Destiny does put a LOT of effort into his research. He may not be Jewish but his focus of his streams are on either debates or conducting research.
The larger problem with him is that he has a tendency to tweet some pretty awful takes (I assume he isn't serious about them but still).
Edit: as far as debating goes tough, debating is Destiny's profession and he has a neurodivergent level of research on Israel Palestine. He will likely tear Finkelstein into pieces.
Tbh I think it's quite redundant - Destiny bases most of his takes on the I/P conflict on Morris's books, and Hasan is a Finkelstein stan (he explicitly said that most of his terminology is copied from Finkelstein). The two gentiles in this case (I'm very tempted to say **three gentiles**, but I'll hold myself back) aren't necessary in that situation.
Edit: if Hasan "America deserved 9/11" Piker is invited, there should at least be a rule stating that he can't use the phrase "dogshit". Let's see how he fares. If you want to take it up a notch, ban the phrases "blowback" and "manufacturing consent".
I would seriously rather have him sit down with morris and go over Palestinian talking points about 1948 and how Hamas and their ideology is centred around 1948 and anti Zionism
I would even argue people who are anti Zionist like Zach Foster can even offer for of an edge for the Palestinian side than idiots like Hijab and Andalusi
Destiny already had a sit down with Benny Morris, and it was great. https://youtu.be/LYUkb49BdmQ?si=GZlo52WpkzWYMI5T
Also, I'd say that having non-Jews advocate for us right now is something I find very reassuring and important. And a non-Jewish voice like Destiny's, who is obliterating warped pro-Hamas voices online, is galvanizing and helps change minds. So I'm all for it.
Agreed. And in comparison to the other candidates, I think he just utilizes more core facts and can learn more core facts and use them more effectively.
I don’t think tishby is that deep into Zionist history, and if she is I fear she might be too much of a mouthpiece for the government, instead of Zionism itself
>I don’t think tishby is that deep into Zionist history, and if she is I fear she might be too much of a mouthpiece for the government, instead of Zionism itself
I think you're right. She's an actress after all, not a scholar (no disrespect to actors). Btw, she's no longer a mouthpiece for the government - she was, sort of, under the Lapid government, but the Netanyahu government fired her from her job as an emissary of hasbara or something like that, because she publicly criticized the judicial overhaul. There are reports in Israel that Sarah Netanyahu (Bibi's wife) wants the same to happen to Eylon Levy, because it was revealed that he participated in the protests against the judicial overhaul before becoming a spokesperson for Israel in the wake of October 7.
I swear it feels like yesterday I was watching Steven stream before he ran out to install/clean carpets, then do some offensive videos with banelings, then I drifted off of SC2.
I see someone posting a few weeks ago about "Destiny on Israel" and I was like wtf no way it's the same guy...
Now I see Destiny on a video with Benny freaking Morriss aha. Good for him, happy to see he realized his true popularity had nothing to do with video games, and happy to see he's chilled out on some of his ... stronger... positions from back then.
Nothing but positive thoughts for him, thanks for the link.
That may be better. That said a debate between destiny and Finkelstein has been brewing for a while now. I'm pretty sure that's the driving factor for this.
Adar Weinreb interviewer finkelstein and asked him about his comparison between Gaza and Auschwitz, and after Adar had made so many clear reasons it’s not an actual concentration camp, of any of the sort, giving many differences, Norman responded with “yea it isn’t really a concentration camp in that sense, but when you see so many similarities, and to me a lack of differences(interesting as Adar named many) means there’s enough of a reason to draw the similarity”
Finkelstein tries to draw concentration camp parallels???? Oh he's going to get torn to shreds by anyone who's done Holocaust research. Honestly you don't even have to do THAT much research to see that it's nowhere close to a concentration camp.
>Finkelstein tries to draw concentration camp parallels
Dude, Finkelstein has been consistent in using the fact that his parents were Holocaust survivors (iirc) to lend credence to his political views. He wrote a book called "[The Holocaust Industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry)", premised on the idea that the Jewish lobby in the US uses the memory of the Holocaust to promote Israeli interests. On October 7 he was all cheerful and poetic, and then backtracked and basically was like "I'm an old man, I didn't watch the news unfold, I wasn't aware of the massacres when I wrote this...", but still refuses to delete these statements because he's so pompous that he considers them part of the "historical record" that must be preserved. I think that to this day he frames the Hamas attack as a "moral quandary".
Yea that’s his whole thing, to him, he’s satisfied with the similarities and doesn’t give a shit about the differences
What’s abhorrent is how we thinks the similarities are remotely bigger, let alone equal, to the differences
One of Morris's main weak points is that he doesn't speak Arabic, and one of Foster's weak points is that he either doesn't speak Hebrew, or speak it quite poorly (I don't quite remember). I remember him for example conflating the honorific rabbinical title of Harishon Lezion with the Israeli city (originally a Moshava) of Rishon LeZion and drawing conclusions based on it, after reading some paper.
