"It’s alarming to realize that for every listener who proudly delivers a fake coup de grâce of this kind, there are likely thousands who silently believe the same thing."
But it's also true that for each of person who silently "believes the same thing", there are plenty more who do not - and who silently agree with Sam.
The other day, I was walking on a trail through the woods I often frequent. On a sign therein, some nitwit had spray painted "Free Palestine" about a month ago. Each time I see it, it irks me. But yesterday, I laughed out loud when I noticed that someone else had added two words to the message: "From Hamas".
My bit long-winded observation about WhatAboutery specially from here in Australia where I understand people read more world wide news than do US citizens (Australia relies more on other countries that the US does or 'Europe as a whole' does, so we follow more daily international news and events) is that also here a significant percent of politicians and media with narratives push them with twisted and false evidence.
So much so it appears to worry most centre leaning and now the growing majority of people here whether our neighbours are savvy enough to do their fact checking.
Ok so that part is not enlightening, many have recently come to similar views. Less and less can we rely on news outlets reporting ‘News’. Only some outlets here are honest enough to cite/label their articles as news or opinion or analysis.
Social media is by far opinion and sadly major news outlets such as Fox or any Murdoch reporting is not true news, (unless your are hard right, ok ok ducking for cover here, but remember that Lachlan Murdoch has admitted they are right wing ) and are opinions and therefore probably more than 50% is twisted and fake.
Me I think like a lot of others realise that the speed and explosive capability of today's social-media enables less savvy people to go bi-polar. But that's just a percentage of any community, but a big one. But its not only less savvy, those with higher intellect, well respected community members also re-preach beliefs without any supporting real facts. Curve-fitting or cherry-picking are often the methods employed, but again people will say they just really believe something unproven. What is this - it is 'Tribal' in my understanding. But Tribes are important for survival.
And BTW by less savvy I mean like not everyone has time to fact check news while they’re working, studying nights, focusing on family, looking after their own health.
Back to WhatAboutery, for example here there have been also protests about the Hamas attacks, then more recently about the actions of Israel and Netanyahu, even some local Jewish politicians calling out about the same subject, yet some large political and media factions repeatedly and loudly label these call-outs as antisemitism and had very heavily used this to slam guilt on anyone not calling it antisemitism.
I think that use of labelling pissed a lot of people off here. And recent events here show it really did. It is a too obvious narrative. It just recently backfired on those conservatives trying to weaponise antisemitism.
How – well a major political conservative party here expecting to win just had a decimating landslide against them and the suspicions and surfacing evidence is showing it wasn't solely the winning party's policies.
The kicker is showing up in the autopsies, it was the losing conservatives numerous own supporters shifting their votes away because of their party’s recent stand on further cutting recognition and rights of the local indigenous population, and their very loud labelling of the call-outs about Israel and Netanyahu as antisemitism.
What, so so every time the police arrest a drug -dealer or burglar or DV offender who isn't Jewish or maybe was a practicing Catholic, it should be labelled anti-christian!
He or she is a thug whether they went to a state school or Catholic school or Jewish school, Islamic, whatever school.
We must always discriminate the action, not the race or creed.
Predominantly Palestinians are born Palestinians.
Hamas are not born Hamas, they are born Palestinian or Lebanese or Iranian et al and maybe even some were Jewish.
Hamas are conversions, they joined a tribe, a cult, why?
Back to the point about WhatAboutery and deaths of innocents in Sudan, Syria, Yemen I don't believe goes unnoticed.
From here there has been more affinity with Israel due work colleagues, neighbours, relatives, trade and tourism than with those other countries. I believe we had developed a higher level of respect for Israel and an OECD member and similarly with the likes of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, and many European countries, to name just a few but importantly each with a predominance of different and even opposing faiths.
Most western countries do not have the same level of affinity with Sudan, Syria, Yemen for the same basis, maybe in the future.
Because of that affinity with Israel I think we had an expectation of Israel and many people see that country failing that expectation.
Respect is not locked in. I used to think respect had some degree of hysteresis but not anymore.
I believe now more people apply a similar view.
I’ve come to learn that human beings are much more fickle than I ever thought, my ideas of intellect and ordered minds has been shattered, I thought that history is old fashioned, can’t happen today, crap, it still happens and always will.
The concept of a single person having ultimate power over a nation - democracy or not is no protection - does not guarantee consistency of virtue nor respect. In coming decades or maybe centuries I believe this will either be the death of us all, else there must evolve a new style of governing and leadership.
- - - - -
BTW a solution to social media is to at the least industry-regulate or legislate 'transition time', only users with 100% authorative ID and a disclosed name and 18 or over have their messages delivered immediately, all other user’s messages only get delivered after 24 hrs. And this is an easy technical implementation.
It's a 'percentage game' and I believe this as a minimum would help against garbage and bullying.
I agree also. I can't discuss most sensitive issues/topics with close family and friends now because they cannot see the difficult navigation of facts needed to treat topics like the Isreal-Gaza conflict with logic and fariness. Everyone just runs and hides and shouts from their bubble.
Is that all you took away from Sam's post? Is it so difficult to learn a new word or to work it into your own discourse? The right word in the right place isn't pedantic; it is evidence of the effort to be accurate. You used the word "pedantic" thus signifying that you are not entirely a troglodyte (look it up). How is "heuristic," or for that matter "straw man," an alien term? Instead of complaining that a writer made it hard for you, look up a new word, read the original sentence again, and expand your understanding of the writer's argument. Or maybe skip this arena entirely if it makes you take up the cause of the ignorant who don't want to be anything but. Look what your remarks have generated: Anglo-Saxon word fans, as if French and Latin words have done nothing to elevate English to a more precise plane of communication.
Sam Harris is a capable and competent writer. Eloquent. Concise. Clear.
That said, (I feel) he can sometimes complicate his prose with big words (when diminutive ones could suffice...).
To wit: I doubt Harris is trying to use words like 'heuristic' as a semantic parlour trick (the way hucksters like Jordan B Peterson do) however that does not make criticism of such unwarranted...
Been a subscriber of Sam for three years now. Brilliant dude.
But isn't the very idea of 'heuristic' negated by alienating (with big words)
This is tricky… you have to imagine being Sam, or anyone you know you could glean the same. We are what we’ve surrounded ourselves with. His arena is to readily be immersed in academia, this affects your vernacular. Peterson, who I equally agree is casuistry personified, purposefully complicates vernacular to throw you off. He’s hoping you almost can’t take away the point so he can’t be rebutted. Sam uses complex words at points oftentimes because when you look it up, it genuinely meets his intention. He also speaks differently in his replies than he does his published pieces. He knows his colleagues are reading as well, who fill his podcast seat. I don’t doubt a part of him loves vocabulary, as I have the same love, and it’s fun to try and work in better words… but naturally and when called for. I know Sam’s reply would be the short-handing tech/social media has forced onto us is narrowing our once larger expressive reservoir. Think how so many say the same things and it’s repeated and oftentimes these situations, people, or events are wrongly described because of a loss of expression. Heuristic is the perfect the word. The main reason he used that word is because the point of the article was a lesson to his readers in logical fallacies from argumentation/debate. Whatabouty was the topic, which falls into logical fallacies. So it was appropriate and it wasn’t Peterson’s showboating and purposeful obfuscating tactics.
Don't be afraid to take the time to look up a word. I know he uses these words a lot and because I'm at my computer instead of the car, I looked them up. Good stuff, the words fit perfect. Note: I also looked up pedantic and thought Sam wrote a short concise piece with a single point: there is nothing heuristic about these subjects. He's challenging us to look deeper.
Can we please stop using the word "diminutive"? The words "small" or "simple" are much more concise and readily understood, and sound a lot less Petersonian /s
Man, another shot at Peterson. Once again, look up the words. He's a professor and points out language is one of the most important skills. I'd say these shots are ad hominem attacks, no?
"Heuristic" is a widely used term and has a very specific meaning which is why Sam is using it. This is really not the hill to die on and I have to say its making you look rather foolish and ignorant arguing this point.
If only there were a way to find out what it means. Oh wait - I just discovered the world wide web - the irony of the definition is delicious: "enabling someone to discover or learn something for themselves."
Anglo-Saxon English is a shit show at best. A mix of several other languages, that are not agreed upon in not just different English speaking countries, but within them in different towns. I’d give it a D- on the language scale.
No one with a shred of humanity would not be horrified by the events in Gaza and Isreal since 7 Oct 2023 attacks.
The worst part of any conflict is the suffering of non-combatants – particularly children and vulnerable persons – on both sides.
As Sam states quite effectively, the difference in the cultural and societal values between the two sides of this conflict is critical. This difference cannot be disregarded.
The state of Israel, flawed as any human entity is, strives for an open democracy where all can live and prosper. Hamas does not.
I have close family members that state emphatically that the 7-October attacks were a black-op carried out by Israeli intelligence and the IDF (i.e. Israeli military and covert personnel pretending to be Hamas fighters and killing their own citizens) so as to give the justification for invading Gaza. The same type of explanation was given by conspiracy theorists after the 9-11 attacks that state the US covert government agencies carried out the 9-11 attacks to justify an invasion of Afghanistan and the Middle East to secure oil rights.
How can one reason with anyone that accepts such nonsense as factual?
“The state of Israel strives for an open democracy where all can live and prosper”… seriously? Questioning the word “all” here considering what the settlers are doing in the West Bank.
Highly suggest you read the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Strives for does not mean 'is perfectly achieving.' Just like the U.S. does not always perfectly achieve the freedom and rights it wishes to bestow upon its citizens. If you judge the entire population of Israel based on a minority, yes- it will fall short. But why are you judging based on a minority?
I have a lot to say on the matter, but let's start with this. The extremist faction in this current government received less than 10% of the vote. Given our political structure, that still enables them to hold a tremendous amount of power in the government- and we see the unfortunate results daily. Do they represent the entire Israeli population? Does ANY government represent the entire population? What does it matter if they are being allowed by the government- if the government does not represent the people right now? You're missing the point here.
YES! Alana. 80% of Israelis can't stand Netanyahu along with most of the Diaspora Jews. We are disgusted at this continuing this war for his own political gain and just listening to the hostages and their families, they feel the same way.
I'm not going to defend illegal expansion but I think you're really missing the full picture here. Settlements authorized by the government make up, at most, 4% of the West Bank. Illegal outposts, not authorized by the government, make up about another 1%. It's still a tiny fraction of the entire West Bank.
We need to stop using the term settlers to describe Israelis living in Judea & Samaria. It is Israeli land. It belonged to Jordan until they attacked Israel and lost. Now, I’ll ask why you’re so upset about a handful of messianic crazies (usually retaliatory) attacking Arab villages when Jews are gunned down all the time. Most recently last week, a couple on the way to the hospital to give birth, and the mother was killed. Thankfully the baby survived. But you think Israel should just lay down its arms and remove all the checkpoints. And then furthermore disregard the insane Islamic fundamentalism that Israel is forced to live with and next to. Can you take a guess how that will turn out? Yes, %100 Israel strives for open democracy for all. And it’s the only country in the Middle East that does.
People also leave out that Jews were driven into Israel, by Muslims, from neighboring countries like Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Iran, etc...
Now, roughly HALF of ALL the 15 million Jews left in the world, reside in Israel.
"From the river to the sea" has been going on for centuries, but people just ignore these facts.
Well you see, that's just - like - your opinion, but the rest of the world doesn't agree with your caracterization, and what you call Judea & Samaria is occupied Palestinain land, the West Bank, from which the settlers should just get out, not a moment too soon. If a settler gets killed, I feel sorry from a human point of view (well, it depends ...) but they are illegal occupiers so that's a risk they accepted to run. BTW: where do you think the Arab Palestinans who live in the West Bank should go, if you had it your way ?
Absolutely, but there are a couple of things to be added:
1) Jordan occupied the West bank for less than 20 years and never intended to keep it because it's their "promised land", in fact they gave it to the PLO administration on a voluntary basis.
2) Jordan never oppressed the local population in all sort of ways like Israel does.
So, I wouldn't compare the two occupations if I were you.
Two million Palestinian Arabs live as citizens of Israel with equal rights. They made the choice to live in peace, a choice the West Bank Palestinians have never made.
In terms of the comparison then - who do you think is more likely to uphold this goal, the Israeli government (given the opportunity) or Hamas (The elected Palestinian government).
That is a fair comment, Debra. My knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very limited. I make many errors. Apologies. Quite right - the situation in the West Bank particularly with Israeli settlements that violate international law is very troubling. I also hate that the Palestinian territories are basically managed by proxy from Tehran via Hamas and Hezbollah - is that unfair to state? Please correct me. There are so many layers to that situation and all of those layers are very ugly.
The West Bank is quite complicated. To answer your question- the PA governs parts of the West Bank, other parts are under Israeli military control. There is also unfortunately Hamas presence in some areas of the West Bank.
You (and anyone else who makes this argument) are just simply completely confused. To bring up Israeli settlements in the West Bank etc. as some sort of justification or hint of understanding for Hamas' actions indicates that you are totally out of touch with the topic at hand. Hamas' disdain for Israel and their desire to destroy them has nothing at all to do with land disputes or past mistreatments. Had Israel been the most perfect and accommodating neighbors imaginable to Palestine, Hamas would still have the exact same feelings towards Israel and Jews: that they must be completely destroyed to please Allah and insure their eternity of bliss. October 7th was a jubilent celebration for Hamas and many Palestinians not because they were seeking out justice for their mistreatment by Israel, but simply because they believe with all their being that it is the will of the Almighty. There is no path of good behavior that Israel could have or should take that would change this fact.
It is astonishing Sam, how blatant the anti Israel bias is. For me, it’s pretty simple. Hamas (85% of Gazans voted for them) invaded Israel.Israel is not interested in genocide or revenge. Just survival and the removal of future, similar invasions and terroristic activities by avowed enemies.
This does not mean civilians deserve to die for it, but it contradicts your argument that they lacked local support. And of course, none of this matters as wars are started by those with power (rather than by popular support) and innocents pay the price as has happened throughout history.
Where did I argue "that they lacked local support"? I was stating that Gaza has a huge number of children who are being slaughtered... But now that you mention it - I'm sure you'd happily voice dissent about a terrorist regime while being ruled by them?
Ah, yes I agree on the terrible costs towards children. But I would add, this is due to Hamas's strategy, not Israel (although I'm sure there are mistakes and bad actors as well).
The threat of the terrorist government to their own people is all the more reason why they need to be removed.
I likewise agree with and support Sam's take on the Israel Gaza conflict.
I also cannot stand seeing what is happening to civilians in Gaza, it is literally unbearable to witness, and I hold Hamas 100% responsible for the suffering of its civilians.
I worry as a society we're becoming less and less able to have nuanced conversations. Why do so few people fail to recognize the role that Hamas has played in this conflict? Or the role they play in all the civilian deaths now occuring?
I share your concern. I find it unfathomable that people are so willing - eager, even - to align themselves with Hamas with such cavalier disregard for the obvious moral authority of Israel and the equally obvious moral depravity of her enemies. I understand how messaging has been weaponized against Israel, but I don't understand how it sticks. What are the receptors that allow such insane moral reversals to take root in so many people's minds?
Come to Israel. Here, you can freely criticize the government and won't automatically be accused of supporting Hamas. Somehow, we seem to hold more nuance than people this conflict doesn't directly affect.
Why Israel particularly though? It’s the absence of anything near equal criticism of any other country/race that makes it so suspicious and undermines you.
I’m not trying to gaslight you — genuinely asking: could it be that the discomfort you’re feeling stems from not being able to fully address the questions raised in the article about Yemen, Syria, and Sudan? Do you hold the actors responsible in those conflicts to the same standard and level of criticism as you do, presumably, Israel in the Israel-Hamas conflict
No, Sam, you still don’t get it: Israel is a self-professed democracy, almost our 51st state. We expect more of Israel — or Canada or Britain or the pre-Trump US — than we do so-called nations ravaged by poverty, ignorance, violence and a medieval mindset. Israel is strong, resourceful. Fair or not, we expect more.
So tell me—what exactly do you believe Israel should do in this situation? They are facing an enemy that openly glorifies death and has no regard for civilian life, including their own people. It’s easy to condemn the IDF for the tragic toll of this war, but what would you propose they do differently—strategically and realistically?
And to be clear, I’m not asking about isolated instances of misconduct by individual soldiers. I’m asking about the broader challenge: How do you expect Israel to agree to a ceasefire while Hamas remains intact, continues to pose a real threat, and still holds innocent hostages?
This is a false question. It presumes everything that preceded this, all action by the Israeli government, is morally correct, fair, supportive of human rights and dignity, etc. This "well, if you were Netenyahu, what would you have done in October?" Well....I wouldn't have gotten into that situation in the fucking first place! So don't drop me into someone else's fuck up and then say "well why can't you fix it!?" This is such a silly tool that people use. Israel has FUCKED this entire region and the entire process towards peace. ISOLATED incidents? That's fuckign laughable. Yes, murdering people in ambulances and then burying the ambulances and then lying about it is just an isolated incident. Fuck me. Finally, if Hamas remains intact after all this time and all this destruction, than either the IDF is a pile of shit military or a different strategy should be considered.
Israel has fucked up the entire region? OK, now it's clear why you believe what you believe. You're very confused.
Israel sometimes really pisses me off, too. They have their share of warts--what nation or human being doesn't? But Israel is not the problem in that region. Arab nations in that region have been, and more recently, Iran, has been THE PROBLEM in that region. Actually, Iran has destabilized the region probably more than any other since the Iranian revolution.
It's possible for multiple truths to exist at the same time. But in the end, Harris is correct in that Israel is the only democracy in the region, and the only place where one can exist with the fewest restrictions. Try saying as much about any of its neighbors.
You're just simply completely confused. What you are failing to grasp is that Hamas' feelings and actions towards Israel and Jews in general has absolutely nothing to do with how they have been mistreated or wronged by Israel. Their desire to destroy all Israelis comes from a belief that it is the will of Allah and doing so well secure their eternity of bliss. That's it. There is nothing Israel could have done it should do differently that would change this fact
What other democracy is completely surrounded by Muslim nations that have, at one time or another....or in the present....tried to destroy or wish to destroy it completely? Add to that the fact that the Jews have been persecuted more than any other ethnic group and for longer....much longer.
Would you like me to introduce you to some? Have you not seen the footage from protests over this past year and a half? I am asking seriously. 'Intifada Revolution'' and 'Bomb Tel Aviv' are not just 'anger at the Israeli government'
That's a very broad brush, I'm not sure who falls under that category. I will say that there are people with major platforms (millions of followers) who have voiced support for Hamas- outright or otherwise.
This simply isn’t true. There is no shortage of footage of protestors chanting “Globalize the antifada” at pro-Palestine rallies around the world, not to mention the two young Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., who were brutally murdered in the street this week. This kind of behaviour has been displayed publicly since October 8th, 2023. If you haven’t seen it, you aren’t paying attention at all.
Israel is “up to”defending itself and its citizens. All questions asked in media sources all have the same bent “what has Israel done wrong today”. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. 15 million Jews. 56 Islamic states, 1 Jewish. Israel is fighting for its very existence.
