews made headline news all around the world, the Palestinian-American boy being stabbed to death, did not. Unfortunately. I am willing to bet money that Sam and you, had not even heard of this case. Why is that? Has it even occurred to Sam that it might not just be Jewish people?
I was quoting your use of the word "lunatic," not questioning it. I was, however, juxtaposing it with the mass lunacy of global jihad.
I'm not the least bit confused. You seemed to have missed my point that what you're writing is orthogonal to what Sam is writing. You're involved in the tit-for-tat ledger. Sam is writing that the moral baseline, the sum of current world views, is strongly skewed: open societies versus death cult. A very different kind of ledger.
You're trying to leverage that one tragic incident. You think it's relatable compared to the mass carnage. You might consider that you're actually desecrating that situation.
If you believe for one moment that I'm demanding he also list every anti-Muslim hate crime then you were definitely confused about the point being made. The point is that there never seems to be any general acknowledgement at all that there is any rise in hate crime against Muslims, which is also occurring due to the current climate. Even though both are important, only one gets any mention. It is not one tragic incident, both groups are experiencing an increase in hate crime around the world, and I would certainly use harsher words than you did to describe the specific hate crime I mentioned. This is not "tit-for-tat", that's not what this is. We should be discussing both realities, that hate crimes against both Jews and Muslims are on the rise.
Sam is a big free speech guy, and I followed him in part because of that, but even despite his hatred of Trump I don't see him speaking about the egregious and disgusting violations of the first amendment against pro-Palestine people in the Trump regime at the behest of Israel, things that are FAR worse than Ben Shapiro getting deplatformed, and yet he's nowhere to be seen on it. Rümeysa Öztürk was abducted in broad daylight by ICE freaks wearing masks and detained without charges, illegally and in poor conditions for months, BECAUSE OF AN OP-ED. No mention of any of this from Sam, why? This should be Sam's wheelhouse, you can get in a criticism of Trump and champion the first amendment. But nothing. Same with Mahmoud Khalil. Crickets. We should all be screaming from the top of our lungs about these violations, ESPECIALLY the free speech warriors from the 2010's. The free speech warriors that are also today sympathetic to Israel DO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. None of them do. It's baffling to me and to many others.
I would draw your attention to the podcast with Yuval Noah Harari - when Sam referred to a tiny minority or Jewish settlers as an irrelevance compared with the vast majority of Israelis who wanted peace - Yuval made a comment that this wasn’t the case in his experience but this wasn’t picked up by Sam.
Yuval is a fringe leftist in Israeli society. Most ideas he articulates so well are recycled from Sam and other leading thinkers. From Harari's point of view, the Israeli far right is a significant problem. But even he will acknowledge the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians is not because of the settlers but because of the existence of a Jewish nation in the middle east.
If you want to get perspective from someone who understands this conflict, please refer to the podcast with Haviv or better yet look for interviews with (or books by) Beni Morris.
As an Israeli (also named Yuval, hah), I can guarantee you that it is a false statement to claim that YNH is a fringe leftist in Israeli society.
From his perspective? So the Israeli far-right, which is prominent and influential in the regime and in the population, is only worrying from a fringe leftists perspective? You're definitely underselling it.
For the love of God, don't go to either of those people. Benny Morris in particular, simply watch his recent appearance with Norman Finkelstein on Piers Morgan to watch him be reduced to a puddle of goo when confronted with even the most basic, undeniable realities. No amount of knowledge saves you from denial. Embarrassing stuff.
This was a very telling episode, I think Harris was disagreeing with a lot of what YNH was saying, he even seemed disappointed YNH wasn’t singing the same tune as himself, only to quickly state that he hasn’t been following things closely in Israel for some time. I’m in shock at what Harris has become, all credibility is gone.
I would argue, that since the Harari interview Harris no longer refers to the toxic religious right extremists as a rounding error. So consciously or not Harris has adjusted his rhetoric on this basis. In addition, if you read Harris's point 4 above "the growing influence of religious extremists" he clearly delineated his adjustment from rounding error to growing influence...
Those survey questions are very strange and the answers don't line up with any other survey taken of Israelis.
Pew research shows only 30% of Israelis want any expansion of the war in Gaza and 90% support the United States assisting in a diplomatic end to the war.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/30/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war-may-2024/
I'm calling propaganda or outright misinfo on your Haaretz survey.
