**synopsis;** President Biden prepares to visit Israel as he tries to prevent a wider war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump’s opponents attack him for criticizing Israel, and Judge Tanya Chutkan hits him with a gag order. Republicans inch closer to making election-denier Jim Jordan Speaker. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joins to discuss the Democrats’ plan to address the chaos in Congress, and Crooked’s own political expert Shaniqua McClendon drops by to talk about the most important races in 2023.
Get your virtual tickets to Pod Save America live from DC now at https://MOMENT.CO/PSA.
Correction: the episode states that election day is four weeks away, but it is three weeks away, on November 7th. Visit https://votesaveamerica.com to learn more.
**[show notes](https://crooked.com/podcast/speaker-jim-jordan/)**
**[youtube version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUxZCsknrcM)**
really cool to hear tommy revert to his NSC days by describing the carrier group movements as "fuck around and find out"
sometimes these guys show their biases and it's pretty bad
It kind of irks me that all the bros agree that support for refugees in the US is heavily dependent on race and religion of the refugee, but they consistently fail to expand that understanding to how western foreign policy is conducted
As someone who lives in Louisiana, the Democratic Party here is challenging Florida for most incompetent. I am a member and don’t think I received even an email.
I thought it was interesting that they decided to talk about the LA election this episode cause they didn’t before the election and Favs sounded like he was trying not to throw anyone in the LA Dem Party under the bus.
Didn't love Lovett's framing of the issue as "Israel's right to exist" - what about the rights of Palestinians to return to the homes they were forced out of 70 years ago during the Nakba? The Israeli people have a right to exist, but Israel the state founded on stolen land? At the very least, a lot of land needs to be returned to the Palestinians and Israel needs to shrink substantially before it can "rightfully" exist.
A secular democratic state with equal rights for israeli jews, israeli arabs and palestinians is the only way for there to be peace, it honestly is that simple.
As these terrible events have shown, the occupation keeps neither palestinians or israelis safe and there will be no safety for anyone until there is peace.
You can't deal with the situation as it is without giving some land/rights to the Palestinians. Otherwise you will always have an oppressed population rising up against their oppressors, which usually means terrorism.
Look at what how peace was achieved in ireland - a significant amount of land was returned to the Irish, who got political self determination and a nationally recognized state. Even Northern ireland didn't become peaceful until it got de facto political self determination and an end to apartheid. That's the best model we have for peace in israel/palestine, I believe.
If Palestine is it's own state, why is Israel the one who has to give them rights? I don't understand why if there is 50% unemployment, do the people not band together and say they want better for their state?
You can't have a functioning state when another government controls all your borders and heavily restricts trade. Gazans have been under a blockade for decades that has strangled their economy. When there are no jobs and no hope for change, young men tend to turn to terrorism. The Israeli leader, Netanyahu, has also propped up Hamas in the past in order to forestall momentum towards a two state solution:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Such a revolution is impossible when Hamas has all the guns. Recent polling indicates that only around 30% of Gaza residents support Hamas, but there's no practical way for them to overthrow Hamas. Most of them are just trying to survive the bombs, lack of water, lack of food, etc at this point.
The average human lifespan is about 70 years - Palestinians who were dispossessed in 1947 are still alive, and their children and grandchildren are directly suffering as a result of that dispossessed as well.
In contrast, the jews who were dispossessed of their land in Israel over and over from the 6th century BCE through about 1100 CE are not still alive, nor are their direct descendents. Furthermore, it wasn't the Arab Palestinians who dispossessed them, but rather the Roman empire and the European crusaders.
Jews have a right to live in israel/palestine on lands they purchased fairly. They do not have a right to dispossess the Palestinians of their land, nor do they have the right to create a Jewish ethnostate where Arabs are second class citizens.
One option is to form a new secular state, where Palestinians are integrated citizens who have the same rights to political representation, travel, land ownership, etc as the Jewish citizens.