I think it's too hard for people to see such suffering in Gaza. We didn't use to have live streams 24/7 showing us what was going on in Dresden on the ground. I think that's one of the main reasons why there is just little tolerance for the realities of war anymore. I know we got some disturbing feeds from Viet Nam, but it's nothing compared to what you can see circulating on X any given day in Gaza. It's a new world now bc we can never be blind the way we use to be about what war really looks like. In fact, I'm wondering more and more if people as a whole will never again be able to tolerate wars the way they were in the past. I think we have crossed some rubicon with social media that fundamentally shifts perceptions about war, such that even a "righteous war" is simply not bearable to witness. Which may be a good thing in many ways, obviously. Also, a strong belief that many people hold today, is that no person or group would ever engage in atrocities or act out in cruel or inhuman ways UNLESS they have gone through a kind of trauma or life experience that is unfair and likewise cruel that pushed them to take such drastic measures. Hamas may look like perpetrators, but every perpetrator was once a victim. That belief is pretty strong for a lot of people today, making it so that no war can be righteous because somewhere in history everyone was likely a victim at some point.
Hamas is evil. All the people living in Gaza are not equal to Hamas. Sam's argument is that most of them either support Hamas or harbor equally violent views against Israelis as Hamas, and thus whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified. I don't think any sane person with no bad faith agenda would even remotely want to support a monstrous entity like Hamas or Hizbollah.
I hope your last sentence is right. But where are the Palestinians who are demanding that Hamas simply *surrender*, like any normal army would at this point, return the hostages, and then try to find a way to live in peace with the Israelis? Yes, I'm quite sure there are many Palestinians who despise Hamas, since they treat the ordinary Palestinians horribly, but... how do those Palestinians who hate Hamas feel about the Jews and Israel? That is the question.
Is there such a thing as a substantial (likely underground) Palestinians *peace* movement (*peace*, not ceasefire) that favors peaceful co-existence with Israel? I'd be happy - and I'm sure that most Israelis would be ecstatic - to hear Palestinians say, "We've done terrible things to the Israelis, and they've done terrible things to us. But this must end. We need to learn to live together in peace from now on. We acknowledge that Israeli land is not ours. Gaza (or the West Bank) is our home, and we want to make the best of it. We recognize that we are not going to reclaim Tel Aviv any more that the Lenape Indians are going to reclaim Manhattan Island in the USA. We would like, however, help from Israel and the Muslim nations in the Abraham Accords to help us rebuild and, in time, develop a thriving society. We want our descendants to live in peace. We have no more patience for jihadism, and far from supporting terrorism against Israel, we wish to see terrorists against Israel killed, for they are the main obstacle to peace. We renounce the idea of a 'right to return'. In exchange, we want help to build a proper and prosperous nation."
Are there such people among the Palestinians? Is there a Palestinian Martin Luther King, who dreams of the day when Israeli children and Palestinian will play together in peace? I'm sure there are some Palestinians with such dreams. But are there many? I suppose that's the big question for me. Not how many Palestinians support Hamas specifically, but rather how many of them support Hamas's *aims*. How many of them dream, not of peace with Israel, but rather, of the day when the terrible Zionists will be driven out of Israel?
Seth, I, like you, don't have any numbers. I don't live there, I get my news the same way everyone else, including Sam, gets. But you don't need to do any deep investigation to realize that there is protest, even under the violent barbaric regime of Hamas. Here is a link from only a month ago on a piece broadcast on CBS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esGtQmXt5PI). Unless you want to dismiss this as yet another liberal media's attempt at painting an unrealistic picture of the Palestinians (to which I have nothing to say really because ALL the news we get is pretty much at par with this), then this broad painting of all those people as "Hamas supporters" and thus deserving of what's coming at them is simply false.
But I go one step further, even the IDF doesn't make the argument Sam is making about the Palestinians The IDF says, at least in theory, that we are doing everything we can to avoid civilian casualties but Hamas uses them as shield. They never come out and say "these people are culturally all followers of a death cult and thus deserve what they are getting". This is not what a "modern civilized culture" justifies casualties.
Yes, I remember those reports of protest against Hamas. They were encouraging. Unfortunately, there were horrifying follow-up stories about Palestinians who participated in these protests being killed, tortured, and maimed by Hamas. You are right to describe Hamas as barbaric.
I doubt Sam thinks that individual Palestinian civilians *deserve* what they are getting. I'm pretty sure, however, that he'd endorse the statement that "what they are getting", or some other version of it, is basically inevitable until serious cultural changes - probably of the sort I suggested above - occur among the Palestinians. Where I might differ from Sam that I'm less convinced that Islam itself is the root cause. After all, Israel has made peace with Muslim nations. And I suspect that if there is a way to "deprogram" the Palestinians from their delusional emphasis on a "right to return", it will eventually come from other Muslims from outside of Gaza and the West Bank. May it come to pass.
I agree, but the argument would be far more compelling if more liberal or democratic-leaning Muslims openly spoke out against jihadist and extremist ideologies. In their silence, those of us observing from the outside are left to speculate—and that void only deepens misunderstanding.
Didn't you just answer your own question? "But where are the Palestinians who are demanding that Hamas simply *surrender*, like any normal army would at this point, return the hostages, and then try to find a way to live in peace with the Israelis?"
Seth, even you couldn’t bring yourself the say “State” for the Palestinians. Time to say it! And yes, there is a Palestinian Mandela: his name is Marwan Barghouti and just as Mandela was, he is in an Israeli jail on a murder conviction ( the facts are actually quite similar). And if Sam or anyone is finding fault with the Gazans for not rising up against Hamas, remember this: Hamas is indifferent to its own people and kills anyone who openly dissents. And I’d ask this: why are Israelis not rising up and throwing out Bibi and his racist henchman who perpetrate war crimes in Gaza. It’s a little publicized fact that nearly two-thirds of Israelis support ethnic cleansing (aka forced displacement) of the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. If the government tries this, it will suffer the same fate as the Ottomans did with the Armenians in 1915: it will not work (Israel can’t kill all of them or get rid of them all); it will rightly go down as genocide just as it did in 1915; and Israel will stand condemned before the world, for all time. All this to assuage the delusions of religious fanatics and to keep Bibi out of jail.
Thanks for bringing up Barghouti. I've just read a little about him and will read more later. I pulled a muscle in my hand yesterday evening, so I can't reply at length. Maybe later.
I’ve listened to every episode of Sam’s podcast and not once have I heard him claim “that most of them either support Hamas or harbor equally violent views against Israelis as Hamas, and thus whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified” What I have heard him argue is that there must be a significant portion of the population that sympathizes with or supports Hamas—otherwise, we would have seen more cooperation with the IDF in efforts to dismantle the group.
OK Debrah, so let me just give a direct quote from the past Q&A with timestamps in brackets:
(34':40") : "...Just to make it clear how I think about these things ethically. If there were no difference between Hamas and the IDF, right, and if there were no difference between what most Palestinians want, and what most Israelis want, or most Jews want, if those differences didn't exist, then it wouldn't matter who won. It wouldn't matter who's coming across the border in which direction, I wouldn't take either side, they'd be the same people to me..."
(36':37"): "The fact that there is a difference between Hamas and the IDF, and I've spent decades spelling out what this difference amounts to, the fact that there is a difference between what most Palestinians really want, and what most Jews and Israelis really want, that there is a cultural difference, that on one side there really is widespread support for a death cult, there really is widespread belief in martyrdom, that there is widespread jubilation at the pointless destruction of innocent lives, civilian life, and on the other side, there isn't, there simply isn't, you do not find the celebration of the taking of women and children and even infants as hostages in Tel Aviv, that you find in Gaza, there all kinds of things are normalized in Palestinian culture that are not, haven't been normalized for as long as we've been alive, in Jewish culture or in Israel. All those differences matter and if those differences matter I wouldn't pick a side in this conflict."
You seem to be constantly moving your position. I responded to your initial claim "I’ve listened to every episode of Sam’s podcast and not once have I heard him claim “that most of them either support Hamas or harbor equally violent views against Israelis as Hamas, and thus whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified”. He literally says that in the quotes I sent you.
No, he absolutely does not say, “whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified.” I quoted the full passage in my initial response because those were your words, not his. The quote you’re referencing does not include that phrase at all. What Sam is saying—clearly—is that if he’s forced to choose a side, he will side with the one fighting jihadist extremism. If you can’t recognize the nuance in that distinction, then I’m not sure what more I can offer.
He never said it was morally justified, but it is justified. A country has a right to defend itself. The brutality that occurred on October 7th and celebrated by the vast majority of Palestinians tells us everything we need to know. And your comments tell us everything we need to know about you.
What’s your point? The fact is THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! One is a culture steeped in western enlightenment values and the other is a culture which teaches their children the greatest aspiration in life is to die in the service of Allah. Israel’s Arab population comprises 20% of the total, is free to practice; or not, any religion of their choosing. Jews and Christians have been ethnically cleansed from the Arab counties. How many hours do you think a Jew would last in Gaza? In Israel, an Arab judge sentenced a former President to prison. Israelis have contributed technologies that benefit the world, Palestinians make great tunnels and suicide vests. You will never see in Israel Jews rushing into the streets to celebrate the murder of innocent civilians. I could go on for another hour citing the differences. Fact is, you wouldn’t last 10 minutes living under the rule of Hamas.
Did I every say it's fun being under the rule of Hamas? Did I say Israel is not a democracy? What exactly are you debating here?
Sam makes an ethical judgement on whether continued indiscriminate civilian causalities and suffering (which Sam does not deny) is morally justified as he sees a barbarian vs modern value judgement on an entire population that is living under the tyranny of a monstrous group called Hamas. Deborah Kemp questioned my reading of Sam's argument and I provided verbatim quotes to support my reading of Sam's claim.
You really don't have to splash rants under all comments. Read, think, and stop writing juvenile sentences like "your comments tell us all we need to know about you". You don't know me, and I don't know you.
I think what he is arguing is that it is impossible to remove Hamas without inflicting casualties as a result of Hamas's macabre strategy. And since he believes Jihadists can't be reasoned with, so long as they are in power there will be no resolution.
As far as you're concerned. Have you heard any stories, or surveyed Palestinians about Hamas? You're surmising, or rather, projecting your own views onto to this without actually knowing.
Just because you have concluded or imagined something in your head doesn't make it a fact!
There was a time when IRA had a large support among Irish people.
Seen English and Irish going along was difficult to imagine.
People been divided by political identity and religion, until that madness went too far, and society learned that both sides should know better.
Today Ireland is almost on the economical and tourism peak among EU countries, and Brits are welcome there (as long as they not address Irish as “Mate” in the pub).
I know many Irish people, and a significant number have embraced the narrative that frames Hamas as revolutionaries. While I can understand the historical impulses that may inform this perspective given the oppression Ireland endured under British rule—I find it somewhat hypocritical. Many who hold this view have benefited from the freedoms of a democratic society, including protections for women and LGBTQ rights—freedoms that would be entirely absent under Hamas rule.
It’s also hard to ignore the historical fact that there was no war going between Pakistan/ India and Israel/ Palestine until British rulers give them freedom and left people for their own decision
I get what you are saying. It frustrates me how the victim/oppressor narrative is so often used to paint the British or the U.S. as the sole villain—while completely absolving the so-called “victim” of any responsibility. It’s a one-sided lens that overlooks the ways in which extremist ideologies or bad leadership have fueled these crises.
It’s easy to blame outsiders after the fact, but that doesn’t mean they’re the only ones who shaped the outcome—or that their involvement was always rooted in exploitation. Sometimes the goal really was democracy or defense. The reality is messier, and pretending otherwise just delays honest solutions.
...well, the British created the problem (with consultation with India's leaders on parititon) but decided on their OWN.
Pakistan was created by the British as part of the partition of British India in 1947. When Britain granted India independence, the territory was divided into India and Pakistan. This partition was primarily driven by the desire to separate Muslim-majority areas into a distinct nation, fulfilling demands from the All India Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
This borderline, known as the Radcliffe Line, was drawn in a short period and led to significant displacement and violence. This has been going on since 1947.
I appreciate the context—admittedly, I don’t know nearly as much about the India-Pakistan conflict as I do about Israel. My main point is that this victim-oppressor narrative people often default to whenever the U.S. or Britain is involved tends to oversimplify history. Yes, colonial powers made a mess of many regions, but the oppression and conflict that followed weren’t solely their doing. It’s disingenuous to ignore how much of the post-colonial strife has been driven by internal political agendas, cultural dynamics, and extremist ideologies that existed—and persisted—long after foreign powers left.
To my knowledge, the country of Pakistan has been created based on the highest Muslim population in the area, plus acknowledgment of some ancient land claims.
Basically that was the same resettlement experiment that happened year earlier with Israel.
Unfortunately not every nation grown up enough for civilisation and democracy
Antisemitism is strong. If there's one thing the left and right in America can agree on, it's their hatred of Jews.
The interesting thing about the "Free Palestine" people is the complete disregard for any logic in their arguments.
You need to believe that the most educated population in the world (Jews), with a fairly recent holocaust in their collective trauma, that were originally driven into Israel, by Muslims, and are the most persecuted people in history, would be willing to do the same to their neighbors, because.... ? And I think at this point, people try and convince themselves that Israel is full of Zionist.
Not even to mention some likelihood arguments, like, would a culture that is OK with domestic abuse of women, and killing LGQTB+ people, religious tolerance...
.... vs a culture that isn't OK with those things and is more tolerant and democratic, likely be the aggressors, or defenders in conflict.
You're confused the same way Sam is. Israel doesn't have to possess worse people for their behavior to be morally unacceptable. Obviously the average Israeli has morals that more align with a westerner, than a impoverished Muslim living in squalor.
To your first point. You would also think that this population wouldn't put genocidal maniacs in a position of power, yet here we are. The cabinet has referred to this conflict as fighting Amalek, Ben Gvir has celebrated the murdered Goldstien in the past. Israel is not a monolith.
You're becoming a moral relativist w/ that position, then. As soon as someone deviates from being perfect, there are various scales of good. You have to be able to see and differentiate the nuances of, is X better than Y. That's the whole entire point of what Sam is trying to get you to understand.
When people are frightened, they make irrational decisions to protect themselves, and tend to elect strong arm leaders. When you have a neighbor who is unpredictable, and dangerous, this is going to be the outcome in most cases.
Remember, Jews were driven into this corner of the world by Muslim nations. Did we just forget about that part of history? From the "river to the sea" has been happening before our eyes, and that's why nearly half of all 15 million Jews live in Israel. Jews were driven from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Algeria, etc... over the last couple of hundred years, by Muslims.
Your comment, "...Obviously the average Israeli has morals that more align with a westerner, than a impoverished Muslim living in squalor," seems to be a common refrain in western dialog about Israel/Palestine. Two counterpoints to this framing: a) Arab Muslim nations are very wealthy, so the caricature of the "impoverished Muslim" is not directly relevant to the Arab region; b) Palestine has received hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid over the past two decades and chose vengeance over progress. It's easy to cast characters in a play of our own making, but we risk letting our own western biases color the facts.
With the aid being wrongfully used by the government. We return to the core problem. Should tens of thousands of people be murdered for the sins of a few corrupt leaders?
Jaxton... the Israeli leaders, the politicians, the commanders, the generals, they LITERALLY say the quiet part out loud since Trump got elected, they openly say genocidal things when they speak in Hebrew, hell they even sometimes let it slip in English. You're absolutely right, everyone all over the political spectrum that doesn't have their heads in the sand is aware of this now and that is continuing to evolve, many of those people spent months defending Israel! The fucking FORMER PM OF ISRAEL literally came out and said that it's a genocide. There comes a point where the reality becomes too difficult to deny, and it's not going to get better any time soon. These officials that say these things are as depraved as any person could be, they're not all that different from Hamas, they just do it wearing suits and ties.
You like to go on and on about how and X% of Palestinians support Hamas, while ignoring the fact that the IDF soldiers that raped Palestinian detainees (SOMETIMES ON VIDEO) not only didn't receive any punishment, the Israeli public literally protested the mere suggestion that they should be punished. Where has Sam mentioned this? Further, 47% of Israeli's believe that they should be ALLOWED to gang rape them, sometimes to death. Another more recent poll that came out shows that 82% of Israeli's think that they should be forcibly removed from the land, Ethnically cleansed, like the politicians say they want. Another poll showed that around half of Israeli's believe that they should be outright vanquished, eliminated, exterminated. Like they're vermin.
You got tanked earlier in this thread, and so now you're switching to someone else w/ the same false talking points? I'll just cut and paste a similar post, which was also stated by someone else you were talking to in here, that you ignored.
If genocide were truly Israel’s goal, then why has the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank more than doubled over the last two decades? From 2000 to 2023, the Palestinian population grew from about 3.2 million to over 5.4 million. Gaza alone now has over 2.3 million people—despite years of conflict. That’s hardly evidence of systematic extermination.
If Israel had wanted to "cleanse" Gaza, they had the military capacity to level the strip in a week. Instead, they’ve used tactics such as “roof knocks” (non-lethal warning strikes), leaflets, phone calls, and designated evacuation corridors—all of which are practically unheard of in modern urban warfare. No war is clean, and the death toll is tragic—but the civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio in Gaza is still lower than in many U.S. or NATO-led conflicts in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan.
I scrolled through the comments and replied to some of the ones that stuck out to me, you have me confused with someone else or just don't have much to respond with. EDIT: I also replied to the comment you pasted from just now.
You don't need to listen to me, listen to their far-right (even by American standards), psychopathic politicians speak. They can say far worse things than I could ever possibly imagine. They enjoy what they are doing, and they enjoy knowing that the world can only watch as they do it, no matter who condemns it. That is only now possible because of October 7th, it gives them pre-text to do almost whatever they want, but even still, they can't just go around dropping nukes annihilating them all in one go, that certainly is a red line. Without pre-text, without an event like October 7th, they simply would not be allowed to do what they're doing now let alone nuke the place. Not even they could get away with that. That doesn't mean Israel didn't do war crimes before October 7th, because they most definitely did and have done for decades, that list is very long and it is well documented.
The goal now is to remove them from their land to create the greater Israel, by either killing them or displacing them. That is now their stated goal.
Everything is outrage or denial. Black or white. Oppressor or oppressed.
But real life? Real conflict? It lives in the gray.
Why do so few people even mention the role Hamas plays in this tragedy? As if Israel operates in a vacuum. As if Hamas didn’t start this. As if they don’t deliberately embed themselves among civilians, ensuring every counterstrike becomes a PR win.
The horrifying truth no one wants to face:
Hamas profits off Palestinian death.
They’ve weaponized their own people. Turned civilians into shields. Turned martyrdom into strategy.
And yet, Israel is the only one asked to play by rules its enemies openly reject.
If we really care about innocent lives, then we have to tell the whole story.
That means holding both sides accountable.
That means facing uncomfortable facts.
That means growing up as a culture and learning to think.
Otherwise, we’re not helping. We’re just feeding a narrative machine that thrives on selective outrage.
There are the overcomplicated justifications your targets will give you about oppression dynamics and ancient dead lefty theory...
and then there's the real answer: in every conflict between a (perceived) white person and a (perceived) brown person they think the white person should die. I know that sounds like right wing hyperbole but if you listen to the top Western leftist media figures talking about how "settler babies" are valid combat objectives you'll understand how bloodthirsty and/or out of touch things have gotten - and as usual the Jews are caught right in the middle.