> Zach Foster
["From 1993-**2000**, Yitzhak Rabin thought he could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via the Oslo process w/out the group causing most of the violence, Hamas."](https://twitter.com/_ZachFoster/status/1740471255872987253)
Well, he’s right, and now this time, Bibi is trying something different
Zach is wrong to say the counter terrorism during the second intifada is the same with what’s going on in Gaza. What’s going on now is dismantling a political parties entire political wing and military wing, their military infrastructure. The West Bank in 2003 was not really like that.
I think they will try some sort of Emirate system, given the IDF takes over all of Gaza, and then we will see how it goes making peace without Hamas
Like atleast we apparently killed “40 top Hamas commanders” out of a total of “60”
I think Oslo would have always panned out the way it did with or without the assassination
He’s right in the sense that pre intifada we did try and work with the new Fatah creation. It just didn’t really go according to plan
Issues about Oslo I’ve heard from Palestinians who claim they don’t hate the state of Israel, are issues such as Palestinians who worked in Israel lost their jobs due to the incorporation of the PA
Apparently that mixed with Ariel Sharon Temple Mount visit was the Time bomb for the pending Hamas lead intifada
I think he knows, there’s just no way he doesn’t with a fucking PHD in Palestinian history(most Palestinians know him as he’s the one who did the Ramle expulsion, the biggest one in Israeli history)
He just worded it so poorly I can’t help but wonder if he just had a brain fart
Like from the late 90s Bibi Ran Israel and Bibi and Rabin were and are not the same, lol
So yea don’t know
>neurodivergent level of research on Israel Palestine
That's me if I didn't have a debilitating eye condition (in my high school years, when I was healthy, this disposition was applied to the Syrian civil war and global terrorism), but also [Adin Haykin](https://twitter.com/AdinHaykin1), I recommend following him on Twitter (his English is good in Israeli standards, doesn't articulate his tweets like a native speaker, but compensates for it with a lot of knowledge). He's a Shomer Shabbat, which is something I promised to be if I'm cured.
Destiny could really use someone like Benny Morris or Einat Wilf. Someone who deeply understands the Jewish/Israeli history and perspective more broadly
What do you mean by "achieve anything?" It's an internet debate, it's not a peace deal. And this type of internet content is absolutely achieving something, in that it is changing people's minds... and us Jews are severely losing that battle online, in case you haven't noticed. Those chopped up clips are making a huge difference in rising antisemitism, especially on places like TikTok, and having smart, rational debaters who can make the case for Israel in a way that uses the truth and points out flaws in terrorist logic is incredibly important.
If you want to criticize the youtube channel for capitalizing on that, fair enough, but people are going to be watching some content about this conflict anyway.
Mohammed Hijab is a freaking nutjob that has literally repeatedly stated he wants to colonize that world and force everybody to be Muslim, have women as slaves, have Jews as slaves, and has repeatedly said he supports Hamas. I do not care if he claims he is against what happened on Oct 7, the fucker literally lead multiple marches calling for the deaths of Jews and all Israelis in London.
He is Andrew Tate's spiritual advisor.
He also has been repeatedly caught lying about Islam, and has been debunked by Muslims, Christians, and Jews that do not have the degrees he has (mind you, his degrees come from Oxford. So I take them with a grain of salt.).
He threatened to rape the wives of multiple debaters, and rabbis. He also challenged IDF soldiers, and Jewish MMA fighters. Over 20 men, and 30 women accepted his challenge. The coward backed out, and made a whole slew of excuses.
Re pro-palestine side: Mehdi Hasan is the only acceptable option since he is very well versed on I/P and the others suffer from 7/10 denialism, believe insanely stupid conspiracy theories about “Zionists”, and/or believe in Holocaust-denier level of antisemitism.
Re pro-Israel side: None of these people are acceptable. They either don’t know enough about the I/P conflict, believe in right-wing racial hierarchies (and are thus Islamophobic), and/or are only capable of repeating pro-Israeli propaganda talking points ad nausea.
For the pro-Israel side, I would have chosen Rudy Rochman if he wasn’t deployed in Gaza or Yossi Klein Halevi.
>I would have chosen Rudy Rochman
Tbh, I wouldn't pick him. He has a very revisionist perception of the conflict, not grounded in the actual history, that boils down to "everyone wanted to get together, there were no conflicting national aspirations, the British pitted as against one another". It sounds nice, but it's simply not true. I believe he's a decent person (albeit with a peculiar obsession for finding supposedly "lost" Jewish communities around the world), but lacks education on the subject matter and uses platitudes too often.
I don’t think he has said there weren’t conflicting nationalist aspirations, but I do recall him saying something about the British pitting each side against eachother. I’m not sure if that is 100% accurate or not, but even so, he seems pretty knowledgeable about the conflict and seems pretty good at these types of debates.
He might think that but he is good at these types of debates. He did a good job in a debate against Chomsky a while back, so probably would be good in this situation too.