Which direction have rockets been going in for many years now? Gazans voted for the rocket firing lunatics so, what would you expect Israelis to think? Sam is probably one of the clearest individualist thinkers you will find - by all means disagree with him but he has no chamber in which to echo. He knows what he thinks and is clearly not a member of a chamber.
Sam I've long appreciated your intellectual rigor, especially your commitment to moral clarity in difficult debates. But I have deep disagreement with you on this. While you rightly condemn religious fanaticism and antisemitism, your framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overlooks critical facts and perpetuates a dangerously one-sided narrative.
You write that the “history of the Middle East is of no relevance,” yet the present cannot be understood (or ethically judged) without it. The occupation of the West Bank, the 17-year siege of Gaza, and the expansion of illegal settlements are not relics of the past; they are daily, lived realities for millions of Palestinians. These are not abstract grievances. They are expressions of structural violence - documented by B’Tselem, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, who all describe the situation as apartheid. If you value open societies and liberal democracy, surely a system that denies people basic rights on the basis of ethnicity must concern you.
You repeat the line that “if the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be peace; if the Israelis put down theirs, there would be genocide.” But this is a false binary. It ignores the fact that Palestinians have already tried unarmed resistance: protests, petitions, even negotiations. They’ve been met with tear gas, bullets, demolitions, and imprisonment. If peace simply required disarmament, why have those who pursue it without weapons been so relentlessly crushed?
You rightly warn of religious zealotry. But why does that critique apply so freely to Hamas, yet not to members of Israel’s far-right government - some of whom openly advocate ethnic cleansing and claim divine justification for expanding settlements? These are not fringe figures; they hold power in the Israeli cabinet. Their rhetoric and policies have real consequences for Palestinian civilians, yet you treat them as unfortunate caveats rather than urgent threats to your entire moral thesis.
Perhaps most concerning is your dismissal of genocide claims as “blood libels.” The International Court of Justice (no enemy of Israel) found the risk of genocide in Gaza to be plausible. This is not a Twitter slur. It’s a legal judgment, prompted by the scale of civilian death, starvation, and the dehumanizing rhetoric from Israeli leaders. If the deaths of (at least) over 30,000 people (including thousands of children) and the use of famine as a weapon don’t at least raise the question of genocidal intent, then what does?
You also claim that there is “no clear line” between Hamas and Palestinian society. That is an extraordinarily dangerous generalization. It collapses the identity of an entire people into that of a militant group. It erases the rich spectrum of Palestinian civil society - teachers, doctors, writers, activists - many of whom have dedicated their lives to non-violent struggle. To see only jihadism is to ignore the humanity of millions.
I understand that October 7 shook you, as it did the world. The atrocities committed that day were abhorrent. But Israel’s response cannot be morally justified by invoking that horror without limit or context. Retaliation is not above law. Nor does it excuse the systematic destruction of a civilian population already living under siege.
Sam, you speak often about the importance of consistency in our moral reasoning. But that consistency falters when you demand moral nuance in defense of Israel, while denying it to Palestinians. You say your support for Israel is not tribal, but ethical. I urge you, then, to consider this: ethics require us to hold all actors accountable, especially those with overwhelming power.
If your concern is for the preservation of open societies, then we must also speak out when a democracy uses its power to dominate a stateless, occupied people. There is no moral clarity without full vision. The tragedy in Gaza demands more than condemnation of jihadism. It demands a reckoning with occupation, with power, and with our shared humanity.
Hamas could have ended this war months and months ago by putting down their weapons and there would be no genocide. If Israel put down their weapons are we not to assume that Hamas would do what they say they want to do, and commit genocide?
The reason not to delve into the history isn’t because it isn’t relevant or important. It’s because people with preconceptions about who holds moral high ground are destined to be lost in a charitable reading of history for only their side. There is no where to go in conversation when this happens.
Thank you, Sam, for such a clear-eyed understanding of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and between civilization and jihadism.
I feel like you’d have to be pretty damn stupid to think one of the most prominent atheists of the past 20 years is biased because of a love of Judaism
I think the two positions are not mutually exclusive. I myself am an atheist and I love Judaism. Judaism is more than a religion - it is a culture that I am proud to be a part of.
+1
I'm not religious either, and I have superficially studied religions and watched how people in different cultures and religions behave.
Judaism to me seems if not the only, but the major religion that follows truth wherever it might lead. I've always admired that about the culture, if not the religion.