I wanted to discuss politics with a good friend recently, and she said " for the sake of our friendship, you should talk to your friends who agree with you, instead of me". No one wants to understand another person's viewpoint, or debate in a civil manner. A lack of free speech / dialouge is what creates polarization and the inability to move to a more centrists , moderate stance. It is refreshing to have THE Free Press and Substack, where viewpoints can be aired . Thank you !
I also worry about that very much. Orwell is forever tugging at my trouser legs. Seems we are very much irrevocably divided right now and need to accept that but follow our own reason
I think we never were nuanced, as a group, and all that is happening is we are able to see it more. We lidded ourselves we were very different from our medieval predecessors but turns out we really are not! A few people are. But a few people were different then too. We still have far to go. Keep on trekking :)
Is it because their evil presence is a baseline assumption? Would constantly decrying Hamas be like blaming the sun for global warming? “Well yes, it IS actually the sun that’s warming us, but what are the factors we can dial in?”
770,000 facing severe acute malnutrition. 24 million experiencing acute food insecurity.
Gaza: 52 children dead from malnutrition over 1.5 years, all of whom had serious pre-existing health conditions (source: GMOH). 0 suffering from severe acute malnutrition. 2 million experiencing acute food insecurity.
Theo Von, The UN & The Global Media: "We're really concerned about starvation in Gaza. Starvation is being used as a weapon of war, and that’s genocide. This is the single worst humanitarian disaster of our generation."
Those figures about Sudan and Yemen are truly shocking. But if Sam is so concerned about a double standard, why isn’t he doing a proportionate number of podcasts about those conflicts?
Not his wheelhouse at all. Entire networks of people and states aren't lying about Yemen or Sudan. They aren't a source of highly contested claims and therefore don't illustrate bias or media illiteracy.
He’s not a humanitarian activist and wouldn’t be doing so many podcasts on the I/P conflict either if it weren’t so geopolitically explosive, dominating society, and overlapping with his other lifelong primary concerns
That’s fine and fair enough. But that could also probably be said for many of those calling Sam’s response Whataboutery. If we’re taking about the I/P conflict, let’s just talk about the I/P conflict. That should apply to Sam and everyone else in the discussion.
Trying to square "0 suffering from severe acute malnutrition" with this:
"Nutrition screenings conducted at shelters and health centers in the north in January found that 1 in 6 children under age 2 — 15.6 percent — are acutely malnourished. Of these, almost 3 percent suffer from severe wasting, the most life-threatening form of malnutrition, which puts children at highest risk of medical complications and death unless they receive urgent treatment. The total number of acutely malnourished children is expected to have risen even higher in the days and weeks since the screenings occurred."
That's interesting! Thank you for sharing. I also think it's interesting that they found that for kids under the age of 2 where for at least half of those (under the age of 1) the primary source of food should be breast milk and/or formula not solid food like the rest of the population. Implies almost a different resource problem
That’s over 15 months old and could be true then without being true now. IPC reviews UNICEF reporting and all other reliable sources.
Also, look closer at these numbers. “In the north” is already a subset of Gazans. Children under 2 is another small subset. 1/6 of these under 6 is 15%, an even smaller subset. And then it says “of those, 3%…”. I have no idea how many children this is but it’s an incredibly small number, and based off other reporting I’ve seen from IPC & UNICEF, my guess is that these are the at risk children with muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc who died of pre existing complicated or were airlifted out of Gaza by Israel to the US, Jordan or Israeli hospitals. 52 children with those extreme conditions, which make them extra vulnerable, have died to date—the only deaths GMOH attributes in part to malnutrition.
Bold choice quoting a letter signed by activist doctors 6,000 away claiming a higher starvation death toll than the entire 2 year death toll from the war (according to Hamas and the entire medical infrastructure of Gaza), and holding it up against the most up-to-date, 2 week old report from the worlds highest authority on the topic, composed of the worlds leading experts on the topic, which is sponsored by (and informs) the UN, while also being the only entity on earth with the authority to declare famines.
But here’s an article debunking that ridiculous claim:
Sam I am in your side on Israel but the argument you put forward simply sucks. Calling someone a hypocrite for not caring the same about Sudan or Yeman as they do about Israel is a valid call out of hypocrisy. But so what? That still doesn't mean they are wrong. It's a very poorly convincing argument. Don't you get that? It's no wonder you are getting so much push back. It doesn't mean you are wrong but it's just a really poorly constructed argument. Two things can be true at the same time. What if everyone suddenly says "ok Sam you're right we should care about all those other global conflicts equally". Then what? That would not change the situation at hand or address the question by the listener about the difficulty reconcling starvation in Gaza with Israel self defense. Again I am on your side to a point but you make yourself difficult to defend with a weak response to the email about the suffering in Gaza. You got completely off track from the topic. I think you need a better moderator than your business manager. I would just ask that you reframe the topic again in a more prepared and less off the cuff format or situation. And help convince us the audience with data and guests. Bring back on people like Graham Wood to help us actually understand what is going on on the ground. Help us understand exactly why Israel has to blockade Gaza and force starvation. Is that really necessary? If you actually think it is then explain why. Again you leave yourself open to attack but not appropriately addressing the question at hand and getting completely sidetracked on straw man arguments that were never posed. Bottom line: helps us understand if and why the current and ongoing Israeli response to 10/7/23 is totally necessary and why. I saw a video of a child being burned alive in a building. You can't just say "oh that's just media propaganda" like Trump would with anything he disagrees with. Please offer details and explain your accusations of media weaponization on a case by cases basis instead of referring to some grand conspiracy. I say all this with love Sam. Your work both on Making Sense and Waking Up has been deeply important to my intellectual and spiritual journey. Help us better understand your perspective.
There is a solution. It has been available since Oct 8, 2023. Hamas should have released the Hostages. War Over. We wouldn’t be having this inane whataboutery discussion.
Why would they do that when it's their only leverage against total destruction?
I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is strategically stupid of them to do, given how Israel has perpetuated the conflict so far; the most recent ceasefire negotiations in particular. But I don't think you even consider Hamas a rational actor, so making arguments that they should act rationally or ethically is just gaslighting. At best, assuming Hamas are exactly as terroristic and evil as claimed, what we are experiencing right now is a hostage situation involving around two million Palestinians.
The solution which was available for years before Oct 7th, was to properly dismantle Hamas through diplomacy that would actually guarantee Palestinians a homeland. Israels terms have been perpetually ridiculous, and they have ceaselessly continued their occupation of the West Bank including ongoing settlementation, and treating their own internal Palestinians as second class citizens. Having all the power and resources at their disposal, they are the adult in the room who could find a solution that if not acceptable to Hamas or even the PA, one that the entire progressive world can get behind and support some kind of low-key military effort to achieve if necessary.
This is a perspective I see a lot and I don't get it. Israel could not have spent more time and effort on negotiating toward a peaceful resolution and securing itself against an attack. October 7th, at least for me, definitively showed this option is a dead end and the only solution is to root out Hamas once and for all. I think it's odd that the takeaway from an invasion of this kind would be that Hamas is a group one can negotiate with or protect oneself from. And the popular progressive fantasy that Israel can simply stop this war, give the Palestinians a state, and open the borders? That seems as fantastical to me as Trump's proposal that the Palestinian population can be moved elsewhere tomorrow.
If you would like to have a dialogue please don't start with putting words in my mouth. You came to this conversation with ill intentions. That's on you. I said repeatedly that I agree with Sam. Being emotional isn't a logical argument.
You aren’t understanding his argument, that’s pretty clear. I don’t know why you think my response was emotional. Maybe you should think about why you said that.
You are correct I don't understand his argument which is exactly what I said and asked him to put a finger point on it 🤦🏼♂️ Your response is clearly just outrage so yes it's emotional. You didn't ask a question or seek clarity or offer an alternative view for me to consider. You just attacked by insinuating that I believe anti-Semitism is a conspiracy which couldn't be further from what I said. You didn't even ask me a question to allow me to defend myself or hear my POV. You aren't interested in dialogue; you are interested in browbeating a random person with a drive by comment to give yourself a serotonin boost of righteousness. I'm here to explore and understand people's perspective. Not pretend like I know it all. If you are here because you think you are “right” then I think you're in the wrong place. I will not further engage in those from the mob that want nothing but purity of opinion.
That isn't what Matt said. At least quote the context correctly.
"Please offer details and explain your accusations of media weaponization on a case by cases basis instead of referring to some grand conspiracy."
The "grand conspiracy" is that apprently the overwhelming majority of news and humanitarian organisations, doctors in the field, the ICC and the UN, numerous governments and other commentators and podcasters, are all co-conspirators with Islamists and Jihadists, or at least fooled by their propaganda.
That is what Sam is implying when he ignores everything that these people are saying about what Israel is doing in Gaza. When he ignores what Gaza's own politicians say they intend for the Gazans.
The only substantial counter arguments anyone have to offer so far as I can tell are supported by data and press releases from Israel and IDF itself, or from people they permit access from their side (like Douglas Murray). Occam's Razer alone suggests believing the Israeli government at their word is absurd.
I agree. This is why I know Sam had a better way to articulate what he thinks that how he did recently. I agree and know that Sam doesn't pretend to be an expert on conducting warfare and has discussed this with guests in the past.
In the podcast (and previous podcasts) you've acknowledged that it's not clear whether the course of action Israel has taken to defend themselves is the correct one. But I think you've kind of hand-waved this away a little bit, because much of the reasonable criticism directed towards Israel is about how they've prosecuted the war, not whether they have a right to be at war.
Is the correct course of action what they are currently doing and continuing to do? Will it lead to the dissolution of Hamas and discourage a new equally radical group from eventually taking their place? I'm no expert and I don't think the answer is clear but I think for many this is precisely the moral quandary we are up against. And the governments of many nations seem to feel Israel's actions are no longer justifiable even if they were initially.
I think these are the questions a lot of us would like to see you grapple with even if we're sympathetic to many of your other arguments.
I'm a huge fan of Sam's and totally agree with him when it comes to Israel's right to go to war, but these were exactly the types of questions I was hoping he would've answered in that podcast.
Along with questions like, "Precisely what is the outcome that will end this war? At what point is Hamas considered neutralized as a political/cultural force in the region? Does every last Hamas member and Hamas sympathizer need to be killed in order to make this happen (because it appears to me that setting the bar that high would be a perfect recipe for a forever war)?"
There has to be a solid, tangible, and reasonable set of goals here, or this will undoubtedly be Israel's Iraq War.
Now, Sam is likely not in a place to answer many of these with authority, but it would be great to see him take a stab at them.
He has commented on this in the past...at least, superficially. If you go back to his podcasts in the months following the Oct. 7 attack, he brings this issue up. He admitted that the end game is undefined and that that was in itself a problem.
Given that it's now been a year and a half since I listened to those, I cannot give specifics. But if you listen to every interview or op/ed piece he did in the months that followed, I do recall this coming up.
Perfectly understandable, especially shortly after 10/7. But the end goal surely must be in at least slightly clearer view now, more than a year and a half later, no?
I would love to hear his updated responses, because the moral situation on the ground really does change, however slightly, once a war has been ongoing.
For Sam Israeli Arab relations is not the topic he specializes in. He just doesn't like the Jew haters who are now invited to Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson podcasts, and others who "globalize the intifada", which is indiscriminate killing of Jews. For more details on the topics related to the Middle East conflict, see "Call me back" and Ask Haviv anything" podcasts, and many others.
Nevertheless, he brings it up a lot and takes a side. It's also quite dissapointing the closest he has had to an advocate for the Palestinian side is Yuval Noah Harari, whose criticisms of Israel directed at Sam during their most recent podcast, Sam was incredibly reluctant to take on board.
I fear Sam is grappling with a very strong bias here, and a whole lot of sunk cost in his faith in the great nation of Israel which is in the throws of right-wing quasi-authoritarianism.
How will it stop if we keep giving them weapons? It’s genocide. Or just a complete takeover. Just take your pick. Look what has been happening in the West Bank. Obvious.
Is it not that Syria, Yemen and Sudan are autocracies and are therefore somehow expected ( without condoning it) to misbehave whereas functioning democracies that we support both financially and militarily and who are our allies should be held to a higher standard? Yes Myanmar has committed genocide but it’s a junta and not influenceable. But if Ukraine has started slaughtering tens of thousands of ethnic Russians in its East ( instead of the reverse) we might have a different view of that war.
I think the Yemen example is a good one, though. Because though it's not a democracy, Saudi Arabia is an ally.
Also I don't know the statistics on Kurdish deaths at the hands of the Turkish government, but that is a democracy and a NATO ally which has done violence against an ethnic group that seeks Independence and has a long history of being oppressed.
Your argument would be more credible if the United States hadn't engaged in 20 years of War on Terror following 9/11, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. There were 2,977 victims on September 11 and 1,200 victims on October 7. Proportionally, if Israel's population was that of the US, the equivalent of 41,280 people were murdered on Oct. 7. Can you imagine the US response if a group of terrorists from Mexico murdered 41,000 Americans in one day? It is unreasonable to expect any country, whether autocracy or democracy, not to respond when attacked, and it is unreasonable to expect no civilian casualties when Hamas uses the population of Gaza as human shields.
What you don't take into consideration is the decades long injustice. Land being taken, kids being killed or thrown in prison during supposed peace etc etc. There plenty of things with plenty of evidence that Israel has done during supposed peacetime, now you talk about this as if its one war that just happened. I'm not defending the American invasion of Iraq. But America did not illegally occupy Iraq for 50 years, and 30 years before that kick out 700,000 iraqis. Israel did. There is no moral equivalence to this. And it deserves every bit of international attention and scrutiny.
What you don't take into consideration is the decades long program of terrorism and murder perpetrated by the Palestinians. Israel's security posture was forced on them by the Palestinians after literally hundreds of terror attacks against civilians. For every example of Israeli policies you don't like, I could offer many examples of Palestinian terrorists murdering civilians.
It may make us feel better to "win" such an argument, but it doesn't solve anything and won't lead to peace. At some point, we need to put aside the whataboutism and focus on how to move forward towards a lasting peace.
Brother it's not even difficult to find Israeli politicians bragging about their war crimes, they ENJOY this. Just to be clear though, the wars following 9/11 were not only illegal, but we were lied into those wars and of course the goalpost shifted the entire time because like what's happening in Palestine, there are other motives. For Netanyahu, it's not just the corruption charges that he wants to keep the war going, Palestinians are vermin to people like him. They aren't even people in their eyes. Don't believe me, listen to their words. Forget Hamas using them as Human shields, ISRAEL uses them as Human shields, and I mean literally, it's well documented that the IDF routinely uses hostages, random civilians, to disarm traps or check for bombs by sending them in to places there could be. This is not a military that has any shred of humanity left in them, they have convinced themselves that they are not people.
Also, where the fuck did you get the idea that nobody criticized the War on Terror? It literally united the entire world against the Bush administration, left and right, the anti-war movement wouldn't even be here now if it wasn't for that, almost certainly.
I'm not defending the War on Terror. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Americans condemning civilian casualties in Gaza when they were silent for 20 years as their government killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in their name. War is brutal. War against terrorists who weaponize their own civilian population is especially brutal.
I have to comment on your accusation that the US government "killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in their name." You almost make it sound like atrocity on a massive scale was the intention (I deliberately avoided the word genocide, since it's been so overused of late--and it would not apply in this case anyway).
The war in Gaza and the war in Iraq are more different than alike. But in both wars, as in any war, there are civilian casualties that are the result of collateral damage. It's inevitable, and it's always tragic.
Just so you know, my position of the war in Gaza is that I support Israel, but somewhat grudgingly. Hamas is evil, and must be vanquished. The problem is there is no easy way to do that in this instance. It's utterly tragic what has transpired over the past year and ten months, but is it avoidable? Probably not, but I cannot say for sure that at least some of it might have been.
The problem of the invasion of Iraq is a very different one than of Gaza. I questioned George W. Bush during the discussions that led up to the very day, and especially the day of, the start of the invasion by US forces. And my suspicions were confirmed as the war dragged on. But the motive for that invasion matters! It's not as if we just sent in troops for the purpose of killing civilians while trying to root out terrorists at the same time.
During WW2, as our bombing campaign proved to lack accuracy against strategic industrial targets, we actually changed course and followed the RAF's lead: we also started bombing civilians while also bombing industry....indiscriminately. It was a decision made during a time of total war, but with the Allies' aim to end the war as expeditiously as possible. War is ugly even if the good guys have to be vicious in order to win.
As the old saying goes, good intention pave the road to hell. We did not invade Irag with conquest in mind. It was a war started based more on bad intel, hubris, and the fog and smoke that clears up after the shooting stops,
when the clarity of that mistake became so evident.
I think Harris' point about the protests against Israel don't pass the smell test when you compare the lack of protest regarding other recent wars executed by other nations. Our "killing of civilians" is sure as hell not the same as Assad's deliberate, very cruel killing of his own people in Syria!!!!!!!!!
I wasn't actually suggesting that the United States intentionally targeted civilians. I was using a bit of hyperbole to point out the ridiculousness of many of the accusations against Israel. The War in Gaza, like the War in Iraq, isn't a 19th Century set-piece battle between two opposing armies. It is 21st Century urban warfare against a brutal enemy that wears civilian clothes, targets Israeli civilians, and uses Palestinian civilians as human shields; where children carry rifles and grandmothers have IEDs under their thobes; where Hamas assassinates suspected collaborators and weaponizes civilian casualties in a multi-billion-dollar propaganda campaign designed to erode Western support for Israel.
Unlike the United States in the War on Terror, Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to warn civilians before a target is bombed and to give those civilians a chance to evacuate before the strike occurs. Anyone who knows anything about modern warfare knows that the element of surprise is paramount, and Israel has willingly given up that strategic advantage in an effort to save civilian lives. Israel is not perfect, and mistakes are bound to happen. But accusations of genocide are patently absurd.
Sometimes, one can misinterpret or not have sufficient information to properly assess another's comments and position. In this case, it might have been the latter that caused me to launch into a treatise. So, sorry for that.
As for your reply, I already am familiar with everything you wrote, so it's pretty clear we're on the same page. Or, to put it another way..............touche'!
One thing I will add is that, as you'll surely agree, this war is very complex and muddy, and Israel is not free of guilt. But modern war is (echoing your point) very complex and difficult to execute if you're a nation that everyone holds to an unrealistic standard. I think the primary problem is what is the end game here for Israel. To simply say it's to wipe out Hamas is in itself not good enough. Fact is, there may be no end goal that is obtainable, given how messy this conflict is, and how fractious the region is. There seems to have never been nor ever will there be a clear solution to the Palestinian problem....unless you're a WOKE university student here in the US or UK who chants, "From the river to the sea."
When I made my first comment on this page after listening to this discussion between Jaron and Sam, I included a link that is to an essay that philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote for the LA Times back in 1968. It is still chillingly relevant, and I felt is so germane to Harris' commentary:
It'll take you about a minute and a half to read it. I wish everyone knew about it, as it shows how pernicious and long lived this issue has been without having to be a scholar on this subject--which almost none of us is! I admit that, as much time as I have spent trying to understand the region around and including Israel, it's still far too big for me to fully understand. For just that reason, I try to avoid becoming strident in my views regarding this very, very divisive issue.