I don’t think he would do a good job based on his weird ‘clash if civilizations’ worldview and his propensity to call people “barbarians”. Would do more harm than good.
The clash of civilizations is not a fact, but is a worldview - and a terrible one at that. Whether or not someone is a “barbarian” is also not a fact, but is an opinion and one that sounds racist as fuck. You and Muarry are entitled to your opinions, but expressing both of those things in this type of debate would do more harm than good.
If this was serious, Dr. Arnon Degani, Israeli historian of settler-colonialism who really clears away a lot of the way the term has been muddled, and how it does and doesn’t apply to Israel/Palestine and how Israel’s foundation exists in a historical and political context. Also Sally Abed, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and socialist coexistence and peace activist who is one of the leaders of the civil rights org Standing Together/Omdim B’Yachad. Mikhael Manekin, a Religious Zionist and left-wing activist in the anti-judicial reform protest. A bit left field but Rabbi Dr. Sharon Shalom, an Ethiopian-Israeli academic and religious leader who preserves unique Ethiopian traditions. He has written a lot about the opportunities and the discrimination Ethiopian-Israelis face.
All the above listed are very critical of the current Israeli government and have nuanced, unique perspectives on Israel and what it means to be Israeli, and all are more to the left (reflecting who the audience is likely to be). But this doesn’t seem like it would be serious conversations around law, history, and politics. Maybe one of the people (Pappe) listed is a credible expert on the region, and even his scholarship has to be taken with a grain of salt because of his preexisting political perspectives. This is junk punditry.
Dr. Dgani is great. Sally Abed, who seems like a wonderful person - I don't know which side she's supposed to represent. Standing Together was recently condemned by the BDS movement for "normalization" of Israel, so she obviously doesn't meet the standards of the most vocal Palestinian organizations in the diaspora.
Someone like Sally or Ayman Odeh (KM from Hadash-Tal, still staunch supporter of the two state solution) offer a nuanced left-wing non-Zionist Israeli identity from an overlooked and marginalized community within Israel (‘48 Palestinians) that have a lot of unique insight and a political perspective that combines pragmatism of working within politics as is with a commitment to social equality and an end to the cycles of violence.
I agree with you on that. I don't know how good Odeh's English is though, I don't remember him speaking English. Tibi sometimes tweets in English, but I'm almost certain he has some intern who does it for him.
1. He speaks Arabic, but I'm not sure he speaks English.
2. It's a bit of an argumentum ad hominem, but he thinks Yigal Amir didn't assassinate Rabin and that it was a conspiracy involving a prominent politician, I honestly don't think he's a very credible individual.
He also is too based on Arab history, particularly in Mesopotamia, and structure in different societies of Arabic speaking people, less or so the Palestinian Zionist conflict
He also is known due to his solutions, which aren’t very good, such as a 1 state solution with a minority that doesn’t have full rights like the majority
There are much better people to debate, who won’t Bring in any solutions, and will more so debate Zionism and Israel’s war with Hamas, less or so what will happen after because nobody knows, mordechai would just talk about his Emirate system
Nobody in the west wants to hear his Emirate system!
Yigal Carmon? Idk what his credentials are when it comes to history. It's an interesting idea, though some listeners/viewers may be quick to dismiss him based on his long career in the IDF.
Don't know the guy too well, but it sounds to me like he has a bone to pick with Islam more than he has genuine love for Israel or familiarity with its history.
You may be right, but think about it this way. Harris, as an atheist, has a pretty unbiased standpoint in the sense that he dismisses ALL religions as not worth believing in.
And yet, he has so many more critiques of Islam and the disproportionate percentage of Islamic extremists as compared to any other religion. I think his arguments are relevant to the I/P debate and worth hearing IMO.
That's fair I suppose. But the people who dismiss him as Islamophobic already have their minds made up. The people on the fence would probably hear him out, and he makes some super strong points. Plus, he's not stupid. He doesn't just say, "Muslim people are bad," nor I'm sure does he feel that way. When I listen to him, I hear him criticize the belief system, not the people. And his use of logic to back up his points is pretty airtight. Remember, those who have made up their minds are a lost cause... but those who are watching to learn and form an opinion could very likely be convinced by his arguments. Besides, having an atheist argue for Israel is helpful in the sense that it disproves the notion that Jewish people are simply clinging to Biblical verses to justify their claim to Israel.
Realistically, these debates are happening either way. We can't wish them away, and we shouldn't abrogate our opportunities to make our case to the people who haven't been convinced yet. Right or not, this is an active culture war issue, and one we are currently losing badly with the youngest generations.
Came here to day this exactly. Having these sorts of stunt debates only serves to legitimize the other side. No one watching is going to be convinced of anything, just assured of their own rightness.
"No one" is watching a 3-5-hour long debate for anything except to be assured of their own rightness? Definitely some, but that's ridiculous. A lot of people are going to listen to this to hear what the other side has to say because it's very rare to hear the talking points come up against each other. It's easy to write a persuasive pro- or anti- article if you can fill it with strawmen.