I think there’s an important distinction, that maybe I didn’t make clear enough here. Jews have obviously contributed much to the world, in terms of finance, comedy, all sorts of stuff. But a lot of the most famous ethnically Jewish individuals are completely divorced from the religious stuff. I’m not Jewish, but I have a lot of respect for them.
Not stupid, it starts with an A(ntisemite)! Yes, as the reasoning goes: “Even though you’re not religious, you’re still a Jew and therefore incapable of approaching matters regarding Israel with logic and objectivity.
Bingo
This is your argument Richard…
Sam Harris is still a Liberal Free Democrat and therefore incapable of approaching matters regarding Islam (which is none of these things) with logic and objectivity.
Uh. Only 50% of American Jews even believe in God, so no. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/13/jews-in-u-s-are-far-less-religious-than-christians-and-americans-overall-at-least-by-traditional-measures/
That would be crazy if true but the survey shows 22% of Jews are not spiritual or believe in God, not 50%.
Literal god, I said. Not “or some other higher power sort of.”
Sam, I'm saddened that ignorance and bigotry in our world are so pervasive and persistant that you need, yet again, to make clear this position. But thank you for doing so, from the bottom of my heart. You have the recognition and standing that gives this perspective power and the chance to be heard. My conversations with friends also continue - I find that mostly they are the stereotypical humans - "wishful thinkers" who can't accept that Hamas & co really are that evil. But I will persist - as do you. Thank you!
This hits on a point that I don't think is made enough. People don't believe Hamas's intentions so they end up justifying it using explanations that are more palatable to their own culture/ideology.
The
I’m a fan of most of your views Sam but i can’t even listen to you about Israel and your justifications for their continued abuse. You leave no room for Israel to be wrong let alone diabolically wrong in their approach and this makes you seem unreachably buried in and hardened by your own bias. You’re never going to convince the younger generations who support the plight of ordinary palestinians, and attempting to convince them of the errors of their thinking just makes you look tone deaf. Not everyone who opposes and resents Israel and its disastrous government is a Hamas lover. Netanyahu is not a new villain, he’s been an evil better dressed version of any shithead despot you care to name since the beginning and should never have had the world’s support.
Attempting to defend Israel at this point seems disturbingly similar to trying to defend Trumps Big Disaster Bullshit. You can try to defend it as much as you want but the better option would be to slink into the shadows of shame and hide out at least until the bombing subsides. Israel is as guilty as charged and more.
I don’t think you read what Sam wrote……
You had me at “i dont think…”
How should Israel have responded to October 7th, in your opinion? Do you believe Hamas and the Palestinians who joined them were justified in their actions that day?
Good question. Funny how it always clears the room. When I watch debates on this topic that question always comes up, and the pro-Hamas debater always changes the subject by bloviating about 1948 and spouting off with the usual Al Jazeera agitprop talking points. I have literally never heard a single full throated answer to this totally valid question.
Their actual feelings are that Israel is guilty for existing and therefore, should accept any harm (even to the point of nonexistence) that comes to them as "justice" for Palestinians.
What they aren't saying aloud or publicly is that they should die like good Jews
Does it count for anything that you have to theorize what's happening in your opponents' heads, while Israel does things in the real world?
They have killed almost 30 Gazans for every 1 Israeli killed. What is an acceptable ratio here?
Okay. They should have submitted a plan to international courts and then followed it. Hope this helps.
Submitted a plan to do what?
You want me to write Israel a full hypothetical defense protocol in this thread that could be submitted to international courts?
I'm interested in your thoughts on the above question that I responded to. "How should Israel have responded to October 7th, in your opinion?"
(I am not pro-Hamas, but I assume your definition is "anyone who supports Palestine at this time." If not, then great.)
Probably a briefer more strategic and targeted offensive. Followed by a ceasefire, hostage negotiations, and peace talks.
Not a multi-year campaign of slaughter, destruction, and starvation resulting in the death of 57,000 Palestinians, the wounding of 135,000, and 1.8 million facing "extremely critical" levels of hunger. At this moment, 93% of the Palestinian population is experiencing acute food shortages.
The deal of "return the hostages and the war ends" was always on the table. There is no further begging and pleading Israel could do after a straightforward offer. You guys always turn into armchair generals: "I would have just done it faster and more targeted (lol)" and have nothing to say to the reality that Israel started with negotiations and has taken crazy precautions not to kill civilians like warning the enemy of strike locations
Yes, you're absolutely right. I know it's silly for a layperson like me with very limited knowledge to pretend to know what should have been done.