That's a worthy rebuttal or counter to the "only Israel is ever criticized" argument... That's not untrue but that's because Israel is supposed to be on the 'good guys' side.
As to why Americans are pretty cool with America behaving badly? Well. "My country, right or wrong", as they say.
But my bet is Americans wouldn't be cool with English ethnically cleansing Norther Ireland, France massacring its Muslim minority or anything like that.
After listening to your reply to Andrew Hughes’s letter and reading your recent defense against the criticisms it generated, I can’t help but feel that you must have been responding to a very different letter than the one your manager read aloud. Because unless something was lost in transmission, it’s difficult to understand how your reply, and your defense of it, could be seen as a serious engagement with what was actually said. Thankfully, the video and its transcript are here to remind us all what the conversation really was.
Andrew’s letter was thoughtful, generous, and clear. He explicitly condemned Hamas and recognized Israel’s right to defend itself. He wasn’t accusing you of tribalism. He didn’t deny the horror of October 7, nor did he conflate Israel with Hamas or use the word “genocide.” What he did was raise a single, morally urgent question:
Doesn’t Israel’s current strategy raise profound questions about what we’re willing to accept as necessary collateral damage?
It’s a fair question. It’s a hard question. And it never receives a direct answer. Instead, you reassert the depravity of Hamas, point to the strategic difficulty of rooting them out, and talk at length about cultural pathologies among Palestinians. But none of this engages with the core issue: Is there a point where the scale of civilian death and destruction becomes morally indefensible, regardless of the enemy?
The level of evasion is striking. One almost gets the impression that nothing Israel might do, from the present level of devastation to the theoretical obliteration of Gaza itself (extermination of all its civilians included), would ever trigger a moral reckoning, so long as Hamas still exists. Because any such concern, no matter how carefully expressed, apparently deserves deflection.
Most puzzling of all is your repeated tendency to psychologize your critics. You speculate about what people do and don’t care about, as if their silence on Yemen or Sudan somehow invalidates their distress over Gaza. But how could you possibly know what your listeners care about, or what they’ve spoken out against? This move shifts the burden of moral consistency away from the situation at hand and onto the imagined biases of your audience. It’s no longer about the message; it’s about the messenger. Really, Sam?!
This same deflection shows up in other ways, too. In your reply to Andrew, you suddenly pivot into a discussion of conservative Muslims in other parts of the world and their views on women’s rights. How is that relevant to whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is proportionate or defensible?! You reached the summit of Mount Straw Man: vanquishing an imaginary opponent, in an argument no one raised, on ground only you charted.
Equally troubling is your attempt to redefine whataboutism. You claim that drawing comparisons with other, bloodier conflicts is not a deflection, but a way to “reveal bias.” But that’s not what happened. You didn’t use those comparisons to enrich the moral conversation, you used them to diminish the legitimacy of concern over Gaza. That is whataboutism. At its core, it’s not the act of comparison that’s dishonest, but the purpose of it: using one tragedy to silence moral inquiry into another. Calling that “revealing bias” is just giving rhetorical cover to avoidance.
The issue here is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself. It does. The issue is not whether Hamas is a barbaric and genocidal force. It is. The issue is whether there are moral limits to how a nation ought to defend itself, even when it faces a monstrous enemy. That’s the question Andrew asked. That’s the question many of your thoughtful listeners are asking. And that’s the question you continue to avoid.
Sam, I enjoy just about everything you write about and say with the one exception. Gaza. You cannot seem to grasp the fundamental problem historians are facing who research and write about the holocaust. Historians do this work in the hopes we learn something. If we do not criticize the state of Israel about Gaza, and it seems like you have a hard time with that, only shows that nothing has been learned. We will never change. Comparing Gaza as a lesser evil to Sudan atrocities is a pointless exercise and broadly misses the mark.
Roger - are you saying that there is equivalence between the holocaust and the Gaza war, and that if lessons were learned from the holocaust the this would convince Israel that they should change their conduct in Gaza?
I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt here because that would be a sickening thing for you to say:
There were many lessons from the holocaust. Amongst them:
1-when people tell you they want to kill every Jew in the world, Jews should probably take them seriously - and Hamas say that.
2- Jews were murdered because they were stateless and defenceless. Having a Jewish state and and army to defend it is a good idea.
David Deutsch speaking with Sam in a recent Making Sense episode had an interesting take on this. I didn't fully understand and I'm not sure he was right, but his "pattern" explanation is worth considering. The pattern is old and predates Christianity. The pattern that when things happen people look to blame "the Jews." Jews (or Israel) are automatically blamed and only then are reasons for the blame conjured up.
One thing I know. I was in America for the Second Intifada, and witnessed the left’s romance with suicide bombers. Today they claim that they simply hate Netanyahu. But not only was Netanyahu not Prime Minister back then, but the actual Prime Minister was a leftist, who offered the Palestinians 98% of the territory they demanded, including East Jerusalem.
The Netanyahu “argument” for reviling Israel is a red herring. I fervently hope Israel somehow obtains new, better leadership soon. But when that happens, the left will find some new explanation for why Israel is uniquely monstrous among the nations.
Yes lets hope the new Israel leadership is less.... depraved. It's quite convenient for you to smear critics as just using Netanyahu as a red herring. I enjoy how it's them you're angry about, not the ones actually doing the atrocities and openly admitting in broad daylight what their goals are, now that Trump is president and they've bought him they know nobody can stop them. Ben Gvir about said as much.
Trump took a significant amount of money from the Israel lobby, Benjamin wasn't shy about his hope that he would win. This isn't a conspiracy, this isn't speculative, this isn't crackpot tinfoil hat nonsense, that is the reality. No that is not a thing unique to Jewish people and you know that's not an argument, it's a good way to dismiss critics of that corruption though. Speaking of red herrings...
I'm sorry Sam the listeners who had sent you questions aren't "our media". You are assuming the person who sent you that very balanced message is not concerned, or not more concerned about Syria, Sudan or Yemen than Gaza. Have you talked to that person, and worse still all the commenters under your previous post who disagreed with you whether they care less or more about Gaza than Yemen? Speaking for myself, if I listen to a podcast in which someone calls the entire population of Yemen barbarians (because the Houthis are firing missiles at cargo ships), then I would object to that blanket characterization just as I object to you thinking of the situation in Gaza as justified because it's a barbarism vs modernity conflict.
Western media is not biased against Israel, Sam. That’s an absolutely laughable assertion given they have been the main driving force in the dehumanisation of Arabs for decades at this point.
Taking issue with the suffering of millions of second and third generation refugees still living under the longest military occupation in history as a result of mass displacement is not ‘media bias’ - that’s just reality.
There were a hundred new countries established during the 20s century after the disintegration of various empires. The process was associated with creating tens of millions of refugees (my family included). Where are those millions of refugees? Is refugee status hereditary or transferred through marriage? Why only Palestinian refugees are still around, in fact grew from less than a million to over 5 millions, and still growing? What is the difference between UNHCR and UNRWA?
Most other refugee groups of the 20th century were either resettled, integrated, or ceased to be considered refugees as states stabilized or new national identities formed.
The status of Palestinians remains unresolved and many of them still live in refugee camps to this day.
Because there is still no independent Palestinian state, and millions of Palestinians remain displaced or under occupation without a permanent political solution.
Because none of the neighboring Muslim countries want to take them in either. Do the Jews who were expelled from those countries have a right of return?
You haven’t explained why Palestinians are the only refugees who, by your own admission, have not been integrated into other countries. You have not explained why the Palestinian refugee, uniquely among refugees, passes down their refugee status to their grandchildren, even if they are citizens of other countries, or even multimillionaires.
This is exactly the sort of double standard Sam is addressing here.
The Palestinian refugee situation is unique but that doesn’t mean it is a double standard.
First, Palestinian refugees are not integrated into many host countries not because of international inconsistency, but because the host states explicitly deny them full rights fearing near fatal demographic or political shifts. This isn’t UN policy - it’s national policy. Jordan is the only country that gave most Palestinians citizenship, and even there, restrictions exist.
Second, the reason refugee status passes through generations under UNRWA is also political: the international community deliberately chose in 1949 to treat Palestinians as a special case pending a just resolution, including their right of return or compensation. This wasn’t meant to create a permanent status it was meant to preserve their claims until they were resolved. That political solution never came, and so the status persists.
It’s not that the Western media treats Palestinians with more sympathy and that argument does not hold up under any serious scrutiny. It’s that their situation was never resolved, and because their displacement is inseparable from the world’s longest-running military occupation, the refugee status became locked in a political limbo.
The result is that, far from enjoying special sympathy, Palestinians are often depoliticized and their suffering reduced to a humanitarian issue instead of a rights-based political problem. Their refugee status isn’t a privileged one; it’s an unresolved scar left open for 76 years.
Except it’s a bit rich to argue that Western media is suddenly biased in favour of Palestinians, when for decades that same media has been complicit in the dehumanisation of Arabs and Muslims. The disproportionate scrutiny only seems to bother people like Sam when it’s directed at Israel despite Palestinians long being reported as faceless statistics, without names, and without grief - always in a passive voice and never personalised.
The claim that the media ignores Hamas’ use of human shields isn’t accurate. Major outlets have reported on that repeatedly and this is often cited by Western officials along with their routine condemnation.
If someone like Sam is missing these things while somehow seeing the bias in reporting on Israeli conduct, they’re not really critiquing media standards. They’re reacting to the fact that Palestinian suffering is for once breaking through the usual filters and that discomfort says more about their expectations than about media bias.
Fair enough. But just to clarify - that ‘recycled part’ is the foundational context for how media narratives have historically treated Arabs and Muslims. To claim there’s now some undue pro-Palestinian bias without grappling with that legacy feels selective.
And it’s especially revealing that Sam, a vocal supporter of the Iraq War, never commented on the media imbalance or raised the alarm whenever Arab casualties are brushed aside. Instead he only raises the issue now that Palestinian suffering is finally being acknowledged more widely in the West.
That says a lot about the consistency of his principles.
But if Sam’s real concern is antisemitism, why does he immediately frames criticism of Israel as stemming from bias rather than legitimate outrage?
His post doesn’t just ‘acknowledge’ Palestinian suffering, it quickly buries it under a list of worse conflicts that you should be ‘even more’ concerned about.
And this idea that the media has been ‘weaponized’ against Israel due to anti-semitic prejudice ignores decades of the exact opposite media narratives that normalized occupation, erased Palestinian voices, and humanized Israeli suffering while reducing Palestinians to numbers.
Yes, he wrote an op-ed in 2006 critical of the conduct of the war in Iraq but that’s three years after it started, and only after it became clear that the war was a disaster. Early on, he defended the war in principle as a moral confrontation with Islamic extremism. This was a war sold to the public on lies and amplified by the same media he now chastises.
There was no hint of him engaging with the human cost of the war in moral terms. Even in later writings he continued to frame the problem as being about religion.
He has consistently failed to humanise Arab or Muslim victims of mass violence the way he does with victims of Islamist terror. It’s the same pattern we saw in his defense of the Iraq War: a refusal to fully reckon with the human cost when that cost is borne by those seen as part of the ‘problem.’
So this isn’t a neutral analysis of antisemitism or media bias - it’s a reflection of his own deeply selective moral lens.
I absolutely love and deeply appreciate your clear thinking and ability to articulate what I would say if I had that ability! Thank you SO much, Sam!!!!
Then let’s agree Sudan and these other places are problems too but not deflect from the horrendous and needless suffering of the kids in Gaza - a lot of the heavy lifting here is done by painting the people there as the bad guys - Sam included - I have no sympathy for hamas who need to be ended - but humans make kids and these kids are innocent and shouldn’t be indiscriminately bombed for guilt by association
The "media" - assuming you're referring to legacy media in the United States - focuses more on Gaza than the civil war in Sudan because the U.S. is and has backed one side exclusively in that conflict. Because of that, I'm of the belief that we, citizens of the United States, have every right to have a say in how our tax dollars are being spent in supporting a war that has led to countless civilians of another country being, basically, bombed into oblivion. Regarding Sudan, the U.S. has made it clear it does not support either side, but seeks to help facilitate an end to a conflict it labels as a humanitarian crisis and genocide. If the United States decided to withhold funding for the war in Gaza, Israel wouldn't be able to continue its campaign while also defending itself against other hostile Middle Eastern countries. So the difference is that the U.S. can directly have an impact on continuing the conflict in the Gaza vs. not really having any meaningful way of ending the civil war in the Sudan, other than through military means. News reporting is not based on a hierarchy of suffering, but on the interests of the United States in the regions where these conflicts are occurring. I used to parrot Sam's talking points about how Israel goes to great lengths to limit civilian casualties and that's just bullshit at this point. One out of many examples; Israel basically slaughtered 15 Palestinian medical workers, lied about it, and only came clean when cellphone footage was discovered on one of the dead bodies of the emergency responders that confirmed the IDF was full of shit. To bring this up, or any other disgusting plot to hide the wartime atrocities committed by Israel, would lead to claims that I've been brainwashed by jihadist propaganda. I have fucking eyes and a brain that I use to look at the evidence in an unbiased way, and it's patronizing to say otherwise.
In large part, because liberals mostly make up the mainstream media, and they have been badly educated/indoctrinated/brainwashed (you decide) by progressive neo-Marxist, identity political and intersectional, anti-racist nonsense that paints Israel and Jews as the bad guys and defines opposition to Israel as anti-colonialst defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples.
These are inadequate responses. People are upset because of our ability to stop it, to stop funding, to stop commiserating and supporting this. Your retort of the Houthi bombing is not successful. That was a one time incident. When the US is actively engaged in military activities without moral justification there generally is an uproar. Few people were so upset with the beginnings of the Israeli response. But after months and months, years now, people are beginning to think the critics were correct. I have. I think you are too. This has never been a war. Israeli citizens have not been scared for the past 2 years. The majority of Israeli citizens have not lost immediate relatives.
The fact that we'd prefer the world to be filled with more people like Tel Avivians and less like Palestinian Hamasniks should play no part in the moral evaluation. Especially from a determinist framework. Give up the bending over backwards to defend these atrocities. Most of us have.
That was exactly my thought - Sam Harris engaged in russian style whataboutism regarding Israel atrocities in Gaza: “but what about Sudan, etc”. Interestingly others noted that too. Diminished my respect for him.
The Palestinians have rejected every offer at having a State of their own since 1948. More than having a State, they simply want the Jews out. They say it themselves. Why not believe them.
Listen to literally any Israeli politician speak and they will tell you that they want the Palestinians gone, completely. They quite literally don't even hide it anymore since Trump got into office. They want them either dead or displaced from the region. Wake the fuck up.
IMO the disproportionate focus on Gazan suffering is for the same reason that Oct7 was covered more extensively compared to the countless other random attacks on other foreign countries. There are lots of terrorist attacks on foreign civilians all over the world, especially in conflict zones in Africa. None of those get as much attention on American cable as attack on foreign Israeli civilains got. You can’t say Israel is a special ally and we have a close relationship and then complain why it gets special attention.
I would concede coverage can sometimes be unfair to Israel but what I’m more concerned about is American soft power in maintaining international law and norms of territorial integrity. I defend the right of Israel to exist against idiot campus tentists as it was ratified through international law. But it must exist within its boundaries 1967. We must not support the right of Israel to do territorial annexation. As we enter a multi polar world, we need to be even more concerned about the moral force of soft power as we might not have the military might to enforce such norms. To truly cement such norms, going out of our way to call out war crimes by allies (Israel) is even more important than calling out war crimes by our adversaries (Russia). It’s the 21st century and territorial integrity must be protected whether in Eastern Ukraine or the West Bank.
I just want to throw myself out there as a listener who completely agrees with you on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Amen.
Sam is, of course, right to observe that
"It’s alarming to realize that for every listener who proudly delivers a fake coup de grâce of this kind, there are likely thousands who silently believe the same thing."
But it's also true that for each of person who silently "believes the same thing", there are plenty more who do not - and who silently agree with Sam.
The other day, I was walking on a trail through the woods I often frequent. On a sign therein, some nitwit had spray painted "Free Palestine" about a month ago. Each time I see it, it irks me. But yesterday, I laughed out loud when I noticed that someone else had added two words to the message: "From Hamas".
My bit long-winded observation about WhatAboutery specially from here in Australia where I understand people read more world wide news than do US citizens (Australia relies more on other countries that the US does or 'Europe as a whole' does, so we follow more daily international news and events) is that also here a significant percent of politicians and media with narratives push them with twisted and false evidence.
So much so it appears to worry most centre leaning and now the growing majority of people here whether our neighbours are savvy enough to do their fact checking.
Ok so that part is not enlightening, many have recently come to similar views. Less and less can we rely on news outlets reporting ‘News’. Only some outlets here are honest enough to cite/label their articles as news or opinion or analysis.
Social media is by far opinion and sadly major news outlets such as Fox or any Murdoch reporting is not true news, (unless your are hard right, ok ok ducking for cover here, but remember that Lachlan Murdoch has admitted they are right wing ) and are opinions and therefore probably more than 50% is twisted and fake.
Me I think like a lot of others realise that the speed and explosive capability of today's social-media enables less savvy people to go bi-polar. But that's just a percentage of any community, but a big one. But its not only less savvy, those with higher intellect, well respected community members also re-preach beliefs without any supporting real facts. Curve-fitting or cherry-picking are often the methods employed, but again people will say they just really believe something unproven. What is this - it is 'Tribal' in my understanding. But Tribes are important for survival.
And BTW by less savvy I mean like not everyone has time to fact check news while they’re working, studying nights, focusing on family, looking after their own health.
Back to WhatAboutery, for example here there have been also protests about the Hamas attacks, then more recently about the actions of Israel and Netanyahu, even some local Jewish politicians calling out about the same subject, yet some large political and media factions repeatedly and loudly label these call-outs as antisemitism and had very heavily used this to slam guilt on anyone not calling it antisemitism.
I think that use of labelling pissed a lot of people off here. And recent events here show it really did. It is a too obvious narrative. It just recently backfired on those conservatives trying to weaponise antisemitism.
How – well a major political conservative party here expecting to win just had a decimating landslide against them and the suspicions and surfacing evidence is showing it wasn't solely the winning party's policies.
The kicker is showing up in the autopsies, it was the losing conservatives numerous own supporters shifting their votes away because of their party’s recent stand on further cutting recognition and rights of the local indigenous population, and their very loud labelling of the call-outs about Israel and Netanyahu as antisemitism.
What, so so every time the police arrest a drug -dealer or burglar or DV offender who isn't Jewish or maybe was a practicing Catholic, it should be labelled anti-christian!
He or she is a thug whether they went to a state school or Catholic school or Jewish school, Islamic, whatever school.
We must always discriminate the action, not the race or creed.
Predominantly Palestinians are born Palestinians.
Hamas are not born Hamas, they are born Palestinian or Lebanese or Iranian et al and maybe even some were Jewish.
Hamas are conversions, they joined a tribe, a cult, why?
Back to the point about WhatAboutery and deaths of innocents in Sudan, Syria, Yemen I don't believe goes unnoticed.