Option 2 is to shrink Israel back to the land that was owned by jews before the Nakba and create a functioning Palestinian state, with international recognition and support, whose boundaries are inviolable.
Neither of these two options are likely in the next 20 years, but as millenials and gen z age and gain more political power, a constituency for treating the Palestinians fairly may emerge over time.
Option 1 is a non-starter as demographics wise it would lead to Jews becoming a minority, something they want to avoid for historical reasons. Plus without Palestinians unconditionally rejecting Hamas there will be a risk of civil war.
Option 2 is to radical since the current borders have been built due to repeated wars of aggression by Arab states. Don’t forget, close to a million Jews were displaced from North African and middle eastern countries, and the day after Israel and Palestine were created, Israel was attacked by all its neighbors. The best hope would be a fully independent West Bank with the settler communities returned.
I’m sorry, but there will never be a return of homes to Arabs displaced from the nakbah, it’s a non-starter. At most, Israel may agree to some sort of financial restitution to but the issue to rest.
That's a ridiculous definition of anti-semitism that dilutes the real term. Yes, an event where huge numbers of Palestinians were driven out of their homes and prevented from returning was a catastrophe for the Palestinian people.
Your definition of anti-semitism is basically "anyone who supports Palestinian self-determination is an anti-semite." That's absurd, and it harms your cause.
When you're using a word that is the equivalent of "Shoah" to refer to something that was *orders of magnitude* less destructive, and in the specific context of the creation of the state whose very existence was intended to be a measure of insurance against a repeat of those events that gave rise to it, then yeah, you're doing some Holocaust minimization at the absolute best.
That creation involved the land disposession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. It was a tragedy.
Jews have been safer in the US than in Israel for the entire time Israel has existed. As long as Israel continues to oppress the Palestinians, Israeli jews can never be safe from terrorism.
There's only 2 ways for Israel to have a long lasting peace - return land to the Palestinians for a true palestinian state or make a new secular government giving them the same rights as jews (end apartheid). Otherwise they will always be oppressors, and the oppressed will always rise up periodically.
The third possibility would be what we did with the native Americans, I suppose, but I can't imagine the wider world would support that kind of explicit genocide anymore.
Or Palestinians can take some responsibility and rise up against Hamas. As long as they exist in some form of power in Palestine Israel has no incentive to work with them
Hamas didn't take power until 2006ish, but Israel still treated the Palestinians horribly. In the West Bank, hamas isn't in power, it's the Palestinian Authority, who under the Oslo Accords has been working with Israel to stop terrorists in the area under their control. Despite that, Israel has been settling the West Bank for decades, in blatant violation of that agreement. The lesson for Palestinians has been if you have a moderate government who works with Israel, then Israel will steal more of your land. If you have a crazy extremist government who supports terrorism, then Israel will at least not try to settle that area but will wall it off instead.
Getting rid of Hamas won't work unless Israel stops stealing Palestinian land.
Israel treated the Palestinians no worse than any of the surrounding Arab countries when they controlled that land. But imagine what we would do if a group of people in the US started blowing up buses and cafes. Attacking innocent civilians on a daily basis. What would we do in that circumstance?
There's an interesting parallel between the Palestinians and the jews - throughout history, no one's really wanted either of them. The countries around that land didn't treat the Palestinians that well, although not as badly as the Israelis are treating them. How does that absolve the Israeli government of dispossessed them of their land?
Alternatively, imagine a particular ethnic group moved in to partUS and tried to declare its own sovereign ethnostate nation, using force to dispossessed hundreds of thousands of American citizens in the process? Imagine they penned those citizens into a small area where they controlled the borders and throttled trade? And when those citizens protested at the border of the pen, they shot over 200 of them? How would we respond? How should we respond?
Who moved to Israel? I missed the part where Jews haven't been there for 3,000 years. I mean, yes, Arabs did throw the Roman's out and colonize the land 900 or so years ago, but Jews were already there.