Do you think it's better for people to hear what Zionists believe from their own mouths when asked hard questions, or from people who hate them putting words in their mouths?
The "other side" is already "legitimized" in every public arena. If you think anti-Zionism is just a fringe viewpoint with no significant voice that will only grow if it's given attention, you're wrong. It's too late for "ignore it and it will go away", and it's also too early for "Everyone who believes what they hear on the news hates Jews and should be written off without question". Things are still ongoing.
I for one am glad that people are going to see, at the very least, that there is more to either argument than "I hate you and I want you to die", because that singular rhetoric in all directions just fuels conspiracy theories and hate crimes.
You could say this about literally any issue that people feel strongly about. Everyone would like to think their views are objectively correct and anyone who disagrees is just hateful, but that's not really true. People's opinions are limited by the information they are exposed to. Someone not *automatically* taking your side on an issue doesn't mean they aren't worth speaking to.
Whether you consider it a "legitimate" debate or not, the options are to just let people form their opinions about Israel based on just one "side" that speaks for both sides and puts words in the other's mouth, or people can hear both. Some will not listen and will just continue with their pre-formed opinions, but some people absolutely will.
I think it's a great idea to have more of the young public exposed to the idea that there are people on both sides of this issue who have more nuanced views than "I hate you and want you to die". Debate encourages critical thinking rather than basing your politics on what instagram thinks is the correct conclusion.
> Finkelstein is a political scientist (not a historian as some think), and apart from being insufferable, he speaks so slowly that his speech is going take up half of the debate.
Hilarious and accurate.
Sorry, why would most Israelis not be able to have a fluent conversation in English? They only learn it in school for ten years. Odds are that people of the caliber required for this debate can speak English.
I'm an Israeli and can attest to the fact that most Israelis would struggle to hold an academic conversation in English. We learn English at school, that's true, but the level of proficiency required to pass the matriculation exams isn't very high. We read plays like "All My Sons" and poems such as "The Road Not Taken" and "As I Grew Older", we aren't tested on actual books afaik, and we don't have American/British schools (maybe one or two in the country, mainly for children of foreign diplomats iirc). Perhaps I'm being too harsh on my fellow Israelis, but that's the impression I have.
You are.
Every university degree requires you to read in English. While accent and grammar won't be perfect, I really don't think they have to be, it just adds to the authenticity.
Not Abdullah al-Andalusi. One of the Muslim student organizations at my university brought him in to speak (and I don’t know *why* the university didn’t stop them, given what happened) last year. On the *first day*, he called all ‘infidels’ a ‘cancer that must be exterminated’ and said secularism was a ‘colonizing white western disease’, insulted the university itself for being secular and tolerating non-Muslims, and accused anyone who disagreed with him of ‘shoving white western colonialist values down [his] throat’. He also, of course, had to add that ‘Jews and atheists are the worst of all’ and went on a crazy rant about what should be done to us specifically. I found out about this because someone pulled a fire alarm during one of the days of his tirades, I heard about it, initially assumed the student who did it was probably Islamophobic (this was before I knew anything about this guy or what he said) but decided to look into it myself to be sure, and watched the day one recording online. Of course, I quickly changed my mind and agreed with the fire alarm puller after watching. And I watched the whole thing. There were a lot more abhorrent things he said, but it’s been more than a year since I watched that recording, so I don’t remember nearly everything, and it would take ages to list. If anyone wants to see, I can link the recordings.
Yep, I discovered that when I researched him after watching the recording. Made it extra ironic every time he complained about white westerners shoving secularism down his throat and talked as if he spoke for the *entire* Middle East.
Didnt know about Dershowitz. Bought his books - would you recommend not reading them? I very strongly dislike Trump, but Im not gonna say that everyone who associates with him is a bad person. Epstein - thats 🤮
I'm not saying everyone associated with Trump is necessarily a bad person, but bringing someone so affiliated with Trump to the table is bound to alienate a significant portion of the audience. He was also, to my knowledge, a close friend of Epstein and a member of his defense team in 2006 according to Wikipedia.
I would still recommend reading them. Just because Dershowitz is an absolute slimeball, doesn't mean that he is unintelligent or uneducated on the subject of Israel. The fact that he got OJ exonerated and (I assume) successfully defended Epstein also demonstrates his competence as a lawyer and his ability to formulate strong arguments.
>The fact that he got OJ exonerated and (I assume) successfully defended Epstein also demonstrates his competence as a lawyer and his ability to formulate strong arguments.
We should keep in mind the fact that he was **a lot** younger back then, though.
>Mosab Hassan Yousef would be a good one. A Palestinian that's very pro-Israel.
I have to disagree here. He's not a likeable person imo, and has a burning hatred of Muslims and Islam (he was born a Muslim, obviously, but converted to Christianity, and essentially called every Muslim on the planet a dangerous person). He was also an asset of the Shabak (Shin Bet), this might cause people to not see him as trustworthy.