From here there has been more affinity with Israel due work colleagues, neighbours, relatives, trade and tourism than with those other countries. I believe we had developed a higher level of respect for Israel and an OECD member and similarly with the likes of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, and many European countries, to name just a few but importantly each with a predominance of different and even opposing faiths.
Most western countries do not have the same level of affinity with Sudan, Syria, Yemen for the same basis, maybe in the future.
Because of that affinity with Israel I think we had an expectation of Israel and many people see that country failing that expectation.
Respect is not locked in. I used to think respect had some degree of hysteresis but not anymore.
I believe now more people apply a similar view.
I’ve come to learn that human beings are much more fickle than I ever thought, my ideas of intellect and ordered minds has been shattered, I thought that history is old fashioned, can’t happen today, crap, it still happens and always will.
The concept of a single person having ultimate power over a nation - democracy or not is no protection - does not guarantee consistency of virtue nor respect. In coming decades or maybe centuries I believe this will either be the death of us all, else there must evolve a new style of governing and leadership.
- - - - -
BTW a solution to social media is to at the least industry-regulate or legislate 'transition time', only users with 100% authorative ID and a disclosed name and 18 or over have their messages delivered immediately, all other user’s messages only get delivered after 24 hrs. And this is an easy technical implementation.
It's a 'percentage game' and I believe this as a minimum would help against garbage and bullying.
Anything urgent , use SMS text messaging.
End.
I agree also. I can't discuss most sensitive issues/topics with close family and friends now because they cannot see the difficult navigation of facts needed to treat topics like the Isreal-Gaza conflict with logic and fariness. Everyone just runs and hides and shouts from their bubble.
Agree
Can you please stop using the word heuristic - whatever tf it is that properly means?
Sounds like Petersonian Bafflegab...same with straw man...
Enough of this pedantic silliness...it's merely a way of trying to deflect from the issue at hand
Is that all you took away from Sam's post? Is it so difficult to learn a new word or to work it into your own discourse? The right word in the right place isn't pedantic; it is evidence of the effort to be accurate. You used the word "pedantic" thus signifying that you are not entirely a troglodyte (look it up). How is "heuristic," or for that matter "straw man," an alien term? Instead of complaining that a writer made it hard for you, look up a new word, read the original sentence again, and expand your understanding of the writer's argument. Or maybe skip this arena entirely if it makes you take up the cause of the ignorant who don't want to be anything but. Look what your remarks have generated: Anglo-Saxon word fans, as if French and Latin words have done nothing to elevate English to a more precise plane of communication.
Hi Tracy. Thanks for your feedback.
Sam Harris is a capable and competent writer. Eloquent. Concise. Clear.
That said, (I feel) he can sometimes complicate his prose with big words (when diminutive ones could suffice...).
To wit: I doubt Harris is trying to use words like 'heuristic' as a semantic parlour trick (the way hucksters like Jordan B Peterson do) however that does not make criticism of such unwarranted...
Been a subscriber of Sam for three years now. Brilliant dude.
But isn't the very idea of 'heuristic' negated by alienating (with big words)
of people who don't have a degree in
This is tricky… you have to imagine being Sam, or anyone you know you could glean the same. We are what we’ve surrounded ourselves with. His arena is to readily be immersed in academia, this affects your vernacular. Peterson, who I equally agree is casuistry personified, purposefully complicates vernacular to throw you off. He’s hoping you almost can’t take away the point so he can’t be rebutted. Sam uses complex words at points oftentimes because when you look it up, it genuinely meets his intention. He also speaks differently in his replies than he does his published pieces. He knows his colleagues are reading as well, who fill his podcast seat. I don’t doubt a part of him loves vocabulary, as I have the same love, and it’s fun to try and work in better words… but naturally and when called for. I know Sam’s reply would be the short-handing tech/social media has forced onto us is narrowing our once larger expressive reservoir. Think how so many say the same things and it’s repeated and oftentimes these situations, people, or events are wrongly described because of a loss of expression. Heuristic is the perfect the word. The main reason he used that word is because the point of the article was a lesson to his readers in logical fallacies from argumentation/debate. Whatabouty was the topic, which falls into logical fallacies. So it was appropriate and it wasn’t Peterson’s showboating and purposeful obfuscating tactics.
Thank you for your considerable reply. You made my day.
I'm not sure if you are refuting or supporting my original opination - but was one heck of an entertaining read!
Engaging. Thoughtful. Socrates himself could not walk a better talk
Gonna hafta look up casuistry. Bet it's a gooder!
Speaking of words, oftentimes isn’t one😎
Meanwhile, in Darfur, Ukraine and the Middle East.....
Thanks for your comment.
Don't be afraid to take the time to look up a word. I know he uses these words a lot and because I'm at my computer instead of the car, I looked them up. Good stuff, the words fit perfect. Note: I also looked up pedantic and thought Sam wrote a short concise piece with a single point: there is nothing heuristic about these subjects. He's challenging us to look deeper.
Can we please stop using the word "diminutive"? The words "small" or "simple" are much more concise and readily understood, and sound a lot less Petersonian /s
You got me. Small is better. I agree with your logical deduction...
Keep on rockin in the free world 😎
Man, another shot at Peterson. Once again, look up the words. He's a professor and points out language is one of the most important skills. I'd say these shots are ad hominem attacks, no?
"Heuristic" is a widely used term and has a very specific meaning which is why Sam is using it. This is really not the hill to die on and I have to say its making you look rather foolish and ignorant arguing this point.
It is not a widely used term nor has it ever been. It has no parlance amongst the average reader.
It is awkward and unnecessay to use in most instances (including this one) and only serves to confuse and deflect from the point of argument…
Use it if you like to to sound smart around people.
As they say - if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit…
Psychology
If only there were a way to find out what it means. Oh wait - I just discovered the world wide web - the irony of the definition is delicious: "enabling someone to discover or learn something for themselves."
What would the replacement for “heuristic” be? Straw man is an unfortunate label that doesn’t help me understand that logical fallacy,
but again what is the replacement?
"Rule of thumb"
David, oh so true! Plain Anglo-Saxon English please!
I’d say “lazy” is a better word than “true”.
Anglo-Saxon English is a shit show at best. A mix of several other languages, that are not agreed upon in not just different English speaking countries, but within them in different towns. I’d give it a D- on the language scale.
What?
An indiviidualized National value set might not include Popularism.
No one with a shred of humanity would not be horrified by the events in Gaza and Isreal since 7 Oct 2023 attacks.
The worst part of any conflict is the suffering of non-combatants – particularly children and vulnerable persons – on both sides.
As Sam states quite effectively, the difference in the cultural and societal values between the two sides of this conflict is critical. This difference cannot be disregarded.
The state of Israel, flawed as any human entity is, strives for an open democracy where all can live and prosper. Hamas does not.
I have close family members that state emphatically that the 7-October attacks were a black-op carried out by Israeli intelligence and the IDF (i.e. Israeli military and covert personnel pretending to be Hamas fighters and killing their own citizens) so as to give the justification for invading Gaza. The same type of explanation was given by conspiracy theorists after the 9-11 attacks that state the US covert government agencies carried out the 9-11 attacks to justify an invasion of Afghanistan and the Middle East to secure oil rights.
How can one reason with anyone that accepts such nonsense as factual?
“The state of Israel strives for an open democracy where all can live and prosper”… seriously? Questioning the word “all” here considering what the settlers are doing in the West Bank.
Highly suggest you read the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Strives for does not mean 'is perfectly achieving.' Just like the U.S. does not always perfectly achieve the freedom and rights it wishes to bestow upon its citizens. If you judge the entire population of Israel based on a minority, yes- it will fall short. But why are you judging based on a minority?
Oh please, the illegal settlements are allowed by the government.
I have a lot to say on the matter, but let's start with this. The extremist faction in this current government received less than 10% of the vote. Given our political structure, that still enables them to hold a tremendous amount of power in the government- and we see the unfortunate results daily. Do they represent the entire Israeli population? Does ANY government represent the entire population? What does it matter if they are being allowed by the government- if the government does not represent the people right now? You're missing the point here.
YES! Alana. 80% of Israelis can't stand Netanyahu along with most of the Diaspora Jews. We are disgusted at this continuing this war for his own political gain and just listening to the hostages and their families, they feel the same way.
And this is what happens when people become frightened. They elect and/or empower strong arm leaders to protect them.
When your neighbor is a constant and unpredictable threat, people make irrational decisions to protect themselves.
Not just "allowed": encouraged, facilitated, pushed for, wanted, financed, militarily defended by the government.
I'm not going to defend illegal expansion but I think you're really missing the full picture here. Settlements authorized by the government make up, at most, 4% of the West Bank. Illegal outposts, not authorized by the government, make up about another 1%. It's still a tiny fraction of the entire West Bank.
We need to stop using the term settlers to describe Israelis living in Judea & Samaria. It is Israeli land. It belonged to Jordan until they attacked Israel and lost. Now, I’ll ask why you’re so upset about a handful of messianic crazies (usually retaliatory) attacking Arab villages when Jews are gunned down all the time. Most recently last week, a couple on the way to the hospital to give birth, and the mother was killed. Thankfully the baby survived. But you think Israel should just lay down its arms and remove all the checkpoints. And then furthermore disregard the insane Islamic fundamentalism that Israel is forced to live with and next to. Can you take a guess how that will turn out? Yes, %100 Israel strives for open democracy for all. And it’s the only country in the Middle East that does.
People also leave out that Jews were driven into Israel, by Muslims, from neighboring countries like Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Iran, etc...
Now, roughly HALF of ALL the 15 million Jews left in the world, reside in Israel.
"From the river to the sea" has been going on for centuries, but people just ignore these facts.
Poor Palestinians, they say.
Well you see, that's just - like - your opinion, but the rest of the world doesn't agree with your caracterization, and what you call Judea & Samaria is occupied Palestinain land, the West Bank, from which the settlers should just get out, not a moment too soon. If a settler gets killed, I feel sorry from a human point of view (well, it depends ...) but they are illegal occupiers so that's a risk they accepted to run. BTW: where do you think the Arab Palestinans who live in the West Bank should go, if you had it your way ?
Out of curiosity, when the land was Jordanian, was it also illegally occupied? When did the occupation start?
Absolutely, but there are a couple of things to be added:
1) Jordan occupied the West bank for less than 20 years and never intended to keep it because it's their "promised land", in fact they gave it to the PLO administration on a voluntary basis.
2) Jordan never oppressed the local population in all sort of ways like Israel does.
So, I wouldn't compare the two occupations if I were you.
Two million Palestinian Arabs live as citizens of Israel with equal rights. They made the choice to live in peace, a choice the West Bank Palestinians have never made.
In terms of the comparison then - who do you think is more likely to uphold this goal, the Israeli government (given the opportunity) or Hamas (The elected Palestinian government).
That is a fair comment, Debra. My knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very limited. I make many errors. Apologies. Quite right - the situation in the West Bank particularly with Israeli settlements that violate international law is very troubling. I also hate that the Palestinian territories are basically managed by proxy from Tehran via Hamas and Hezbollah - is that unfair to state? Please correct me. There are so many layers to that situation and all of those layers are very ugly.
Sorry Hexbollah is in Lebanon. PA is West Bank. right? Sorry another error
*Hezbollah
The West Bank is quite complicated. To answer your question- the PA governs parts of the West Bank, other parts are under Israeli military control. There is also unfortunately Hamas presence in some areas of the West Bank.
You (and anyone else who makes this argument) are just simply completely confused. To bring up Israeli settlements in the West Bank etc. as some sort of justification or hint of understanding for Hamas' actions indicates that you are totally out of touch with the topic at hand. Hamas' disdain for Israel and their desire to destroy them has nothing at all to do with land disputes or past mistreatments. Had Israel been the most perfect and accommodating neighbors imaginable to Palestine, Hamas would still have the exact same feelings towards Israel and Jews: that they must be completely destroyed to please Allah and insure their eternity of bliss. October 7th was a jubilent celebration for Hamas and many Palestinians not because they were seeking out justice for their mistreatment by Israel, but simply because they believe with all their being that it is the will of the Almighty. There is no path of good behavior that Israel could have or should take that would change this fact.
My comment had nothing to do with Hamas. I was referring to the ongoing persecution of Palestinians in the West Bank.
sometimes it DOES seem hopeless, Luigi
me too!!
Same
Me too.
Me too!
It is astonishing Sam, how blatant the anti Israel bias is. For me, it’s pretty simple. Hamas (85% of Gazans voted for them) invaded Israel.Israel is not interested in genocide or revenge. Just survival and the removal of future, similar invasions and terroristic activities by avowed enemies.
When Hamas were voted in a significant portion of the population weren't born - because they're currently CHILDREN.
Before the war, 57% of Gazans had a positive view of Hamas:
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah
This does not mean civilians deserve to die for it, but it contradicts your argument that they lacked local support. And of course, none of this matters as wars are started by those with power (rather than by popular support) and innocents pay the price as has happened throughout history.
Where did I argue "that they lacked local support"? I was stating that Gaza has a huge number of children who are being slaughtered... But now that you mention it - I'm sure you'd happily voice dissent about a terrorist regime while being ruled by them?
Ah, yes I agree on the terrible costs towards children. But I would add, this is due to Hamas's strategy, not Israel (although I'm sure there are mistakes and bad actors as well).
The threat of the terrorist government to their own people is all the more reason why they need to be removed.
And me! Totally agree.
Same here
Same!
Same
I likewise agree with and support Sam's take on the Israel Gaza conflict.
I also cannot stand seeing what is happening to civilians in Gaza, it is literally unbearable to witness, and I hold Hamas 100% responsible for the suffering of its civilians.
How does that constitute critical thinking and or the ability to reason??
Me too!
Me too
At the same time, guys, have you noticed that Debra not only has the courage of her opinions, but she also puts her face on it. How about you?
As am I.
I worry as a society we're becoming less and less able to have nuanced conversations. Why do so few people fail to recognize the role that Hamas has played in this conflict? Or the role they play in all the civilian deaths now occuring?
I share your concern. I find it unfathomable that people are so willing - eager, even - to align themselves with Hamas with such cavalier disregard for the obvious moral authority of Israel and the equally obvious moral depravity of her enemies. I understand how messaging has been weaponized against Israel, but I don't understand how it sticks. What are the receptors that allow such insane moral reversals to take root in so many people's minds?
I have never seen someone take the side of Hamas. It's essentially always anger at the Israeli government.
I am so sick of being gaslit that criticizing Israel means I support Hamas.
Come to Israel. Here, you can freely criticize the government and won't automatically be accused of supporting Hamas. Somehow, we seem to hold more nuance than people this conflict doesn't directly affect.
Exactly right.
I get it. I am tired of saying I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself and getting gaslight as a heartless baby killer.
Why Israel particularly though? It’s the absence of anything near equal criticism of any other country/race that makes it so suspicious and undermines you.
We must have missed your vociferous critiques of Hamas…
I’m not trying to gaslight you — genuinely asking: could it be that the discomfort you’re feeling stems from not being able to fully address the questions raised in the article about Yemen, Syria, and Sudan? Do you hold the actors responsible in those conflicts to the same standard and level of criticism as you do, presumably, Israel in the Israel-Hamas conflict
That one was a genuine ZINGER!
No, Sam, you still don’t get it: Israel is a self-professed democracy, almost our 51st state. We expect more of Israel — or Canada or Britain or the pre-Trump US — than we do so-called nations ravaged by poverty, ignorance, violence and a medieval mindset. Israel is strong, resourceful. Fair or not, we expect more.
So tell me—what exactly do you believe Israel should do in this situation? They are facing an enemy that openly glorifies death and has no regard for civilian life, including their own people. It’s easy to condemn the IDF for the tragic toll of this war, but what would you propose they do differently—strategically and realistically?
And to be clear, I’m not asking about isolated instances of misconduct by individual soldiers. I’m asking about the broader challenge: How do you expect Israel to agree to a ceasefire while Hamas remains intact, continues to pose a real threat, and still holds innocent hostages?
This is a false question. It presumes everything that preceded this, all action by the Israeli government, is morally correct, fair, supportive of human rights and dignity, etc. This "well, if you were Netenyahu, what would you have done in October?" Well....I wouldn't have gotten into that situation in the fucking first place! So don't drop me into someone else's fuck up and then say "well why can't you fix it!?" This is such a silly tool that people use. Israel has FUCKED this entire region and the entire process towards peace. ISOLATED incidents? That's fuckign laughable. Yes, murdering people in ambulances and then burying the ambulances and then lying about it is just an isolated incident. Fuck me. Finally, if Hamas remains intact after all this time and all this destruction, than either the IDF is a pile of shit military or a different strategy should be considered.
It actually wasn’t a false question…. You just want to justify your faulty reasoning.
Israel has fucked up the entire region? OK, now it's clear why you believe what you believe. You're very confused.
Israel sometimes really pisses me off, too. They have their share of warts--what nation or human being doesn't? But Israel is not the problem in that region. Arab nations in that region have been, and more recently, Iran, has been THE PROBLEM in that region. Actually, Iran has destabilized the region probably more than any other since the Iranian revolution.
It's possible for multiple truths to exist at the same time. But in the end, Harris is correct in that Israel is the only democracy in the region, and the only place where one can exist with the fewest restrictions. Try saying as much about any of its neighbors.
You are another victim of propaganda. Don't be duped.
You're just simply completely confused. What you are failing to grasp is that Hamas' feelings and actions towards Israel and Jews in general has absolutely nothing to do with how they have been mistreated or wronged by Israel. Their desire to destroy all Israelis comes from a belief that it is the will of Allah and doing so well secure their eternity of bliss. That's it. There is nothing Israel could have done it should do differently that would change this fact
What other democracy is completely surrounded by Muslim nations that have, at one time or another....or in the present....tried to destroy or wish to destroy it completely? Add to that the fact that the Jews have been persecuted more than any other ethnic group and for longer....much longer.
Would you like me to introduce you to some? Have you not seen the footage from protests over this past year and a half? I am asking seriously. 'Intifada Revolution'' and 'Bomb Tel Aviv' are not just 'anger at the Israeli government'
The protests were all financed by Qatar, which the Muslim Brotherhood runs.
I'm referring to thinkers and pundits.
That's a very broad brush, I'm not sure who falls under that category. I will say that there are people with major platforms (millions of followers) who have voiced support for Hamas- outright or otherwise.
This simply isn’t true. There is no shortage of footage of protestors chanting “Globalize the antifada” at pro-Palestine rallies around the world, not to mention the two young Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., who were brutally murdered in the street this week. This kind of behaviour has been displayed publicly since October 8th, 2023. If you haven’t seen it, you aren’t paying attention at all.
Sorry, who exactly aligns with Hamas ?
Hating what Israel is being up to is not alignin with Hamas by any stretch of the imagination.
Israel is “up to”defending itself and its citizens. All questions asked in media sources all have the same bent “what has Israel done wrong today”. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. 15 million Jews. 56 Islamic states, 1 Jewish. Israel is fighting for its very existence.