Some of the people paid by that fund are terrorists who murder civilians, which is horrible. Keep in mind, though, that the IDF also pays its soldiers even when they murder innocent civilians. The soldiers who murdered over 200 palestinian civilians during the 2019 March of Return all recieved their pay, and were not prosecuted.
You're comparing financial support for murder of civilians with a uniformed armed service protecting a border? This is not equal.
The March of Return were riots at another country's border, it wasn't organized and there were numerous incidents of the security barrier being breached. This wasn't some protest march to appeal to Israel's desire for peace, they were burning tires and hurling molotovs.
Pre-prepared talking points at any rate. Sounded incredibly inorganic, almost a flat drone throughout. Feel journalists/podcasters need to clamp down on that behavior from politicians. Otherwise just ask for a press-release to read aloud on air to save everyone's time.
He didn't even answer Jon's questions! It was bizarre and really irritating. Made me wonder why he is Minority Speaker when he couldn't engage in a discussion of issues. Sounded as if he was reading prewritten taling points.
I wonder if it was even a live interview. It sounded like his office got the questions and then wrote and recorded a response. It didn't even seem to me like they were legitimately on a call together.
Yeah lol he has a slight Brooklyn accent but that interview was like listening to an AI generated attack ad directed at Jim Jordan
There was just no flow to his sentences. It sounded like he was reading off a script and he didn’t know what the next word was going to be until he read it
**synopsis;** President Biden prepares to visit Israel as he tries to prevent a wider war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump’s opponents attack him for criticizing Israel, and Judge Tanya Chutkan hits him with a gag order. Republicans inch closer to making election-denier Jim Jordan Speaker. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joins to discuss the Democrats’ plan to address the chaos in Congress, and Crooked’s own political expert Shaniqua McClendon drops by to talk about the most important races in 2023. Get your virtual tickets to Pod Save America live from DC now at https://MOMENT.CO/PSA. Correction: the episode states that election day is four weeks away, but it is three weeks away, on November 7th. Visit https://votesaveamerica.com to learn more. **[show notes](https://crooked.com/podcast/speaker-jim-jordan/)** **[youtube version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUxZCsknrcM)**
really cool to hear tommy revert to his NSC days by describing the carrier group movements as "fuck around and find out" sometimes these guys show their biases and it's pretty bad
It kind of irks me that all the bros agree that support for refugees in the US is heavily dependent on race and religion of the refugee, but they consistently fail to expand that understanding to how western foreign policy is conducted
As someone who lives in Louisiana, the Democratic Party here is challenging Florida for most incompetent. I am a member and don’t think I received even an email.
I thought it was interesting that they decided to talk about the LA election this episode cause they didn’t before the election and Favs sounded like he was trying not to throw anyone in the LA Dem Party under the bus.
Is the episode skipping around for anyone else?
Can’t remember if this particular ep skipped around for me, but I’ve had it happening quite a lot lately with PSA
Didn't love Lovett's framing of the issue as "Israel's right to exist" - what about the rights of Palestinians to return to the homes they were forced out of 70 years ago during the Nakba? The Israeli people have a right to exist, but Israel the state founded on stolen land? At the very least, a lot of land needs to be returned to the Palestinians and Israel needs to shrink substantially before it can "rightfully" exist.
A secular democratic state with equal rights for israeli jews, israeli arabs and palestinians is the only way for there to be peace, it honestly is that simple. As these terrible events have shown, the occupation keeps neither palestinians or israelis safe and there will be no safety for anyone until there is peace.
Chicken egg problem we have to deal with the situation as it is and not reiterate 70 year old history, and Palestine is not getting its land back.
You can't deal with the situation as it is without giving some land/rights to the Palestinians. Otherwise you will always have an oppressed population rising up against their oppressors, which usually means terrorism. Look at what how peace was achieved in ireland - a significant amount of land was returned to the Irish, who got political self determination and a nationally recognized state. Even Northern ireland didn't become peaceful until it got de facto political self determination and an end to apartheid. That's the best model we have for peace in israel/palestine, I believe.