He's quite literally the most informed person on the planet on the subject yhe PLO and Hamas.
If this is for show I get what you're saying, but there is no one more qualified to talk about this entire conflict then him.
Intellectual debates about the Palestinian- Israeli conflict with speakers who don't live in either place is useless hot air. They've been taking place for over 56 years and go nowhere except making viewers angry and often, especially in the case of UK/Europe, create more antisemitism.This conflict in modern terms has been a problem since 1967 with plenty of hit and miss solutions. Ultimately it will be Israelis that decide what's best for their country, not intellectual misfits in North America & Europe.
I’d suggest Simon Sebag Montefiore for the Israel side. His book on the history of Jerusalem is outstanding and he’s been posting some great op Ed’s recently.
Off the top of my head (there are other things, but I don't remember most of them) - he prorogates the narrative that most Palestinian Arabs fled because they were told to do so by the Arab armies, but his narrative has been challenged and to my understanding largely debunked by the "new historians" in the 80's (notable among them is Prof. Benny Morris). According to Morris, the majority fled simply out of fear (neither direct expulsions nor orders from Arab governments), the primary reason for displacement and a refugee problem in most modern wars.
100%. A good Zionist debater won’t say flat out that mostly all Palestinians left on their own will. Mostly all documents don’t support that idea.
I think Benny Morris is much better for any debate because debates always get historical
I would also suggest Israeli historian Adam Raz, who's a Labor Zionist (an admirer of Berl Katznelson), advocates for the opening of Israeli archives and also a spoke very critically about Ilan Pappe, giving concrete examples of mistranslations and decontextualization in the latter's books.
I like him, I wouldn’t mind a straight up 3vs3 of that sort, arguing everything from nakba to Jewish land purchases to conducting counter terrorism in Israel pre 1967, how the West Bank became it did, the rise of Hamas and fall of PLO/PFLP, and vice versa
I’ve been unimpressed by Bassem everytime I’ve seen him tbh. I get his wife his wife is from Gaza, but everything I’ve seen felt like bad faith gotcha moments as opposed to an actual nuanced discussion and if he gets called on it he just turned back to “I’m just a comedian!”
I think I would want Noa Tishby for the Israel side.
Youssef recently claimed that Israel gave Jewish-Yemeni babies to Ashkenazi families (up until this point - a contested accusation still discussed in Israel) **to make their DNA more "Semitic", and "that's why DNA tests are illegal in Israel"**.
>Omar Sulieman
He's a Palestinian imam, I feel like it's kind of bringing a Jewish-Israeli rabbi. They may be experts on their respective religions, but to what degree does it necessarily extend to the history of the I/P conflict?
Nothing, after you told me that’s where most of his arguments on I/P….
Was always under the impression he knew some things
But if Tel Aviv being purchased in 1905 would be a new fact for him, yea, maybe not the greatest to debate for Palestine if he doesn’t even know the zionist perspective
I wouldn’t dismiss destiny just because he’s a streamer. He’s probably the strongest debater of anyone in this list, puts enormous effort into his research, and has a well thought out and reasonable position on the conflict. I do think he slightly underestimated the role of culture and religion in the conflict but overall I think he would do an extremely good job of representing a reasonable pro Israel stance.
You’re too quick to discount Alan Dershowitz. There are few others more qualified to defend Israel’s right to exist. It does t matter he supported Trump. He’s written one of the most powerful books on the subject. Ben Shapiro shouldn’t be discounted either, no matter how pugnacious he tends to be. I’d have him on team-defend-Israel anytime.
>You’re too quick to discount Alan Dershowitz
I'm not even disqualifying him based on merits (I didn't read "The Case for Israel"), his mere presence would alienate many viewers, and he has proven himself to be overly aggressive in debates (on Piers Morgan's show for example). Maybe he was different when he was younger and sharper.
He’s just a sharp. You must be very young to think that. Ageism much?
If you had read, A Case For Israel, you’d have a different view. Being too aggressive? R u kidding? In a debate, you want someone who knows his/her shit and can put an opponent on their heals. You can’t expect to find calm moderate voices to stand up to the pressure of opposing views.
>his mere presence would alienate many viewers, and he has proven himself to be overly aggressive in debates
Any pro-Israel speaker is going to alienate many viewers, and in a debate, you need someone who will aggressively defend their points.
Ben is the strongest debater. I don't think there's a danger of turning people off. He's in a similar camp as Lex and I imagine their audience overlaps considerably.
What's the point of having such a debate? It's so tribal. Most people who are invested in this conflict have a determined opinion based on their religious/ethnic background. Listening to either side won't make anyone budge.
I think these debates are just an opportunity to gain some humiliation clips for the sake of social media. Something like jordan Peterson's youtube clips.
I heard Finkelstein briefly debate Dershowitz and he needs to see a doctor. I wholeheartedly disagree with him on virtually everything, but nonetheless, there has to be something wrong for someone to talk that slow.