I think it's too hard for people to see such suffering in Gaza. We didn't use to have live streams 24/7 showing us what was going on in Dresden on the ground. I think that's one of the main reasons why there is just little tolerance for the realities of war anymore. I know we got some disturbing feeds from Viet Nam, but it's nothing compared to what you can see circulating on X any given day in Gaza. It's a new world now bc we can never be blind the way we use to be about what war really looks like. In fact, I'm wondering more and more if people as a whole will never again be able to tolerate wars the way they were in the past. I think we have crossed some rubicon with social media that fundamentally shifts perceptions about war, such that even a "righteous war" is simply not bearable to witness. Which may be a good thing in many ways, obviously. Also, a strong belief that many people hold today, is that no person or group would ever engage in atrocities or act out in cruel or inhuman ways UNLESS they have gone through a kind of trauma or life experience that is unfair and likewise cruel that pushed them to take such drastic measures. Hamas may look like perpetrators, but every perpetrator was once a victim. That belief is pretty strong for a lot of people today, making it so that no war can be righteous because somewhere in history everyone was likely a victim at some point.
Not every perpetrator was once a victim.
Hamas is evil. All the people living in Gaza are not equal to Hamas. Sam's argument is that most of them either support Hamas or harbor equally violent views against Israelis as Hamas, and thus whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified. I don't think any sane person with no bad faith agenda would even remotely want to support a monstrous entity like Hamas or Hizbollah.
I hope your last sentence is right. But where are the Palestinians who are demanding that Hamas simply *surrender*, like any normal army would at this point, return the hostages, and then try to find a way to live in peace with the Israelis? Yes, I'm quite sure there are many Palestinians who despise Hamas, since they treat the ordinary Palestinians horribly, but... how do those Palestinians who hate Hamas feel about the Jews and Israel? That is the question.
Is there such a thing as a substantial (likely underground) Palestinians *peace* movement (*peace*, not ceasefire) that favors peaceful co-existence with Israel? I'd be happy - and I'm sure that most Israelis would be ecstatic - to hear Palestinians say, "We've done terrible things to the Israelis, and they've done terrible things to us. But this must end. We need to learn to live together in peace from now on. We acknowledge that Israeli land is not ours. Gaza (or the West Bank) is our home, and we want to make the best of it. We recognize that we are not going to reclaim Tel Aviv any more that the Lenape Indians are going to reclaim Manhattan Island in the USA. We would like, however, help from Israel and the Muslim nations in the Abraham Accords to help us rebuild and, in time, develop a thriving society. We want our descendants to live in peace. We have no more patience for jihadism, and far from supporting terrorism against Israel, we wish to see terrorists against Israel killed, for they are the main obstacle to peace. We renounce the idea of a 'right to return'. In exchange, we want help to build a proper and prosperous nation."
Are there such people among the Palestinians? Is there a Palestinian Martin Luther King, who dreams of the day when Israeli children and Palestinian will play together in peace? I'm sure there are some Palestinians with such dreams. But are there many? I suppose that's the big question for me. Not how many Palestinians support Hamas specifically, but rather how many of them support Hamas's *aims*. How many of them dream, not of peace with Israel, but rather, of the day when the terrible Zionists will be driven out of Israel?
Seth, I, like you, don't have any numbers. I don't live there, I get my news the same way everyone else, including Sam, gets. But you don't need to do any deep investigation to realize that there is protest, even under the violent barbaric regime of Hamas. Here is a link from only a month ago on a piece broadcast on CBS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esGtQmXt5PI). Unless you want to dismiss this as yet another liberal media's attempt at painting an unrealistic picture of the Palestinians (to which I have nothing to say really because ALL the news we get is pretty much at par with this), then this broad painting of all those people as "Hamas supporters" and thus deserving of what's coming at them is simply false.
But I go one step further, even the IDF doesn't make the argument Sam is making about the Palestinians The IDF says, at least in theory, that we are doing everything we can to avoid civilian casualties but Hamas uses them as shield. They never come out and say "these people are culturally all followers of a death cult and thus deserve what they are getting". This is not what a "modern civilized culture" justifies casualties.
Yes, I remember those reports of protest against Hamas. They were encouraging. Unfortunately, there were horrifying follow-up stories about Palestinians who participated in these protests being killed, tortured, and maimed by Hamas. You are right to describe Hamas as barbaric.
I doubt Sam thinks that individual Palestinian civilians *deserve* what they are getting. I'm pretty sure, however, that he'd endorse the statement that "what they are getting", or some other version of it, is basically inevitable until serious cultural changes - probably of the sort I suggested above - occur among the Palestinians. Where I might differ from Sam that I'm less convinced that Islam itself is the root cause. After all, Israel has made peace with Muslim nations. And I suspect that if there is a way to "deprogram" the Palestinians from their delusional emphasis on a "right to return", it will eventually come from other Muslims from outside of Gaza and the West Bank. May it come to pass.
I agree, but the argument would be far more compelling if more liberal or democratic-leaning Muslims openly spoke out against jihadist and extremist ideologies. In their silence, those of us observing from the outside are left to speculate—and that void only deepens misunderstanding.
.... And we know why they won't speak out. Because even if you draw a cartoon that challenges their beliefs, they will kill you.
That will silence a lot of people from speaking up.
Didn't you just answer your own question? "But where are the Palestinians who are demanding that Hamas simply *surrender*, like any normal army would at this point, return the hostages, and then try to find a way to live in peace with the Israelis?"
Ones that do are persecuted.
....or they are killed by Hamas.
Seth, even you couldn’t bring yourself the say “State” for the Palestinians. Time to say it! And yes, there is a Palestinian Mandela: his name is Marwan Barghouti and just as Mandela was, he is in an Israeli jail on a murder conviction ( the facts are actually quite similar). And if Sam or anyone is finding fault with the Gazans for not rising up against Hamas, remember this: Hamas is indifferent to its own people and kills anyone who openly dissents. And I’d ask this: why are Israelis not rising up and throwing out Bibi and his racist henchman who perpetrate war crimes in Gaza. It’s a little publicized fact that nearly two-thirds of Israelis support ethnic cleansing (aka forced displacement) of the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. If the government tries this, it will suffer the same fate as the Ottomans did with the Armenians in 1915: it will not work (Israel can’t kill all of them or get rid of them all); it will rightly go down as genocide just as it did in 1915; and Israel will stand condemned before the world, for all time. All this to assuage the delusions of religious fanatics and to keep Bibi out of jail.
Thanks for bringing up Barghouti. I've just read a little about him and will read more later. I pulled a muscle in my hand yesterday evening, so I can't reply at length. Maybe later.
I’ve listened to every episode of Sam’s podcast and not once have I heard him claim “that most of them either support Hamas or harbor equally violent views against Israelis as Hamas, and thus whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified” What I have heard him argue is that there must be a significant portion of the population that sympathizes with or supports Hamas—otherwise, we would have seen more cooperation with the IDF in efforts to dismantle the group.
OK Debrah, so let me just give a direct quote from the past Q&A with timestamps in brackets:
(34':40") : "...Just to make it clear how I think about these things ethically. If there were no difference between Hamas and the IDF, right, and if there were no difference between what most Palestinians want, and what most Israelis want, or most Jews want, if those differences didn't exist, then it wouldn't matter who won. It wouldn't matter who's coming across the border in which direction, I wouldn't take either side, they'd be the same people to me..."
(36':37"): "The fact that there is a difference between Hamas and the IDF, and I've spent decades spelling out what this difference amounts to, the fact that there is a difference between what most Palestinians really want, and what most Jews and Israelis really want, that there is a cultural difference, that on one side there really is widespread support for a death cult, there really is widespread belief in martyrdom, that there is widespread jubilation at the pointless destruction of innocent lives, civilian life, and on the other side, there isn't, there simply isn't, you do not find the celebration of the taking of women and children and even infants as hostages in Tel Aviv, that you find in Gaza, there all kinds of things are normalized in Palestinian culture that are not, haven't been normalized for as long as we've been alive, in Jewish culture or in Israel. All those differences matter and if those differences matter I wouldn't pick a side in this conflict."
And once again, where did Sam say, "whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified"?
He is saying if he HAD to pick a side, it would be Israel's for the reasons he laid out.
You seem to be constantly moving your position. I responded to your initial claim "I’ve listened to every episode of Sam’s podcast and not once have I heard him claim “that most of them either support Hamas or harbor equally violent views against Israelis as Hamas, and thus whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified”. He literally says that in the quotes I sent you.
No, he absolutely does not say, “whatever happens in Gaza is morally justified.” I quoted the full passage in my initial response because those were your words, not his. The quote you’re referencing does not include that phrase at all. What Sam is saying—clearly—is that if he’s forced to choose a side, he will side with the one fighting jihadist extremism. If you can’t recognize the nuance in that distinction, then I’m not sure what more I can offer.
He never said it was morally justified, but it is justified. A country has a right to defend itself. The brutality that occurred on October 7th and celebrated by the vast majority of Palestinians tells us everything we need to know. And your comments tell us everything we need to know about you.
where is he wrong?
"Most of the people of X believe in something therefore all of them deserve to be punished for it" is not morally justifiable.
What’s your point? The fact is THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! One is a culture steeped in western enlightenment values and the other is a culture which teaches their children the greatest aspiration in life is to die in the service of Allah. Israel’s Arab population comprises 20% of the total, is free to practice; or not, any religion of their choosing. Jews and Christians have been ethnically cleansed from the Arab counties. How many hours do you think a Jew would last in Gaza? In Israel, an Arab judge sentenced a former President to prison. Israelis have contributed technologies that benefit the world, Palestinians make great tunnels and suicide vests. You will never see in Israel Jews rushing into the streets to celebrate the murder of innocent civilians. I could go on for another hour citing the differences. Fact is, you wouldn’t last 10 minutes living under the rule of Hamas.
Did I every say it's fun being under the rule of Hamas? Did I say Israel is not a democracy? What exactly are you debating here?
Sam makes an ethical judgement on whether continued indiscriminate civilian causalities and suffering (which Sam does not deny) is morally justified as he sees a barbarian vs modern value judgement on an entire population that is living under the tyranny of a monstrous group called Hamas. Deborah Kemp questioned my reading of Sam's argument and I provided verbatim quotes to support my reading of Sam's claim.
You really don't have to splash rants under all comments. Read, think, and stop writing juvenile sentences like "your comments tell us all we need to know about you". You don't know me, and I don't know you.
He's even brought up past polling about what % of Palestinians support Hamas.
It's always remained in the ~65% range.
I think what he is arguing is that it is impossible to remove Hamas without inflicting casualties as a result of Hamas's macabre strategy. And since he believes Jihadists can't be reasoned with, so long as they are in power there will be no resolution.
As far as you're concerned. Have you heard any stories, or surveyed Palestinians about Hamas? You're surmising, or rather, projecting your own views onto to this without actually knowing.
Just because you have concluded or imagined something in your head doesn't make it a fact!
There was a time when IRA had a large support among Irish people.
Seen English and Irish going along was difficult to imagine.
People been divided by political identity and religion, until that madness went too far, and society learned that both sides should know better.
Today Ireland is almost on the economical and tourism peak among EU countries, and Brits are welcome there (as long as they not address Irish as “Mate” in the pub).
I know many Irish people, and a significant number have embraced the narrative that frames Hamas as revolutionaries. While I can understand the historical impulses that may inform this perspective given the oppression Ireland endured under British rule—I find it somewhat hypocritical. Many who hold this view have benefited from the freedoms of a democratic society, including protections for women and LGBTQ rights—freedoms that would be entirely absent under Hamas rule.
It’s also hard to ignore the historical fact that there was no war going between Pakistan/ India and Israel/ Palestine until British rulers give them freedom and left people for their own decision
I get what you are saying. It frustrates me how the victim/oppressor narrative is so often used to paint the British or the U.S. as the sole villain—while completely absolving the so-called “victim” of any responsibility. It’s a one-sided lens that overlooks the ways in which extremist ideologies or bad leadership have fueled these crises.
It’s easy to blame outsiders after the fact, but that doesn’t mean they’re the only ones who shaped the outcome—or that their involvement was always rooted in exploitation. Sometimes the goal really was democracy or defense. The reality is messier, and pretending otherwise just delays honest solutions.
...well, the British created the problem (with consultation with India's leaders on parititon) but decided on their OWN.
Pakistan was created by the British as part of the partition of British India in 1947. When Britain granted India independence, the territory was divided into India and Pakistan. This partition was primarily driven by the desire to separate Muslim-majority areas into a distinct nation, fulfilling demands from the All India Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
This borderline, known as the Radcliffe Line, was drawn in a short period and led to significant displacement and violence. This has been going on since 1947.
I appreciate the context—admittedly, I don’t know nearly as much about the India-Pakistan conflict as I do about Israel. My main point is that this victim-oppressor narrative people often default to whenever the U.S. or Britain is involved tends to oversimplify history. Yes, colonial powers made a mess of many regions, but the oppression and conflict that followed weren’t solely their doing. It’s disingenuous to ignore how much of the post-colonial strife has been driven by internal political agendas, cultural dynamics, and extremist ideologies that existed—and persisted—long after foreign powers left.
To my knowledge, the country of Pakistan has been created based on the highest Muslim population in the area, plus acknowledgment of some ancient land claims.
Basically that was the same resettlement experiment that happened year earlier with Israel.
Unfortunately not every nation grown up enough for civilisation and democracy
Antisemitism is strong. If there's one thing the left and right in America can agree on, it's their hatred of Jews.
The interesting thing about the "Free Palestine" people is the complete disregard for any logic in their arguments.
You need to believe that the most educated population in the world (Jews), with a fairly recent holocaust in their collective trauma, that were originally driven into Israel, by Muslims, and are the most persecuted people in history, would be willing to do the same to their neighbors, because.... ? And I think at this point, people try and convince themselves that Israel is full of Zionist.
Not even to mention some likelihood arguments, like, would a culture that is OK with domestic abuse of women, and killing LGQTB+ people, religious tolerance...
.... vs a culture that isn't OK with those things and is more tolerant and democratic, likely be the aggressors, or defenders in conflict.
You're confused the same way Sam is. Israel doesn't have to possess worse people for their behavior to be morally unacceptable. Obviously the average Israeli has morals that more align with a westerner, than a impoverished Muslim living in squalor.
To your first point. You would also think that this population wouldn't put genocidal maniacs in a position of power, yet here we are. The cabinet has referred to this conflict as fighting Amalek, Ben Gvir has celebrated the murdered Goldstien in the past. Israel is not a monolith.
You're becoming a moral relativist w/ that position, then. As soon as someone deviates from being perfect, there are various scales of good. You have to be able to see and differentiate the nuances of, is X better than Y. That's the whole entire point of what Sam is trying to get you to understand.
When people are frightened, they make irrational decisions to protect themselves, and tend to elect strong arm leaders. When you have a neighbor who is unpredictable, and dangerous, this is going to be the outcome in most cases.
Remember, Jews were driven into this corner of the world by Muslim nations. Did we just forget about that part of history? From the "river to the sea" has been happening before our eyes, and that's why nearly half of all 15 million Jews live in Israel. Jews were driven from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Algeria, etc... over the last couple of hundred years, by Muslims.
But, poor Palestine, right?
Your comment, "...Obviously the average Israeli has morals that more align with a westerner, than a impoverished Muslim living in squalor," seems to be a common refrain in western dialog about Israel/Palestine. Two counterpoints to this framing: a) Arab Muslim nations are very wealthy, so the caricature of the "impoverished Muslim" is not directly relevant to the Arab region; b) Palestine has received hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid over the past two decades and chose vengeance over progress. It's easy to cast characters in a play of our own making, but we risk letting our own western biases color the facts.
With the aid being wrongfully used by the government. We return to the core problem. Should tens of thousands of people be murdered for the sins of a few corrupt leaders?
Jaxton... the Israeli leaders, the politicians, the commanders, the generals, they LITERALLY say the quiet part out loud since Trump got elected, they openly say genocidal things when they speak in Hebrew, hell they even sometimes let it slip in English. You're absolutely right, everyone all over the political spectrum that doesn't have their heads in the sand is aware of this now and that is continuing to evolve, many of those people spent months defending Israel! The fucking FORMER PM OF ISRAEL literally came out and said that it's a genocide. There comes a point where the reality becomes too difficult to deny, and it's not going to get better any time soon. These officials that say these things are as depraved as any person could be, they're not all that different from Hamas, they just do it wearing suits and ties.
You like to go on and on about how and X% of Palestinians support Hamas, while ignoring the fact that the IDF soldiers that raped Palestinian detainees (SOMETIMES ON VIDEO) not only didn't receive any punishment, the Israeli public literally protested the mere suggestion that they should be punished. Where has Sam mentioned this? Further, 47% of Israeli's believe that they should be ALLOWED to gang rape them, sometimes to death. Another more recent poll that came out shows that 82% of Israeli's think that they should be forcibly removed from the land, Ethnically cleansed, like the politicians say they want. Another poll showed that around half of Israeli's believe that they should be outright vanquished, eliminated, exterminated. Like they're vermin.
You got tanked earlier in this thread, and so now you're switching to someone else w/ the same false talking points? I'll just cut and paste a similar post, which was also stated by someone else you were talking to in here, that you ignored.
If genocide were truly Israel’s goal, then why has the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank more than doubled over the last two decades? From 2000 to 2023, the Palestinian population grew from about 3.2 million to over 5.4 million. Gaza alone now has over 2.3 million people—despite years of conflict. That’s hardly evidence of systematic extermination.
If Israel had wanted to "cleanse" Gaza, they had the military capacity to level the strip in a week. Instead, they’ve used tactics such as “roof knocks” (non-lethal warning strikes), leaflets, phone calls, and designated evacuation corridors—all of which are practically unheard of in modern urban warfare. No war is clean, and the death toll is tragic—but the civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio in Gaza is still lower than in many U.S. or NATO-led conflicts in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan.
I scrolled through the comments and replied to some of the ones that stuck out to me, you have me confused with someone else or just don't have much to respond with. EDIT: I also replied to the comment you pasted from just now.
You don't need to listen to me, listen to their far-right (even by American standards), psychopathic politicians speak. They can say far worse things than I could ever possibly imagine. They enjoy what they are doing, and they enjoy knowing that the world can only watch as they do it, no matter who condemns it. That is only now possible because of October 7th, it gives them pre-text to do almost whatever they want, but even still, they can't just go around dropping nukes annihilating them all in one go, that certainly is a red line. Without pre-text, without an event like October 7th, they simply would not be allowed to do what they're doing now let alone nuke the place. Not even they could get away with that. That doesn't mean Israel didn't do war crimes before October 7th, because they most definitely did and have done for decades, that list is very long and it is well documented.
The goal now is to remove them from their land to create the greater Israel, by either killing them or displacing them. That is now their stated goal.
Everything is outrage or denial. Black or white. Oppressor or oppressed.
But real life? Real conflict? It lives in the gray.
Why do so few people even mention the role Hamas plays in this tragedy? As if Israel operates in a vacuum. As if Hamas didn’t start this. As if they don’t deliberately embed themselves among civilians, ensuring every counterstrike becomes a PR win.
The horrifying truth no one wants to face:
Hamas profits off Palestinian death.
They’ve weaponized their own people. Turned civilians into shields. Turned martyrdom into strategy.
And yet, Israel is the only one asked to play by rules its enemies openly reject.
If we really care about innocent lives, then we have to tell the whole story.
That means holding both sides accountable.
That means facing uncomfortable facts.