I just find it hard to believe that Israel is minimizing harm when the death toll and number of people wounded is so high. When people are starving and suffering yet they repeatedly cut off aid. When you hear about doctors and journalists seemingly being deliberately targeted. And when the UN has accused Israel of war crimes.
I find it hard to believe that the route Israel is taking is the only possible option or the best option.
So you don’t know what you would have done differently, but you know that the end result is bad so something should have been done differently. I don’t see any insight.
Yes actually. The burden isn't on me as someone with no military experience to come up with an alternative military action that Israel should have taken. No matter what I say, how well researched, or how well thought out, any answer I give wouldn't be good enough for you. It's a ridiculous question and a ridiculous expectation.
Perhaps there are military strategists or even those within the Israeli government who would have done things differently or have a different ideas, I don't know. Could be worth looking into I suppose.
But yes, all I know is that this genocide is immoral, unethical, and inhumane and that responding to hate and bloodshed with even more hate and bloodshed seems ineffective and dangerous as well as just plain wrong.
Israel isn't made up of jihadists, so I believe they have the responsibility to take a higher road and to not stoop down to Hamas' level.
So here's where I'd come half way.
1) Netanyahu (not Israel - war crimes target an individual) has been accused of war crimes by the ICJ, a much more independent subbody of the UN proper and the charges are credible as well. Since Netanyahu will never sit for trial we may call them true. These charges, however, are for withholding aid unnecessarily (which Bibi likely did do, the only question is if it caused deaths), not for indiscriminate civilian killings by the military.
Bibi deserves whatever he gets for his conduct during the war, but it's not an indictment of the war itself. If Bibi were hauled away the war would continue and the current shooting/bombing policies would remain in place as they weren't the target of the indictment.
2) When we're talking about excess civilian deaths in the war in Gaza, it's important to note there is a faction of the Israeli government (that is not currently in power) that is unabashedly in favor of genocide. Anyone who tells you otherwise is coping. The radical faction's position is this: "No one is boycotting Turkey for the Armenian genocide. If we killed the Gazans today, sanctions would be gone by next year and no one would remember in 2 years. Any alternative is death for Israel".
Given that Israel always has this option, the logic of going in and killing extra civilians would be to end the war quickly by killing any possible terrorist, or just everyone period, and go then back to 'peace' before the world could respond - this is essentially the strategy of all modern genocides. Given that Israel is taking precautions and the war is dragging on way longer than they would want - it seems weird to say they have intentionally killed 10,000 extra people in a population of several million for no political or military benefit.
You may have noticed, I'm not some fan of Israel. I'd be open to a real military analysis showing extreme IDF carelessness and I believe that some IDF soldiers will be tried for war crimes (we had war crimes in Iraq too and we sent people to jail). However, when I lump you in with "you guys" it's because I've seen a lot of attempt at this, specifically, and they aren't very convincing - usually an eventual admission of "I don't really know, it's a feeling". It's much better to start at point 1 and 2 above and try to determine moral culpability by faction from there.
The war crimes don't seem to be limited to cutting off aid:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150946
Andrew Hastie is no less of an armchair general than the people he's accusing others of being. He just hasn't bothered to look up what irony means and he confuses his opinion for something more than it is. Yet another foot soldier in the long line who tries to dodge uncomfortable truths to bolster his view of who the real victims are. He even uses 'lol' as his bugle. It's so cute.
And yet, enough food was delivered to Palestine during the ceasefire earlier this year to feed the entire population for 6 months. What happened to that food? Aid to Gaza === money and power for Hamas. Until Gazans can throw off the shackles of the warlords they elected, they'll keep dying. They're lucky they attacked a country like Israel, which has conducted the most moral urban war in history. Please do listen to Sam's episode with John Spencer.
I've listened to many hours of Sam's podcasts on this topic as well as several others. I've read plenty of articles. I've spoken to one of my best friends who is Israeli and is against this war (although her parents are in support of it)...
As stated many times, I still walk away with the conclusion that this can't be the only way to respond to Hamas or October 7th. I strongly disagree that it's been the most moral, accurate, or strategic military offensive in history. There are plenty of reputable sources who say otherwise (as I mentioned elsewhere) and the statistics don't bear this out.