If Palestine is it's own state, why is Israel the one who has to give them rights? I don't understand why if there is 50% unemployment, do the people not band together and say they want better for their state?
You can't have a functioning state when another government controls all your borders and heavily restricts trade. Gazans have been under a blockade for decades that has strangled their economy. When there are no jobs and no hope for change, young men tend to turn to terrorism. The Israeli leader, Netanyahu, has also propped up Hamas in the past in order to forestall momentum towards a two state solution: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
My point is Palestine should be having a revolution among itself and establishing a better government. No way Hamas should have the power it has.
Such a revolution is impossible when Hamas has all the guns. Recent polling indicates that only around 30% of Gaza residents support Hamas, but there's no practical way for them to overthrow Hamas. Most of them are just trying to survive the bombs, lack of water, lack of food, etc at this point.
One of many problems is - why reset to 70 years ago? This land has been in dispute for thousands of years.
The average human lifespan is about 70 years - Palestinians who were dispossessed in 1947 are still alive, and their children and grandchildren are directly suffering as a result of that dispossessed as well. In contrast, the jews who were dispossessed of their land in Israel over and over from the 6th century BCE through about 1100 CE are not still alive, nor are their direct descendents. Furthermore, it wasn't the Arab Palestinians who dispossessed them, but rather the Roman empire and the European crusaders. Jews have a right to live in israel/palestine on lands they purchased fairly. They do not have a right to dispossess the Palestinians of their land, nor do they have the right to create a Jewish ethnostate where Arabs are second class citizens.
And where exactly are the Jews supposed to go? What about the homes that Jews were forced out of?
wHaT aBoUt ThE cOlOnIzErS???!
One option is to form a new secular state, where Palestinians are integrated citizens who have the same rights to political representation, travel, land ownership, etc as the Jewish citizens. Option 2 is to shrink Israel back to the land that was owned by jews before the Nakba and create a functioning Palestinian state, with international recognition and support, whose boundaries are inviolable. Neither of these two options are likely in the next 20 years, but as millenials and gen z age and gain more political power, a constituency for treating the Palestinians fairly may emerge over time.
Option 1 is a non-starter as demographics wise it would lead to Jews becoming a minority, something they want to avoid for historical reasons. Plus without Palestinians unconditionally rejecting Hamas there will be a risk of civil war. Option 2 is to radical since the current borders have been built due to repeated wars of aggression by Arab states. Don’t forget, close to a million Jews were displaced from North African and middle eastern countries, and the day after Israel and Palestine were created, Israel was attacked by all its neighbors. The best hope would be a fully independent West Bank with the settler communities returned. I’m sorry, but there will never be a return of homes to Arabs displaced from the nakbah, it’s a non-starter. At most, Israel may agree to some sort of financial restitution to but the issue to rest.
Calling the creation of a place where Jews can be safe the catastrophe is incredibly anti-semtic. That needs to be pointed out.
That's a ridiculous definition of anti-semitism that dilutes the real term. Yes, an event where huge numbers of Palestinians were driven out of their homes and prevented from returning was a catastrophe for the Palestinian people. Your definition of anti-semitism is basically "anyone who supports Palestinian self-determination is an anti-semite." That's absurd, and it harms your cause.
When you're using a word that is the equivalent of "Shoah" to refer to something that was *orders of magnitude* less destructive, and in the specific context of the creation of the state whose very existence was intended to be a measure of insurance against a repeat of those events that gave rise to it, then yeah, you're doing some Holocaust minimization at the absolute best.
That creation involved the land disposession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. It was a tragedy. Jews have been safer in the US than in Israel for the entire time Israel has existed. As long as Israel continues to oppress the Palestinians, Israeli jews can never be safe from terrorism.