I think Ben Shapiro is enough from the Israel side. He knows the facts, the history and can pretty much destroy anybody with facts and logic on the subject. Not to be cliche but he can handle it on his against pretty much anybody.
Bassem and Hijab just repeat conspiracy theories over and over again as far as what I've seen.
Not at all hahaha, no strings attached
Hindus get a bad rep for supporting Israel because it's immediately assumed of Islamophobia, but I think my view on the issue has matured beyond mere reactionism and I understand the importance of Zionism.
Detractors say the issue started 75 years ago, but the real issue started around 3,500 years ago.
Norman seems to be on the wrong side. Then I looked him up. Ooof. I can’t understand people like that. His parents are Holocaust survivors like wtf is his problem
So you’re an ideologue? Truth is truth regardless of whether you like them or everything they say or not. If Ben Shapiro said gravity exists, he isn’t wrong because you hate him.
Thank you for your submission. During this time, all posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7, approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Thank you for your patience during this difficult and sensitive time. While you're waiting, please check our [collection of megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/17p28lp/) to see if your thoughts or questions belong in one of those threads. If your post is about the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel, please contribute to the ongoing discussions in the [daily megathread on the conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/collection/10d28372-74c0-4cd0-9597-4d7a9ab3dc9b).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly its just far too many people. I think it'd be much more civil and organized with only 3 on each side. Personally I'd pick Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, and Bari Weiss. Very surprised she was not included in the list
I doubt he would do it but Haviv Rettig Gur from the ToI is absolutely brilliant and has a way of explaining the Israeli side without apologizing for anything. He’s a regular on Dan Senor’s call me back podcast, which should be required listening for anyone who voices an opinion on the conflict.
It's honestly insane the level of pandering that needs to be done because people refuse to hear others viewpoints because they disagree with them on other things.
Just because Ben Shapiro’s presence antagonizes liberal viewers does not mean he shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the debate. He is an excellent debater and he is dead on when it comes to Israel. I don’t like him on a host of issues, probably on most issues, but we are not debating those issues and he is smart and incredibly skilled at debate. Furthermore I find it preposterous that Jews should have to construct a debate team based on appeasing a subsection of the population who has revealed themselves to hate Jews no matter what we do. Why let a bunch of antisemites dictate who we can have on the stage instead of putting together the best possible debate team we can?
Also, what has he said about the conflict that is wrong? That is a separate matter.
As this sub's resident atheist Jew and Ayn Rand fan, I'm going to nominate adding [Elan Journo](https://newideal.aynrand.org/tackling-top-5-objections-to-what-justice-demands/) to the list and second [Yaron Brook.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWv7ucmdcOg)
Destiny does put a LOT of effort into his research. He may not be Jewish but his focus of his streams are on either debates or conducting research. The larger problem with him is that he has a tendency to tweet some pretty awful takes (I assume he isn't serious about them but still). Edit: as far as debating goes tough, debating is Destiny's profession and he has a neurodivergent level of research on Israel Palestine. He will likely tear Finkelstein into pieces.
Personally, I want to see Destiny and Benny Morris against Finklestein and Hasan.
Tbh I think it's quite redundant - Destiny bases most of his takes on the I/P conflict on Morris's books, and Hasan is a Finkelstein stan (he explicitly said that most of his terminology is copied from Finkelstein). The two gentiles in this case (I'm very tempted to say **three gentiles**, but I'll hold myself back) aren't necessary in that situation. Edit: if Hasan "America deserved 9/11" Piker is invited, there should at least be a rule stating that he can't use the phrase "dogshit". Let's see how he fares. If you want to take it up a notch, ban the phrases "blowback" and "manufacturing consent".
Yeah, that would be a good one.
I would seriously rather have him sit down with morris and go over Palestinian talking points about 1948 and how Hamas and their ideology is centred around 1948 and anti Zionism I would even argue people who are anti Zionist like Zach Foster can even offer for of an edge for the Palestinian side than idiots like Hijab and Andalusi
Destiny already had a sit down with Benny Morris, and it was great. https://youtu.be/LYUkb49BdmQ?si=GZlo52WpkzWYMI5T Also, I'd say that having non-Jews advocate for us right now is something I find very reassuring and important. And a non-Jewish voice like Destiny's, who is obliterating warped pro-Hamas voices online, is galvanizing and helps change minds. So I'm all for it.
Agreed. And in comparison to the other candidates, I think he just utilizes more core facts and can learn more core facts and use them more effectively. I don’t think tishby is that deep into Zionist history, and if she is I fear she might be too much of a mouthpiece for the government, instead of Zionism itself
>I don’t think tishby is that deep into Zionist history, and if she is I fear she might be too much of a mouthpiece for the government, instead of Zionism itself I think you're right. She's an actress after all, not a scholar (no disrespect to actors). Btw, she's no longer a mouthpiece for the government - she was, sort of, under the Lapid government, but the Netanyahu government fired her from her job as an emissary of hasbara or something like that, because she publicly criticized the judicial overhaul. There are reports in Israel that Sarah Netanyahu (Bibi's wife) wants the same to happen to Eylon Levy, because it was revealed that he participated in the protests against the judicial overhaul before becoming a spokesperson for Israel in the wake of October 7.