So primarily I disagree with that as well as the belief that what Israel is doing will ever work. I don't have to be a military strategist or an expert to know that more fear, terror, or violence will ever solve anything or bring about lasting peace, stability, or safety in the region.
So to conclude here I believe that this offensive is not minimizing civilian death or harm and that Israel's strategy doesn't seem like an effective one. That's why I oppose this genocide no matter how many times Sam or others try to eloquently logic their way about it.
Thanks for the response. I find it fascinating that someone who's listened to "many hours of Sam's podcasts" openly admits that no logic (or, presumably, facts) can change their mind.
This is identical to the religious thinkers with whom Sam spent the early part of his career debating. Whenever backed into a corner, they fall back on "yeah, but faith," as if that's any explanation.
You're right, this is concluded because you've demonstrated an ossified belief system immovable by logic, so why waste mental energy engaging? However, it's curious why you inject yourself into these discussions. Is it to change people's minds about the conflict? Can you at least step back and see how unfair it is to seek to change others' views when yours are set in stone? This kind of mindset pervades social media, and Sam is seeking to cultivate a community of open-minded thinkers.
I hope you don't take this personally. You appear to be very compassionate towards the suffering of others. It's just the ubiquitous meta-cognitive heuristic of abdicating logical discourse in favor of sacred cows exhausts and saddens me.
It was more of a jab at Sam and others who attempt to justify something so horrific and immoral with logic. Yes, some of my views are immovable because they're based on strong convictions and compassion like you said
I'm not on here attempting to change anyone's mind because that seems impossible to do. Just sharing my views, seeing where it goes, if there's anything more to learn, and it also seems important to speak my mind when so many others are just praising Sam for this essay. Felt important to speak up. Thanks for the conversation
I feel like you’re overlooking the fact that Hamas is not willing to do a ceasefire or significant hostage negotiations. Tried and failed many times. Hamas could have ended this war long ago
I don't know enough about all the negotiations and hostage deals, who broke the ceasefire arrangements or when or why. It doesn't really change my mind is why I don't mention it. It doesn't give Israel a pass to do whatever they want for however long they want. Bombing an entire population into oblivion (which also killed many of the hostages according to several reports) doesn't seem like an effective or ethical strategy. Nor does cutting off aid and starving the Palestinian people.
You act like what Israel is doing is the only way. The only possible imaginable scenario or option. It's the best operation in history even though it's killing and starving tens of thousands of people. I strongly disagree with that.
And the remaining 7 percent is? Hamas?
I have no idea. But I'm floored by the lack of empathy towards Palestinians that comes from people who are in support of this. Read and watch all about it... nothing justifies this amount of suffering and it really doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Slaughtering, wounding, and starving a population to this degree isn't going to make Israel safer in the long-term... it will only generate more enemies and more violence
I'm shocked by the lack of empathy and support for the millions of Muslims who don't happen to be suffering in Palestine. 85k children starved to death in Yemen, hundreds of thousands tortured and killed in Syria, 87% of women in Egypt forced to undergo FGM. How must it feel to be one of those Muslims and see the whole world in a hissy fit for Palestine, which started a war with a superior enemy?
It strikes me as a kind of soft bigotry towards Muslims. You're OK with them slaughtering, wounding, and starving each other. Still, when Israel defends itself (yes, until Hamas is completely uprooted as a viable power source in Gaza, this is a defensive war), you villanize Israel for conducting war against an enemy whose primary strategic asset is the death of its civilians.
By their silence on Muslim v Muslim violence and complete moral confusion about Gaza, the left has shown they hold Israel to a much higher ethical standard than Muslim countries. How is that anything other than the soft bigotry of low expectations? As a supporter of Israel, I thank you. We hold ourselves to a high standard, and I'm so proud of the way the IDF has conducted this war while minimizing civilian casualties.
I'm sorry, this argument is nonsensical. So we can't speak out against what's happening in Gaza without also speaking out about every other tragedy in the world?? It doesn't mean there's a lack of empathy, it means that those situations aren't being reported on in our media and most people are unaware of them.
I strongly object to your opinion that Israel is minimizing civilian casualties. You state it as if it's an irrefutable fact. But there are plenty of reputable sources, as well as what we can see with our own eyes, which say otherwise. The UN doubts that claim. And Israeli military generals and soldiers themselves have been speaking out and defecting saying Israel isn't doing enough to minimize harm to civilians.