That means growing up as a culture and learning to think.
Otherwise, we’re not helping. We’re just feeding a narrative machine that thrives on selective outrage.
There are the overcomplicated justifications your targets will give you about oppression dynamics and ancient dead lefty theory...
and then there's the real answer: in every conflict between a (perceived) white person and a (perceived) brown person they think the white person should die. I know that sounds like right wing hyperbole but if you listen to the top Western leftist media figures talking about how "settler babies" are valid combat objectives you'll understand how bloodthirsty and/or out of touch things have gotten - and as usual the Jews are caught right in the middle.
I wanted to discuss politics with a good friend recently, and she said " for the sake of our friendship, you should talk to your friends who agree with you, instead of me". No one wants to understand another person's viewpoint, or debate in a civil manner. A lack of free speech / dialouge is what creates polarization and the inability to move to a more centrists , moderate stance. It is refreshing to have THE Free Press and Substack, where viewpoints can be aired . Thank you !
Sam just closes down all angles that question Israel’s actions. It’s tiresome at this point.
https://substack.com/@mcnallysmiscellany/note/p-164636370
I also worry about that very much. Orwell is forever tugging at my trouser legs. Seems we are very much irrevocably divided right now and need to accept that but follow our own reason
I think we never were nuanced, as a group, and all that is happening is we are able to see it more. We lidded ourselves we were very different from our medieval predecessors but turns out we really are not! A few people are. But a few people were different then too. We still have far to go. Keep on trekking :)
You're absolutely right, apparently none of us have separated from our medieval predecessors, even Israel.
lidded should be kidded
Is it because their evil presence is a baseline assumption? Would constantly decrying Hamas be like blaming the sun for global warming? “Well yes, it IS actually the sun that’s warming us, but what are the factors we can dial in?”
Yemen: 85,000 children dead from starvation.
540,000 suffering severe acute malnutrition. 17
million experiencing acute food insecurity.
Sudan: 520,000 children dead from starvation.
770,000 facing severe acute malnutrition. 24 million experiencing acute food insecurity.
Gaza: 52 children dead from malnutrition over 1.5 years, all of whom had serious pre-existing health conditions (source: GMOH). 0 suffering from severe acute malnutrition. 2 million experiencing acute food insecurity.
Theo Von, The UN & The Global Media: "We're really concerned about starvation in Gaza. Starvation is being used as a weapon of war, and that’s genocide. This is the single worst humanitarian disaster of our generation."
[Source: UN Integrated Food Security Phase
Classification]
Those figures about Sudan and Yemen are truly shocking. But if Sam is so concerned about a double standard, why isn’t he doing a proportionate number of podcasts about those conflicts?
Not his wheelhouse at all. Entire networks of people and states aren't lying about Yemen or Sudan. They aren't a source of highly contested claims and therefore don't illustrate bias or media illiteracy.
He’s not a humanitarian activist and wouldn’t be doing so many podcasts on the I/P conflict either if it weren’t so geopolitically explosive, dominating society, and overlapping with his other lifelong primary concerns
That’s fine and fair enough. But that could also probably be said for many of those calling Sam’s response Whataboutery. If we’re taking about the I/P conflict, let’s just talk about the I/P conflict. That should apply to Sam and everyone else in the discussion.
Trying to square "0 suffering from severe acute malnutrition" with this:
"Nutrition screenings conducted at shelters and health centers in the north in January found that 1 in 6 children under age 2 — 15.6 percent — are acutely malnourished. Of these, almost 3 percent suffer from severe wasting, the most life-threatening form of malnutrition, which puts children at highest risk of medical complications and death unless they receive urgent treatment. The total number of acutely malnourished children is expected to have risen even higher in the days and weeks since the screenings occurred."
https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/rising-malnutrition-puts-childrens-lives-grave-risk-gaza
What am I missing?
That's interesting! Thank you for sharing. I also think it's interesting that they found that for kids under the age of 2 where for at least half of those (under the age of 1) the primary source of food should be breast milk and/or formula not solid food like the rest of the population. Implies almost a different resource problem
That’s over 15 months old and could be true then without being true now. IPC reviews UNICEF reporting and all other reliable sources.
Also, look closer at these numbers. “In the north” is already a subset of Gazans. Children under 2 is another small subset. 1/6 of these under 6 is 15%, an even smaller subset. And then it says “of those, 3%…”. I have no idea how many children this is but it’s an incredibly small number, and based off other reporting I’ve seen from IPC & UNICEF, my guess is that these are the at risk children with muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, etc who died of pre existing complicated or were airlifted out of Gaza by Israel to the US, Jordan or Israeli hospitals. 52 children with those extreme conditions, which make them extra vulnerable, have died to date—the only deaths GMOH attributes in part to malnutrition.
“A group of U.S. physicians estimated in an October 2, 2024 letter to President Biden that 62,413 people in Gaza have died of starvation.”
A very quick Google search has produced an incredibly different statistic than the one you produced.
Bold choice quoting a letter signed by activist doctors 6,000 away claiming a higher starvation death toll than the entire 2 year death toll from the war (according to Hamas and the entire medical infrastructure of Gaza), and holding it up against the most up-to-date, 2 week old report from the worlds highest authority on the topic, composed of the worlds leading experts on the topic, which is sponsored by (and informs) the UN, while also being the only entity on earth with the authority to declare famines.
But here’s an article debunking that ridiculous claim:
https://honestreporting.com/60000-dead-from-starvation-american-doctors-endorse-grotesque-gaza-lies/
Further corrupting this death toll is what should one expect of Hamas when giving the death toll tally?
Honestreporting.com? Be serious.
What is GMOH?
Sam I am in your side on Israel but the argument you put forward simply sucks. Calling someone a hypocrite for not caring the same about Sudan or Yeman as they do about Israel is a valid call out of hypocrisy. But so what? That still doesn't mean they are wrong. It's a very poorly convincing argument. Don't you get that? It's no wonder you are getting so much push back. It doesn't mean you are wrong but it's just a really poorly constructed argument. Two things can be true at the same time. What if everyone suddenly says "ok Sam you're right we should care about all those other global conflicts equally". Then what? That would not change the situation at hand or address the question by the listener about the difficulty reconcling starvation in Gaza with Israel self defense. Again I am on your side to a point but you make yourself difficult to defend with a weak response to the email about the suffering in Gaza. You got completely off track from the topic. I think you need a better moderator than your business manager. I would just ask that you reframe the topic again in a more prepared and less off the cuff format or situation. And help convince us the audience with data and guests. Bring back on people like Graham Wood to help us actually understand what is going on on the ground. Help us understand exactly why Israel has to blockade Gaza and force starvation. Is that really necessary? If you actually think it is then explain why. Again you leave yourself open to attack but not appropriately addressing the question at hand and getting completely sidetracked on straw man arguments that were never posed. Bottom line: helps us understand if and why the current and ongoing Israeli response to 10/7/23 is totally necessary and why. I saw a video of a child being burned alive in a building. You can't just say "oh that's just media propaganda" like Trump would with anything he disagrees with. Please offer details and explain your accusations of media weaponization on a case by cases basis instead of referring to some grand conspiracy. I say all this with love Sam. Your work both on Making Sense and Waking Up has been deeply important to my intellectual and spiritual journey. Help us better understand your perspective.
If you're interested in better understanding a different perspective- truly interested, have at it. I live in Israel.
There is a solution. It has been available since Oct 8, 2023. Hamas should have released the Hostages. War Over. We wouldn’t be having this inane whataboutery discussion.
Why would they do that when it's their only leverage against total destruction?
I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is strategically stupid of them to do, given how Israel has perpetuated the conflict so far; the most recent ceasefire negotiations in particular. But I don't think you even consider Hamas a rational actor, so making arguments that they should act rationally or ethically is just gaslighting. At best, assuming Hamas are exactly as terroristic and evil as claimed, what we are experiencing right now is a hostage situation involving around two million Palestinians.
The solution which was available for years before Oct 7th, was to properly dismantle Hamas through diplomacy that would actually guarantee Palestinians a homeland. Israels terms have been perpetually ridiculous, and they have ceaselessly continued their occupation of the West Bank including ongoing settlementation, and treating their own internal Palestinians as second class citizens. Having all the power and resources at their disposal, they are the adult in the room who could find a solution that if not acceptable to Hamas or even the PA, one that the entire progressive world can get behind and support some kind of low-key military effort to achieve if necessary.
We also know Israel's intelligence failures on October 7th were in large part due to distractions in the West Bank that shouldn't have required so much military resources that the border around Gaza was left largely undefended, along with basically what seems ignoring them as a credible threat. This is substantial evidence they knew this was coming and did nothing. Not only just before the attack (https://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-fact-not-conspiracy-shin-bet-chief-knew-oct-7-attack-likely-didnt-wake-me/) but anywhere from months (https://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-says-netanyahu-knew-for-months-before-oct-7-that-a-violent-eruption-was-looming/) to a whole year (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-obtained-ignored-hamas-document-laying-out-oct-7-attack-plan-report-alleges/) beforehand.
So yes, what about all that then?
This is a perspective I see a lot and I don't get it. Israel could not have spent more time and effort on negotiating toward a peaceful resolution and securing itself against an attack. October 7th, at least for me, definitively showed this option is a dead end and the only solution is to root out Hamas once and for all. I think it's odd that the takeaway from an invasion of this kind would be that Hamas is a group one can negotiate with or protect oneself from. And the popular progressive fantasy that Israel can simply stop this war, give the Palestinians a state, and open the borders? That seems as fantastical to me as Trump's proposal that the Palestinian population can be moved elsewhere tomorrow.
Have you seen any good estimates as to how many Gazans need to be killed in order to convince the survivors to stop supporting Hamas and surrender?
So antisemitism is just “some grand conspiracy” now? That’s rich.
If you would like to have a dialogue please don't start with putting words in my mouth. You came to this conversation with ill intentions. That's on you. I said repeatedly that I agree with Sam. Being emotional isn't a logical argument.
You aren’t understanding his argument, that’s pretty clear. I don’t know why you think my response was emotional. Maybe you should think about why you said that.
You are correct I don't understand his argument which is exactly what I said and asked him to put a finger point on it 🤦🏼♂️ Your response is clearly just outrage so yes it's emotional. You didn't ask a question or seek clarity or offer an alternative view for me to consider. You just attacked by insinuating that I believe anti-Semitism is a conspiracy which couldn't be further from what I said. You didn't even ask me a question to allow me to defend myself or hear my POV. You aren't interested in dialogue; you are interested in browbeating a random person with a drive by comment to give yourself a serotonin boost of righteousness. I'm here to explore and understand people's perspective. Not pretend like I know it all. If you are here because you think you are “right” then I think you're in the wrong place. I will not further engage in those from the mob that want nothing but purity of opinion.
Sure and I’m pointing out that you’re not getting his argument because you’re not seeing the antisemitism. Which one of us sounds emotional here?
That isn't what Matt said. At least quote the context correctly.
"Please offer details and explain your accusations of media weaponization on a case by cases basis instead of referring to some grand conspiracy."
The "grand conspiracy" is that apprently the overwhelming majority of news and humanitarian organisations, doctors in the field, the ICC and the UN, numerous governments and other commentators and podcasters, are all co-conspirators with Islamists and Jihadists, or at least fooled by their propaganda.
That is what Sam is implying when he ignores everything that these people are saying about what Israel is doing in Gaza. When he ignores what Gaza's own politicians say they intend for the Gazans.
The only substantial counter arguments anyone have to offer so far as I can tell are supported by data and press releases from Israel and IDF itself, or from people they permit access from their side (like Douglas Murray). Occam's Razer alone suggests believing the Israeli government at their word is absurd.
Hear hear!
I wish Sam would have a conversation with Husam Zomlot about Gaza.
Indeed!
I agree. This is why I know Sam had a better way to articulate what he thinks that how he did recently. I agree and know that Sam doesn't pretend to be an expert on conducting warfare and has discussed this with guests in the past.
In the podcast (and previous podcasts) you've acknowledged that it's not clear whether the course of action Israel has taken to defend themselves is the correct one. But I think you've kind of hand-waved this away a little bit, because much of the reasonable criticism directed towards Israel is about how they've prosecuted the war, not whether they have a right to be at war.
Is the correct course of action what they are currently doing and continuing to do? Will it lead to the dissolution of Hamas and discourage a new equally radical group from eventually taking their place? I'm no expert and I don't think the answer is clear but I think for many this is precisely the moral quandary we are up against. And the governments of many nations seem to feel Israel's actions are no longer justifiable even if they were initially.
I think these are the questions a lot of us would like to see you grapple with even if we're sympathetic to many of your other arguments.
Absolutely.
I'm a huge fan of Sam's and totally agree with him when it comes to Israel's right to go to war, but these were exactly the types of questions I was hoping he would've answered in that podcast.
Along with questions like, "Precisely what is the outcome that will end this war? At what point is Hamas considered neutralized as a political/cultural force in the region? Does every last Hamas member and Hamas sympathizer need to be killed in order to make this happen (because it appears to me that setting the bar that high would be a perfect recipe for a forever war)?"
There has to be a solid, tangible, and reasonable set of goals here, or this will undoubtedly be Israel's Iraq War.
Now, Sam is likely not in a place to answer many of these with authority, but it would be great to see him take a stab at them.
He has commented on this in the past...at least, superficially. If you go back to his podcasts in the months following the Oct. 7 attack, he brings this issue up. He admitted that the end game is undefined and that that was in itself a problem.
Given that it's now been a year and a half since I listened to those, I cannot give specifics. But if you listen to every interview or op/ed piece he did in the months that followed, I do recall this coming up.
To your point, it is a very sticky problem!
Perfectly understandable, especially shortly after 10/7. But the end goal surely must be in at least slightly clearer view now, more than a year and a half later, no?
I would love to hear his updated responses, because the moral situation on the ground really does change, however slightly, once a war has been ongoing.
For Sam Israeli Arab relations is not the topic he specializes in. He just doesn't like the Jew haters who are now invited to Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson podcasts, and others who "globalize the intifada", which is indiscriminate killing of Jews. For more details on the topics related to the Middle East conflict, see "Call me back" and Ask Haviv anything" podcasts, and many others.
Nevertheless, he brings it up a lot and takes a side. It's also quite dissapointing the closest he has had to an advocate for the Palestinian side is Yuval Noah Harari, whose criticisms of Israel directed at Sam during their most recent podcast, Sam was incredibly reluctant to take on board.
I fear Sam is grappling with a very strong bias here, and a whole lot of sunk cost in his faith in the great nation of Israel which is in the throws of right-wing quasi-authoritarianism.
How will it stop if we keep giving them weapons? It’s genocide. Or just a complete takeover. Just take your pick. Look what has been happening in the West Bank. Obvious.
Yes!
Is it not that Syria, Yemen and Sudan are autocracies and are therefore somehow expected ( without condoning it) to misbehave whereas functioning democracies that we support both financially and militarily and who are our allies should be held to a higher standard? Yes Myanmar has committed genocide but it’s a junta and not influenceable. But if Ukraine has started slaughtering tens of thousands of ethnic Russians in its East ( instead of the reverse) we might have a different view of that war.
I think the Yemen example is a good one, though. Because though it's not a democracy, Saudi Arabia is an ally.
Also I don't know the statistics on Kurdish deaths at the hands of the Turkish government, but that is a democracy and a NATO ally which has done violence against an ethnic group that seeks Independence and has a long history of being oppressed.
Your argument would be more credible if the United States hadn't engaged in 20 years of War on Terror following 9/11, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. There were 2,977 victims on September 11 and 1,200 victims on October 7. Proportionally, if Israel's population was that of the US, the equivalent of 41,280 people were murdered on Oct. 7. Can you imagine the US response if a group of terrorists from Mexico murdered 41,000 Americans in one day? It is unreasonable to expect any country, whether autocracy or democracy, not to respond when attacked, and it is unreasonable to expect no civilian casualties when Hamas uses the population of Gaza as human shields.
What you don't take into consideration is the decades long injustice. Land being taken, kids being killed or thrown in prison during supposed peace etc etc. There plenty of things with plenty of evidence that Israel has done during supposed peacetime, now you talk about this as if its one war that just happened. I'm not defending the American invasion of Iraq. But America did not illegally occupy Iraq for 50 years, and 30 years before that kick out 700,000 iraqis. Israel did. There is no moral equivalence to this. And it deserves every bit of international attention and scrutiny.
What you don't take into consideration is the decades long program of terrorism and murder perpetrated by the Palestinians. Israel's security posture was forced on them by the Palestinians after literally hundreds of terror attacks against civilians. For every example of Israeli policies you don't like, I could offer many examples of Palestinian terrorists murdering civilians.
It may make us feel better to "win" such an argument, but it doesn't solve anything and won't lead to peace. At some point, we need to put aside the whataboutism and focus on how to move forward towards a lasting peace.
Brother it's not even difficult to find Israeli politicians bragging about their war crimes, they ENJOY this. Just to be clear though, the wars following 9/11 were not only illegal, but we were lied into those wars and of course the goalpost shifted the entire time because like what's happening in Palestine, there are other motives. For Netanyahu, it's not just the corruption charges that he wants to keep the war going, Palestinians are vermin to people like him. They aren't even people in their eyes. Don't believe me, listen to their words. Forget Hamas using them as Human shields, ISRAEL uses them as Human shields, and I mean literally, it's well documented that the IDF routinely uses hostages, random civilians, to disarm traps or check for bombs by sending them in to places there could be. This is not a military that has any shred of humanity left in them, they have convinced themselves that they are not people.
Also, where the fuck did you get the idea that nobody criticized the War on Terror? It literally united the entire world against the Bush administration, left and right, the anti-war movement wouldn't even be here now if it wasn't for that, almost certainly.
Defending the War on Terror is not a good look
I'm not defending the War on Terror. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Americans condemning civilian casualties in Gaza when they were silent for 20 years as their government killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in their name. War is brutal. War against terrorists who weaponize their own civilian population is especially brutal.
I have to comment on your accusation that the US government "killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in their name." You almost make it sound like atrocity on a massive scale was the intention (I deliberately avoided the word genocide, since it's been so overused of late--and it would not apply in this case anyway).
The war in Gaza and the war in Iraq are more different than alike. But in both wars, as in any war, there are civilian casualties that are the result of collateral damage. It's inevitable, and it's always tragic.
Just so you know, my position of the war in Gaza is that I support Israel, but somewhat grudgingly. Hamas is evil, and must be vanquished. The problem is there is no easy way to do that in this instance. It's utterly tragic what has transpired over the past year and ten months, but is it avoidable? Probably not, but I cannot say for sure that at least some of it might have been.
The problem of the invasion of Iraq is a very different one than of Gaza. I questioned George W. Bush during the discussions that led up to the very day, and especially the day of, the start of the invasion by US forces. And my suspicions were confirmed as the war dragged on. But the motive for that invasion matters! It's not as if we just sent in troops for the purpose of killing civilians while trying to root out terrorists at the same time.
During WW2, as our bombing campaign proved to lack accuracy against strategic industrial targets, we actually changed course and followed the RAF's lead: we also started bombing civilians while also bombing industry....indiscriminately. It was a decision made during a time of total war, but with the Allies' aim to end the war as expeditiously as possible. War is ugly even if the good guys have to be vicious in order to win.