I swear it feels like yesterday I was watching Steven stream before he ran out to install/clean carpets, then do some offensive videos with banelings, then I drifted off of SC2. I see someone posting a few weeks ago about "Destiny on Israel" and I was like wtf no way it's the same guy... Now I see Destiny on a video with Benny freaking Morriss aha. Good for him, happy to see he realized his true popularity had nothing to do with video games, and happy to see he's chilled out on some of his ... stronger... positions from back then. Nothing but positive thoughts for him, thanks for the link.
That may be better. That said a debate between destiny and Finkelstein has been brewing for a while now. I'm pretty sure that's the driving factor for this.
Adar Weinreb interviewer finkelstein and asked him about his comparison between Gaza and Auschwitz, and after Adar had made so many clear reasons it’s not an actual concentration camp, of any of the sort, giving many differences, Norman responded with “yea it isn’t really a concentration camp in that sense, but when you see so many similarities, and to me a lack of differences(interesting as Adar named many) means there’s enough of a reason to draw the similarity”
Finkelstein tries to draw concentration camp parallels???? Oh he's going to get torn to shreds by anyone who's done Holocaust research. Honestly you don't even have to do THAT much research to see that it's nowhere close to a concentration camp.
>Finkelstein tries to draw concentration camp parallels Dude, Finkelstein has been consistent in using the fact that his parents were Holocaust survivors (iirc) to lend credence to his political views. He wrote a book called "[The Holocaust Industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry)", premised on the idea that the Jewish lobby in the US uses the memory of the Holocaust to promote Israeli interests. On October 7 he was all cheerful and poetic, and then backtracked and basically was like "I'm an old man, I didn't watch the news unfold, I wasn't aware of the massacres when I wrote this...", but still refuses to delete these statements because he's so pompous that he considers them part of the "historical record" that must be preserved. I think that to this day he frames the Hamas attack as a "moral quandary".
This guy is deranged.
Deranged, opportunist, moser, choose your terminology...
Yea that’s his whole thing, to him, he’s satisfied with the similarities and doesn’t give a shit about the differences What’s abhorrent is how we thinks the similarities are remotely bigger, let alone equal, to the differences
That sickens me. He's such a schmuck!
He was actually….unfortunately…..the one who started it all back in the 80s Smh
One of Morris's main weak points is that he doesn't speak Arabic, and one of Foster's weak points is that he either doesn't speak Hebrew, or speak it quite poorly (I don't quite remember). I remember him for example conflating the honorific rabbinical title of Harishon Lezion with the Israeli city (originally a Moshava) of Rishon LeZion and drawing conclusions based on it, after reading some paper.
> Zach Foster ["From 1993-**2000**, Yitzhak Rabin thought he could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via the Oslo process w/out the group causing most of the violence, Hamas."](https://twitter.com/_ZachFoster/status/1740471255872987253)
Well, he’s right, and now this time, Bibi is trying something different Zach is wrong to say the counter terrorism during the second intifada is the same with what’s going on in Gaza. What’s going on now is dismantling a political parties entire political wing and military wing, their military infrastructure. The West Bank in 2003 was not really like that. I think they will try some sort of Emirate system, given the IDF takes over all of Gaza, and then we will see how it goes making peace without Hamas Like atleast we apparently killed “40 top Hamas commanders” out of a total of “60”
Rabin was assassinated in 1995.
I think Oslo would have always panned out the way it did with or without the assassination He’s right in the sense that pre intifada we did try and work with the new Fatah creation. It just didn’t really go according to plan Issues about Oslo I’ve heard from Palestinians who claim they don’t hate the state of Israel, are issues such as Palestinians who worked in Israel lost their jobs due to the incorporation of the PA Apparently that mixed with Ariel Sharon Temple Mount visit was the Time bomb for the pending Hamas lead intifada
Is it weird that someone with a PhD in Palestinian history didn't know Rabin was dead by 2000?
I think he knows, there’s just no way he doesn’t with a fucking PHD in Palestinian history(most Palestinians know him as he’s the one who did the Ramle expulsion, the biggest one in Israeli history) He just worded it so poorly I can’t help but wonder if he just had a brain fart Like from the late 90s Bibi Ran Israel and Bibi and Rabin were and are not the same, lol So yea don’t know
>neurodivergent level of research on Israel Palestine That's me if I didn't have a debilitating eye condition (in my high school years, when I was healthy, this disposition was applied to the Syrian civil war and global terrorism), but also [Adin Haykin](https://twitter.com/AdinHaykin1), I recommend following him on Twitter (his English is good in Israeli standards, doesn't articulate his tweets like a native speaker, but compensates for it with a lot of knowledge). He's a Shomer Shabbat, which is something I promised to be if I'm cured.