I have to agree with you. I'm so saddened that Sam seems almost blind to the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Yes Hamas are a Jihadist threat to liberal democratic values but I'm afraid so is what the Israeli government doing in the destruction of Gaza and indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians. I find thar after decades of following Sam's work I cannot listen to him on this subject anymore.
My guess is PTTP's mindset is that Israelis should have realized the error of their ways on 10/7, accepted that the rape, torture and execution of families and youth was a moral lesson and either offed themselves or gone back to the imaginary white supremacist colonial state from which they originated.
I’m not a military expert and judging by your fox news style question your expertise is even less worthy of listening to. So its best lay people like us don’t speculate on what Israel should have done. But what they did do is open season for anyone with two eyes and a heart to weigh in on. But hey Im not American or Israeli so I’m not blinded by my own delusions of exceptionalism. What Israel did is as atrocious and incompetent as what America did after 9/11 and no matter how many facts are pointed out to people like you and your comrades in ignorance nothing will disturb you from your perch when you have fingers in your ears and your eyes turned inwards
you sound brain washed.
You should probably stop listening to the sounds in your head then. They’re obviously crowding out more useful things
Coming from you that's a compliment
That was a compliment sugar tits. If i wanted to insult you i wouldn’t have been so refrained
> You leave no room for Israel to be wrong
Oops, looks like you missed several parts of the article. Don't worry, I copy-paste them here for you.
> Whatever [Israel’s] flaws—and there are many
> I won’t be surprised if some members of the IDF are found guilty of war crimes. Worse, it seems likely that many soldiers have been routinely given jobs—the guarding of food-distribution centers, for instance—where predictable encounters with civilians have led to pointless killing.
> There are also reasons to be alarmed by Israel’s current political trajectory—chief among them, the corruption of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the growing influence of religious extremists within his government, and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.
Those are not proofs of Sam leaving room for Israel to be wrong. They are exemptions for Sam to excuse himself in advance because he knows there's an extremely high chance he'll need to pull the plug on this take. He's backing two bullies: Israel and the US. He can't get away from bullies; maybe he grew up among rich bullies and has no idea what standards he should keep. Guy was friends with Elon Musk. He's socially stunted and it affects how he thinks. it's pretty obvious. Hope this helps.
you seem to have soiled your nappy.
Mmmmmmm! Straight for making the woman a baby for caring. Faster than usual, but tracking.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjp11f6wsex
You're speaking to a rape victim. I have read this. What would you like me to take from it?
I agree with you until the personal attack on the extent of Sam’s emotional reach. I know stunted people well and can recognize them immediately by my desire to leave their presence ASAP or when I start yawning or feeling nauseous. Its why i can’t entertain Trumpists. They lack emotional maturity and either bore me to tears or make me sick.
I don’t think Sam is anywhere near that.
In most areas i admire his intellect across the spectrum but i PERSONALLY (emphasis added to point out that unlike others here, i don’t claim to have anything besides an opinion) I wholeheartedly reject his apologetic position on Israel or how dangerously close his narrative is to branding anyone who doesn’t agree as anti semitic, misguided or a Hamas supporter. That is an emotionally retarded position to take and shows as much intellect as MAGA going after DEI. Its loaded with gross stereotypes, devoid of data and based almost entirely on a different type of ignorant propaganda. Its brain dead and rampant in our present moment in the fever swamp and if i could I’d kick it in the balls. Whether its on the left, right or buried up the middle, i don’t care where it is on the political, religious, or geopolitical spectrum. I have the same amount of contempt to offer to propaganda peddlists who try to arrogantly steal the position of holier than thou. 🖕to all of them. Israel is no better than Palestine and their official military junta is behaving no better than Hamas. They’re both fucking disgraceful monsters who deserve to be judged as nothing less.
Idk man, I’m an autistic woman who’s been around high resourced autistic men pretty much her whole working life and I think I see something you’re blind to. But whatever, Sam matters very little compared to Gaza, and on Gaza we agree. No one is free while Palestine is oppressed like this. Our empire is now the aggressor.
What do you see that I’m blind to? I’m sure there’s a lot of things but what specifically?
I can’t think of a time when the empire hasn’t been the aggressor since it dropped the bomb and showed how aggressive its willing to be at a moment’s notice. Deterrence is its own form of aggression. And the argument that America is the moral leader has always had as many holes in it as a tea bag. Its the economic hitman is what it really is.