As the old saying goes, good intention pave the road to hell. We did not invade Irag with conquest in mind. It was a war started based more on bad intel, hubris, and the fog and smoke that clears up after the shooting stops,
when the clarity of that mistake became so evident.
I think Harris' point about the protests against Israel don't pass the smell test when you compare the lack of protest regarding other recent wars executed by other nations. Our "killing of civilians" is sure as hell not the same as Assad's deliberate, very cruel killing of his own people in Syria!!!!!!!!!
I wasn't actually suggesting that the United States intentionally targeted civilians. I was using a bit of hyperbole to point out the ridiculousness of many of the accusations against Israel. The War in Gaza, like the War in Iraq, isn't a 19th Century set-piece battle between two opposing armies. It is 21st Century urban warfare against a brutal enemy that wears civilian clothes, targets Israeli civilians, and uses Palestinian civilians as human shields; where children carry rifles and grandmothers have IEDs under their thobes; where Hamas assassinates suspected collaborators and weaponizes civilian casualties in a multi-billion-dollar propaganda campaign designed to erode Western support for Israel.
Unlike the United States in the War on Terror, Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to warn civilians before a target is bombed and to give those civilians a chance to evacuate before the strike occurs. Anyone who knows anything about modern warfare knows that the element of surprise is paramount, and Israel has willingly given up that strategic advantage in an effort to save civilian lives. Israel is not perfect, and mistakes are bound to happen. But accusations of genocide are patently absurd.
Sometimes, one can misinterpret or not have sufficient information to properly assess another's comments and position. In this case, it might have been the latter that caused me to launch into a treatise. So, sorry for that.
As for your reply, I already am familiar with everything you wrote, so it's pretty clear we're on the same page. Or, to put it another way..............touche'!
One thing I will add is that, as you'll surely agree, this war is very complex and muddy, and Israel is not free of guilt. But modern war is (echoing your point) very complex and difficult to execute if you're a nation that everyone holds to an unrealistic standard. I think the primary problem is what is the end game here for Israel. To simply say it's to wipe out Hamas is in itself not good enough. Fact is, there may be no end goal that is obtainable, given how messy this conflict is, and how fractious the region is. There seems to have never been nor ever will there be a clear solution to the Palestinian problem....unless you're a WOKE university student here in the US or UK who chants, "From the river to the sea."
When I made my first comment on this page after listening to this discussion between Jaron and Sam, I included a link that is to an essay that philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote for the LA Times back in 1968. It is still chillingly relevant, and I felt is so germane to Harris' commentary:
https://manofsteele.substack.com/p/eric-hoffer-on-israelin-1968
It'll take you about a minute and a half to read it. I wish everyone knew about it, as it shows how pernicious and long lived this issue has been without having to be a scholar on this subject--which almost none of us is! I admit that, as much time as I have spent trying to understand the region around and including Israel, it's still far too big for me to fully understand. For just that reason, I try to avoid becoming strident in my views regarding this very, very divisive issue.
That's a worthy rebuttal or counter to the "only Israel is ever criticized" argument... That's not untrue but that's because Israel is supposed to be on the 'good guys' side.
As to why Americans are pretty cool with America behaving badly? Well. "My country, right or wrong", as they say.
But my bet is Americans wouldn't be cool with English ethnically cleansing Norther Ireland, France massacring its Muslim minority or anything like that.
After listening to your reply to Andrew Hughes’s letter and reading your recent defense against the criticisms it generated, I can’t help but feel that you must have been responding to a very different letter than the one your manager read aloud. Because unless something was lost in transmission, it’s difficult to understand how your reply, and your defense of it, could be seen as a serious engagement with what was actually said. Thankfully, the video and its transcript are here to remind us all what the conversation really was.
Andrew’s letter was thoughtful, generous, and clear. He explicitly condemned Hamas and recognized Israel’s right to defend itself. He wasn’t accusing you of tribalism. He didn’t deny the horror of October 7, nor did he conflate Israel with Hamas or use the word “genocide.” What he did was raise a single, morally urgent question:
Doesn’t Israel’s current strategy raise profound questions about what we’re willing to accept as necessary collateral damage?
It’s a fair question. It’s a hard question. And it never receives a direct answer. Instead, you reassert the depravity of Hamas, point to the strategic difficulty of rooting them out, and talk at length about cultural pathologies among Palestinians. But none of this engages with the core issue: Is there a point where the scale of civilian death and destruction becomes morally indefensible, regardless of the enemy?
The level of evasion is striking. One almost gets the impression that nothing Israel might do, from the present level of devastation to the theoretical obliteration of Gaza itself (extermination of all its civilians included), would ever trigger a moral reckoning, so long as Hamas still exists. Because any such concern, no matter how carefully expressed, apparently deserves deflection.
Most puzzling of all is your repeated tendency to psychologize your critics. You speculate about what people do and don’t care about, as if their silence on Yemen or Sudan somehow invalidates their distress over Gaza. But how could you possibly know what your listeners care about, or what they’ve spoken out against? This move shifts the burden of moral consistency away from the situation at hand and onto the imagined biases of your audience. It’s no longer about the message; it’s about the messenger. Really, Sam?!
This same deflection shows up in other ways, too. In your reply to Andrew, you suddenly pivot into a discussion of conservative Muslims in other parts of the world and their views on women’s rights. How is that relevant to whether Israel’s conduct in Gaza is proportionate or defensible?! You reached the summit of Mount Straw Man: vanquishing an imaginary opponent, in an argument no one raised, on ground only you charted.
Equally troubling is your attempt to redefine whataboutism. You claim that drawing comparisons with other, bloodier conflicts is not a deflection, but a way to “reveal bias.” But that’s not what happened. You didn’t use those comparisons to enrich the moral conversation, you used them to diminish the legitimacy of concern over Gaza. That is whataboutism. At its core, it’s not the act of comparison that’s dishonest, but the purpose of it: using one tragedy to silence moral inquiry into another. Calling that “revealing bias” is just giving rhetorical cover to avoidance.
The issue here is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself. It does. The issue is not whether Hamas is a barbaric and genocidal force. It is. The issue is whether there are moral limits to how a nation ought to defend itself, even when it faces a monstrous enemy. That’s the question Andrew asked. That’s the question many of your thoughtful listeners are asking. And that’s the question you continue to avoid.
Sam, I enjoy just about everything you write about and say with the one exception. Gaza. You cannot seem to grasp the fundamental problem historians are facing who research and write about the holocaust. Historians do this work in the hopes we learn something. If we do not criticize the state of Israel about Gaza, and it seems like you have a hard time with that, only shows that nothing has been learned. We will never change. Comparing Gaza as a lesser evil to Sudan atrocities is a pointless exercise and broadly misses the mark.
Roger - are you saying that there is equivalence between the holocaust and the Gaza war, and that if lessons were learned from the holocaust the this would convince Israel that they should change their conduct in Gaza?
I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt here because that would be a sickening thing for you to say:
There were many lessons from the holocaust. Amongst them:
1-when people tell you they want to kill every Jew in the world, Jews should probably take them seriously - and Hamas say that.
2- Jews were murdered because they were stateless and defenceless. Having a Jewish state and and army to defend it is a good idea.
Whataboutery
Grow up. This is a serious topic.
The topic of Israel, and Jews in general, deranges people.
David Deutsch speaking with Sam in a recent Making Sense episode had an interesting take on this. I didn't fully understand and I'm not sure he was right, but his "pattern" explanation is worth considering. The pattern is old and predates Christianity. The pattern that when things happen people look to blame "the Jews." Jews (or Israel) are automatically blamed and only then are reasons for the blame conjured up.
One thing I know. I was in America for the Second Intifada, and witnessed the left’s romance with suicide bombers. Today they claim that they simply hate Netanyahu. But not only was Netanyahu not Prime Minister back then, but the actual Prime Minister was a leftist, who offered the Palestinians 98% of the territory they demanded, including East Jerusalem.
The Netanyahu “argument” for reviling Israel is a red herring. I fervently hope Israel somehow obtains new, better leadership soon. But when that happens, the left will find some new explanation for why Israel is uniquely monstrous among the nations.
Yes lets hope the new Israel leadership is less.... depraved. It's quite convenient for you to smear critics as just using Netanyahu as a red herring. I enjoy how it's them you're angry about, not the ones actually doing the atrocities and openly admitting in broad daylight what their goals are, now that Trump is president and they've bought him they know nobody can stop them. Ben Gvir about said as much.
“It’s all about the benjamins,” huh? Yet another classic.
Trump took a significant amount of money from the Israel lobby, Benjamin wasn't shy about his hope that he would win. This isn't a conspiracy, this isn't speculative, this isn't crackpot tinfoil hat nonsense, that is the reality. No that is not a thing unique to Jewish people and you know that's not an argument, it's a good way to dismiss critics of that corruption though. Speaking of red herrings...
Wait, there’s an Israel lobby? You’re blowing my mind, VColossalV.
I'm sorry Sam the listeners who had sent you questions aren't "our media". You are assuming the person who sent you that very balanced message is not concerned, or not more concerned about Syria, Sudan or Yemen than Gaza. Have you talked to that person, and worse still all the commenters under your previous post who disagreed with you whether they care less or more about Gaza than Yemen? Speaking for myself, if I listen to a podcast in which someone calls the entire population of Yemen barbarians (because the Houthis are firing missiles at cargo ships), then I would object to that blanket characterization just as I object to you thinking of the situation in Gaza as justified because it's a barbarism vs modernity conflict.
Western media is not biased against Israel, Sam. That’s an absolutely laughable assertion given they have been the main driving force in the dehumanisation of Arabs for decades at this point.
Taking issue with the suffering of millions of second and third generation refugees still living under the longest military occupation in history as a result of mass displacement is not ‘media bias’ - that’s just reality.
There were a hundred new countries established during the 20s century after the disintegration of various empires. The process was associated with creating tens of millions of refugees (my family included). Where are those millions of refugees? Is refugee status hereditary or transferred through marriage? Why only Palestinian refugees are still around, in fact grew from less than a million to over 5 millions, and still growing? What is the difference between UNHCR and UNRWA?
Most other refugee groups of the 20th century were either resettled, integrated, or ceased to be considered refugees as states stabilized or new national identities formed.
The status of Palestinians remains unresolved and many of them still live in refugee camps to this day.
And why is that?
Because there is still no independent Palestinian state, and millions of Palestinians remain displaced or under occupation without a permanent political solution.
Because none of the neighboring Muslim countries want to take them in either. Do the Jews who were expelled from those countries have a right of return?
I absolutely believe that those Jews should have a right of return.
You haven’t explained why Palestinians are the only refugees who, by your own admission, have not been integrated into other countries. You have not explained why the Palestinian refugee, uniquely among refugees, passes down their refugee status to their grandchildren, even if they are citizens of other countries, or even multimillionaires.
This is exactly the sort of double standard Sam is addressing here.
The Palestinian refugee situation is unique but that doesn’t mean it is a double standard.
First, Palestinian refugees are not integrated into many host countries not because of international inconsistency, but because the host states explicitly deny them full rights fearing near fatal demographic or political shifts. This isn’t UN policy - it’s national policy. Jordan is the only country that gave most Palestinians citizenship, and even there, restrictions exist.
Second, the reason refugee status passes through generations under UNRWA is also political: the international community deliberately chose in 1949 to treat Palestinians as a special case pending a just resolution, including their right of return or compensation. This wasn’t meant to create a permanent status it was meant to preserve their claims until they were resolved. That political solution never came, and so the status persists.
It’s not that the Western media treats Palestinians with more sympathy and that argument does not hold up under any serious scrutiny. It’s that their situation was never resolved, and because their displacement is inseparable from the world’s longest-running military occupation, the refugee status became locked in a political limbo.
The result is that, far from enjoying special sympathy, Palestinians are often depoliticized and their suffering reduced to a humanitarian issue instead of a rights-based political problem. Their refugee status isn’t a privileged one; it’s an unresolved scar left open for 76 years.
Except it’s a bit rich to argue that Western media is suddenly biased in favour of Palestinians, when for decades that same media has been complicit in the dehumanisation of Arabs and Muslims. The disproportionate scrutiny only seems to bother people like Sam when it’s directed at Israel despite Palestinians long being reported as faceless statistics, without names, and without grief - always in a passive voice and never personalised.
The claim that the media ignores Hamas’ use of human shields isn’t accurate. Major outlets have reported on that repeatedly and this is often cited by Western officials along with their routine condemnation.
If someone like Sam is missing these things while somehow seeing the bias in reporting on Israeli conduct, they’re not really critiquing media standards. They’re reacting to the fact that Palestinian suffering is for once breaking through the usual filters and that discomfort says more about their expectations than about media bias.
Fair enough. But just to clarify - that ‘recycled part’ is the foundational context for how media narratives have historically treated Arabs and Muslims. To claim there’s now some undue pro-Palestinian bias without grappling with that legacy feels selective.
And it’s especially revealing that Sam, a vocal supporter of the Iraq War, never commented on the media imbalance or raised the alarm whenever Arab casualties are brushed aside. Instead he only raises the issue now that Palestinian suffering is finally being acknowledged more widely in the West.
That says a lot about the consistency of his principles.
But if Sam’s real concern is antisemitism, why does he immediately frames criticism of Israel as stemming from bias rather than legitimate outrage?
His post doesn’t just ‘acknowledge’ Palestinian suffering, it quickly buries it under a list of worse conflicts that you should be ‘even more’ concerned about.
And this idea that the media has been ‘weaponized’ against Israel due to anti-semitic prejudice ignores decades of the exact opposite media narratives that normalized occupation, erased Palestinian voices, and humanized Israeli suffering while reducing Palestinians to numbers.
Yes, he wrote an op-ed in 2006 critical of the conduct of the war in Iraq but that’s three years after it started, and only after it became clear that the war was a disaster. Early on, he defended the war in principle as a moral confrontation with Islamic extremism. This was a war sold to the public on lies and amplified by the same media he now chastises.
There was no hint of him engaging with the human cost of the war in moral terms. Even in later writings he continued to frame the problem as being about religion.
He has consistently failed to humanise Arab or Muslim victims of mass violence the way he does with victims of Islamist terror. It’s the same pattern we saw in his defense of the Iraq War: a refusal to fully reckon with the human cost when that cost is borne by those seen as part of the ‘problem.’
So this isn’t a neutral analysis of antisemitism or media bias - it’s a reflection of his own deeply selective moral lens.
I absolutely love and deeply appreciate your clear thinking and ability to articulate what I would say if I had that ability! Thank you SO much, Sam!!!!
Then let’s agree Sudan and these other places are problems too but not deflect from the horrendous and needless suffering of the kids in Gaza - a lot of the heavy lifting here is done by painting the people there as the bad guys - Sam included - I have no sympathy for hamas who need to be ended - but humans make kids and these kids are innocent and shouldn’t be indiscriminately bombed for guilt by association
I think the question is, why do the media focus almost exclusively on Gaza and not on places where the suffering is if anything worse?
The "media" - assuming you're referring to legacy media in the United States - focuses more on Gaza than the civil war in Sudan because the U.S. is and has backed one side exclusively in that conflict. Because of that, I'm of the belief that we, citizens of the United States, have every right to have a say in how our tax dollars are being spent in supporting a war that has led to countless civilians of another country being, basically, bombed into oblivion. Regarding Sudan, the U.S. has made it clear it does not support either side, but seeks to help facilitate an end to a conflict it labels as a humanitarian crisis and genocide. If the United States decided to withhold funding for the war in Gaza, Israel wouldn't be able to continue its campaign while also defending itself against other hostile Middle Eastern countries. So the difference is that the U.S. can directly have an impact on continuing the conflict in the Gaza vs. not really having any meaningful way of ending the civil war in the Sudan, other than through military means. News reporting is not based on a hierarchy of suffering, but on the interests of the United States in the regions where these conflicts are occurring. I used to parrot Sam's talking points about how Israel goes to great lengths to limit civilian casualties and that's just bullshit at this point. One out of many examples; Israel basically slaughtered 15 Palestinian medical workers, lied about it, and only came clean when cellphone footage was discovered on one of the dead bodies of the emergency responders that confirmed the IDF was full of shit. To bring this up, or any other disgusting plot to hide the wartime atrocities committed by Israel, would lead to claims that I've been brainwashed by jihadist propaganda. I have fucking eyes and a brain that I use to look at the evidence in an unbiased way, and it's patronizing to say otherwise.
In large part, because liberals mostly make up the mainstream media, and they have been badly educated/indoctrinated/brainwashed (you decide) by progressive neo-Marxist, identity political and intersectional, anti-racist nonsense that paints Israel and Jews as the bad guys and defines opposition to Israel as anti-colonialst defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples.
Or it’s yes there are horrible things happening everywhere - and there can and should be threads on each and every one
These are inadequate responses. People are upset because of our ability to stop it, to stop funding, to stop commiserating and supporting this. Your retort of the Houthi bombing is not successful. That was a one time incident. When the US is actively engaged in military activities without moral justification there generally is an uproar. Few people were so upset with the beginnings of the Israeli response. But after months and months, years now, people are beginning to think the critics were correct. I have. I think you are too. This has never been a war. Israeli citizens have not been scared for the past 2 years. The majority of Israeli citizens have not lost immediate relatives.
The fact that we'd prefer the world to be filled with more people like Tel Avivians and less like Palestinian Hamasniks should play no part in the moral evaluation. Especially from a determinist framework. Give up the bending over backwards to defend these atrocities. Most of us have.
That was exactly my thought - Sam Harris engaged in russian style whataboutism regarding Israel atrocities in Gaza: “but what about Sudan, etc”. Interestingly others noted that too. Diminished my respect for him.
The Palestinians have rejected every offer at having a State of their own since 1948. More than having a State, they simply want the Jews out. They say it themselves. Why not believe them.
Israeli–Palestinian conflict isn’t subject of this discussion. Sam Harris intellectual dishonesty is.
Listen to literally any Israeli politician speak and they will tell you that they want the Palestinians gone, completely. They quite literally don't even hide it anymore since Trump got into office. They want them either dead or displaced from the region. Wake the fuck up.
You are probably dealing with an emotional Ukrainian who (understandably) cannot think clearly or use basic logic.
IMO the disproportionate focus on Gazan suffering is for the same reason that Oct7 was covered more extensively compared to the countless other random attacks on other foreign countries. There are lots of terrorist attacks on foreign civilians all over the world, especially in conflict zones in Africa. None of those get as much attention on American cable as attack on foreign Israeli civilains got. You can’t say Israel is a special ally and we have a close relationship and then complain why it gets special attention.
I would concede coverage can sometimes be unfair to Israel but what I’m more concerned about is American soft power in maintaining international law and norms of territorial integrity. I defend the right of Israel to exist against idiot campus tentists as it was ratified through international law. But it must exist within its boundaries 1967. We must not support the right of Israel to do territorial annexation. As we enter a multi polar world, we need to be even more concerned about the moral force of soft power as we might not have the military might to enforce such norms. To truly cement such norms, going out of our way to call out war crimes by allies (Israel) is even more important than calling out war crimes by our adversaries (Russia). It’s the 21st century and territorial integrity must be protected whether in Eastern Ukraine or the West Bank.
Agreed.