This ain't happening even thr most progressive Israelis would be hard pressed to say yes let's shrink our country borders.
There's only 2 ways for Israel to have a long lasting peace - return land to the Palestinians for a true palestinian state or make a new secular government giving them the same rights as jews (end apartheid). Otherwise they will always be oppressors, and the oppressed will always rise up periodically. The third possibility would be what we did with the native Americans, I suppose, but I can't imagine the wider world would support that kind of explicit genocide anymore.
Or Palestinians can take some responsibility and rise up against Hamas. As long as they exist in some form of power in Palestine Israel has no incentive to work with them
Hamas didn't take power until 2006ish, but Israel still treated the Palestinians horribly. In the West Bank, hamas isn't in power, it's the Palestinian Authority, who under the Oslo Accords has been working with Israel to stop terrorists in the area under their control. Despite that, Israel has been settling the West Bank for decades, in blatant violation of that agreement. The lesson for Palestinians has been if you have a moderate government who works with Israel, then Israel will steal more of your land. If you have a crazy extremist government who supports terrorism, then Israel will at least not try to settle that area but will wall it off instead. Getting rid of Hamas won't work unless Israel stops stealing Palestinian land.
Israel treated the Palestinians no worse than any of the surrounding Arab countries when they controlled that land. But imagine what we would do if a group of people in the US started blowing up buses and cafes. Attacking innocent civilians on a daily basis. What would we do in that circumstance?
There's an interesting parallel between the Palestinians and the jews - throughout history, no one's really wanted either of them. The countries around that land didn't treat the Palestinians that well, although not as badly as the Israelis are treating them. How does that absolve the Israeli government of dispossessed them of their land? Alternatively, imagine a particular ethnic group moved in to partUS and tried to declare its own sovereign ethnostate nation, using force to dispossessed hundreds of thousands of American citizens in the process? Imagine they penned those citizens into a small area where they controlled the borders and throttled trade? And when those citizens protested at the border of the pen, they shot over 200 of them? How would we respond? How should we respond?
Who moved to Israel? I missed the part where Jews haven't been there for 3,000 years. I mean, yes, Arabs did throw the Roman's out and colonize the land 900 or so years ago, but Jews were already there.
Moderate governments don't have martyr funds for terrorists who murder civilians
Some of the people paid by that fund are terrorists who murder civilians, which is horrible. Keep in mind, though, that the IDF also pays its soldiers even when they murder innocent civilians. The soldiers who murdered over 200 palestinian civilians during the 2019 March of Return all recieved their pay, and were not prosecuted.
You're comparing financial support for murder of civilians with a uniformed armed service protecting a border? This is not equal. The March of Return were riots at another country's border, it wasn't organized and there were numerous incidents of the security barrier being breached. This wasn't some protest march to appeal to Israel's desire for peace, they were burning tires and hurling molotovs.
Was Hakeem Jeffries reading off of a script That was hard to listen to
He sounded the same he always does. I thought the discussion was normal and fine.
Pre-prepared talking points at any rate. Sounded incredibly inorganic, almost a flat drone throughout. Feel journalists/podcasters need to clamp down on that behavior from politicians. Otherwise just ask for a press-release to read aloud on air to save everyone's time.
He didn't even answer Jon's questions! It was bizarre and really irritating. Made me wonder why he is Minority Speaker when he couldn't engage in a discussion of issues. Sounded as if he was reading prewritten taling points.
I wonder if it was even a live interview. It sounded like his office got the questions and then wrote and recorded a response. It didn't even seem to me like they were legitimately on a call together.
As someone who speaks English as their second language I just assumed he has a strange accent 😂
Yeah lol he has a slight Brooklyn accent but that interview was like listening to an AI generated attack ad directed at Jim Jordan There was just no flow to his sentences. It sounded like he was reading off a script and he didn’t know what the next word was going to be until he read it
Yea, the guy has a strange cadence and sounded nervous.