I think he’s socially stunted in the obvious autistic ways. Monotropic, can’t zoom out of his special interests, defiant and angry if called out on inconsistencies, great at masking and intellectualizing his anger, and great at cognitive dissociation. Also extremely high tolerance for saying an unpopular position. I have always suspected that the organized atheist / skeptic movement is a movement with type 1 autism as the cultural norm. The same goes for academic psychology, law, journalism, and politics. Certain fields grab us, and because we have an under diagnosis issue, we don’t know our own limitations. We become the golden children and can fuck things up with our blind spots.
I appreciate your earnest attempt to address my lack of enlightenment so I can finally see the truth in all its bloody but sacred glory but I don't need to read full articles to have an opinion. I don't need to deeply contemplate all the clauses and caveats to have issues with the general thrust of an argument. I can just disagree. Without having to be held to account by first year university students who've just learned how to use cut and paste.
As I said, I respect Sam and appreciate his views on most things. But not this one. And you chiming in like an annoying mosquito isn't going to change that. So if you have something intelligent to add why don't you do that instead of just trolling my opinion as a way to earn yourself some likes for your instagram page.
Haha, what a response, a bundle of arrogance sitting awkwardly beside the admission that you were too lazy to read for 10 minutes before writing your scathing review
If that was the extent of your intellect you should quit your liberal arts school and take that job at 7/11. If Israels atrocities fail
to move the dial on your walmart moral conscience sufficiently and jolt you into outrage you should run and hide little rabbit, bury your head in your burrow and keep pretending these atrocities that look remarkably similar to genocide are just collateral damage. Im sure its less scary than looking into the blackness of your burned out soul.
Amen, brother.
I’m waiting for comments that aren’t so sycophantic. Sam, your intellectualism blinds you to ethical complexities and your privilege blinds you to others’ suffering. You have ideas about all of these, but you haven’t born witness to them. Until you do that, I can only appreciate your point of view as I would the results of a laboratory experiment. You talk about the importance of separating Islam from the humans who practice it, but this argument is sterile until you have spent some time with a grieving and bereft Palestinian family, or besieged West Bank community, or attended the so-called aid depots where IDF soldiers have admitted to shooting civilians for no reason other than to show them who is in charge. It is possible to bear witness to this suffering and you have the means to do it. I invite you to leave the confines of your ivory tower and explore the gaps in your understanding.
The suffering of Palestinians has been entirely at the hands of Hamas and their proxies. Intentions matter, and they have been stated clearly and unequivocally for decades. You try living next to a neighbour who wants you dead and see how your ethics survive. Israel has maintained the only open society in the region despite every reason to capitulate to unrestrained hostility. Every offer of peace and statehood over the past 75 years has been rejected in favour of a cult of death.
Once again, asmuch as it pains me to say, I totally agree with this sentiment. We cannot ever escape the fact that we are all shaped to a large or lesser degree by our social circle, education and cultural environment - and Sam is no different in this respect.
Oh Mike. Hang on buddy
Bill Burr described this best.. "If you want to hit your neighbor, and he’s holding a baby, you don’t get to punch through the baby to get to him.
Intent doesn’t save you. Blame-shifting doesn’t save you. Only restraint, creativity, and responsibility.
That’s what moral high ground actually requires. If you can’t find a better way, you don’t take the shot.
so you let those people murder your own children b/c they hold babies. I get you. You want them to be good Jews who allow themselves to be slaughtered. Jewish babies, they're ok to kill right?
no Jonathan, Israel just kills the babies regardless if they're being held by anyone or there is any Hamas present. Listen to Ben Gvir or Smotrich speak, they about say as much.
sounds like another blood liber. I don't judge my fellow Americans based on Trump, Bannon and Miller, I'm not going to judge Israel based on their extremists either. And if you listen to Hamas speak, they plan on doing Oct 7th again and again and again until there are no more Jews so... what are they supposed to do?
When I say Israel I obviously mean the regime. Those in power. You need not judge random Israeli's for what they say, of course not, but you should consider if these incredibly influential people are heavily involved in what is happening here. These aren't some fringe lunatics that nobody listens to, they have extremely high positions of power.
this is true, but if someone came to Philadelphia and killed thousands of my neighbors, family and friends because they where protesting Trump, I'd still be pretty pissed off and would want to make sure they could never, ever do that again, regardless if I share their hatred of Trump.
What you perhaps don't realize is what the people of Gaza feel every day. At this point it would be difficult to find any one person there who hasn't lost someone, how many people are radicalized by this? Pushed into the arms of an ideology like Islam? It's why dropping bombs will rarely deliver peace, only create even more of the problem to begin with.
It's also assuming that those in power in Israel are good faith actors when they just aren't, they're corrupt, and they're absolutely mad. Like our response to 9/11, it really has little to do with terrorism and more to do with using such things as an excuse to do what they already wanted to do, they just get to do it much faster now. The suffering is the point. The goal is to traumatize the population to such an extreme that they can never recover, and that is what we are witnessing in real time.
Yeah that's real nuanced and true lol gtfo
Jonathan, I understand the emotion behind your response, but I never mentioned religion, ethnicity, suggested anyone passively accept slaughter, or invoked the idea of “being good Jews.” Let’s zoom back out to concepts and principles.
My point is narrower: if we accept the killing of children as collateral simply because someone uses them as shields, we erode the very foundation of moral high ground. My argument is about restraint — and the burden that comes with claiming moral superiority — no matter who we’re talking about.
OK, I'll play. What's your solution, when your enemies really do want to genocide you and have claimed Oct 7th was just a first strike of many? Who have a history of suicide bombers who want nothing more than to blow up and kill as many civilians, women and children as possible? When they feel that dying so they can kill you is wonderful? Who have no moral issues with literally hiding behind babies? How are you going to defend your people? When do you say "yeah, if the moral high ground means sacrificing more of our own children then fuck that, we're done." - the duty of a state is to protect its citizens, how are you going to protect them? Please tell me what they should do, and how you would defend your people if it was you running things.
Crickets. That's what I thought.
No, I'm here... Just don't see the notifications all the time. Happy to continue dialogue
Jonathan — I get it. There’s rage. Fear. And the desire to protect your people at all costs. But this isn’t about letting anyone be slaughtered. It’s about how we fight back without losing ourselves.
The answer isn’t pacifism, to me it’s superiority of mind.
We need CIA/Mossad-level/High Intelligence/TradeCraft thinking here. Strategic mastery. Remember when Mossad rigged Hezbollah operatives’ pagers to detonate remotely across Lebanon, injuring targets with surgical precision while avoiding harm to bystanders?
That’s the level of 3D chess we’re talking about. That’s warfare with precision and restraint. I’m not claiming to have a perfect answer. But I am saying: brute force that kills children (even if the enemy hides behind them) isn’t strength. It’s surrender to moral erosion. And it hands your enemies the narrative they want.
Here’s what smarter warfare "could" look like:
1. Intelligence first: Break networks from the inside. Disrupt. Deceive. Hunt leaders with finesse. Don’t let martyrdom become marketing. Make capture more terrifying than death.
2. Turn human shields into propaganda failures: Broadcast restraint. Use drones, comms, and AI to warn civilians. Let the world see who’s hiding behind children, and who chose not to shoot through them. This kind of transparency doesn’t just save lives. it helps reframe the dominant “genocide” narrative by showing that Israel is exercising moral discipline under impossible conditions.
3. Moral deterrence > mass retaliation: Declare this simple truth: If there are children in the room, we won’t fire… but make no mistake we will find you. Make them live in fear of justice, not glory.
4. Redefine winning: The job isn’t just to keep your people alive, it’s to do it without becoming the monster your enemy needs you to be.
Look, this isn't easy. It’s messy, imperfect, and slow. But in my view that’s the cost of claiming moral high ground. And if we don’t start demanding creative responses from people trained in the art of complex warfare, we’ll be stuck in this cycle forever, reacting, hardening, and losing what made us human.
Too simple Paul. Not the same argument. Not even close. 😳
I get that it may sound overly simple at first blush. But I’d argue that the simplicity is exactly the point.
A child is a child. The moral gravity doesn’t shift based on who’s holding them. If we start making exceptions, even for tactical reasons, we risk justifying the unjustifiable.
My comment isn’t meant to flatten the complexity of the conflict. It’s to insist that some moral lines, especially involving children, should remain bright, even in war. That’s what makes them moral.
Lol you're missing the part where before picking up the baby, your neighbor has just raped, maimed, and burned most of your family alive while promising to do it over and over again and firing rockets at your head. What happens then, Paul? Do you let yourself and your remaining family members die so long as the baby doesn't get hurt? I should hope not.
Maybe the person holding the baby shouldn't have put everyone is such a terrible predicament in the first place.
So well explained and expressed. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out!