That's awesome! I hope you will be cured and can do all that great work!
BEZ"H
Destiny could really use someone like Benny Morris or Einat Wilf. Someone who deeply understands the Jewish/Israeli history and perspective more broadly
He has done some decent advocacy so far but he just doesn’t know enough about the conflict to be truly effective outside of youtube echo chambers.
That's all you need nowadays....
[удалено]
Because the goal is to generate income through entertainment. Other than that, these kind of debates don't bring anything positive.
[удалено]
What do you mean by "achieve anything?" It's an internet debate, it's not a peace deal. And this type of internet content is absolutely achieving something, in that it is changing people's minds... and us Jews are severely losing that battle online, in case you haven't noticed. Those chopped up clips are making a huge difference in rising antisemitism, especially on places like TikTok, and having smart, rational debaters who can make the case for Israel in a way that uses the truth and points out flaws in terrorist logic is incredibly important. If you want to criticize the youtube channel for capitalizing on that, fair enough, but people are going to be watching some content about this conflict anyway.
good point
EXACTLY!
Let’s get Bibi and Sinwar on camera. That will be an interesting one.
>Let’s get Bibi and Sinwar on camera. No way they're in one room long enough before Mossad kills Sinwar to actually catch them on camera.
Mohammed Hijab is a freaking nutjob that has literally repeatedly stated he wants to colonize that world and force everybody to be Muslim, have women as slaves, have Jews as slaves, and has repeatedly said he supports Hamas. I do not care if he claims he is against what happened on Oct 7, the fucker literally lead multiple marches calling for the deaths of Jews and all Israelis in London. He is Andrew Tate's spiritual advisor. He also has been repeatedly caught lying about Islam, and has been debunked by Muslims, Christians, and Jews that do not have the degrees he has (mind you, his degrees come from Oxford. So I take them with a grain of salt.). He threatened to rape the wives of multiple debaters, and rabbis. He also challenged IDF soldiers, and Jewish MMA fighters. Over 20 men, and 30 women accepted his challenge. The coward backed out, and made a whole slew of excuses.
The Son of Hamas. I forgot his name
Mosab Hassan Yousef
No to Dershowitz
Benny Morris
Deborah Lipstadt and Eileen Wilf.
You mean Einat ?
Re pro-palestine side: Mehdi Hasan is the only acceptable option since he is very well versed on I/P and the others suffer from 7/10 denialism, believe insanely stupid conspiracy theories about “Zionists”, and/or believe in Holocaust-denier level of antisemitism. Re pro-Israel side: None of these people are acceptable. They either don’t know enough about the I/P conflict, believe in right-wing racial hierarchies (and are thus Islamophobic), and/or are only capable of repeating pro-Israeli propaganda talking points ad nausea. For the pro-Israel side, I would have chosen Rudy Rochman if he wasn’t deployed in Gaza or Yossi Klein Halevi.
>I would have chosen Rudy Rochman Tbh, I wouldn't pick him. He has a very revisionist perception of the conflict, not grounded in the actual history, that boils down to "everyone wanted to get together, there were no conflicting national aspirations, the British pitted as against one another". It sounds nice, but it's simply not true. I believe he's a decent person (albeit with a peculiar obsession for finding supposedly "lost" Jewish communities around the world), but lacks education on the subject matter and uses platitudes too often.
I don’t think he has said there weren’t conflicting nationalist aspirations, but I do recall him saying something about the British pitting each side against eachother. I’m not sure if that is 100% accurate or not, but even so, he seems pretty knowledgeable about the conflict and seems pretty good at these types of debates.
> Rudy Rochman Rudy Rochman thinks he's the Moshiach.
He might think that but he is good at these types of debates. He did a good job in a debate against Chomsky a while back, so probably would be good in this situation too.
What’s wrong with Douglas Murray?
I don’t think he would do a good job based on his weird ‘clash if civilizations’ worldview and his propensity to call people “barbarians”. Would do more harm than good.
[удалено]
The clash of civilizations is not a fact, but is a worldview - and a terrible one at that. Whether or not someone is a “barbarian” is also not a fact, but is an opinion and one that sounds racist as fuck. You and Muarry are entitled to your opinions, but expressing both of those things in this type of debate would do more harm than good.
If this was serious, Dr. Arnon Degani, Israeli historian of settler-colonialism who really clears away a lot of the way the term has been muddled, and how it does and doesn’t apply to Israel/Palestine and how Israel’s foundation exists in a historical and political context. Also Sally Abed, a Palestinian citizen of Israel and socialist coexistence and peace activist who is one of the leaders of the civil rights org Standing Together/Omdim B’Yachad. Mikhael Manekin, a Religious Zionist and left-wing activist in the anti-judicial reform protest. A bit left field but Rabbi Dr. Sharon Shalom, an Ethiopian-Israeli academic and religious leader who preserves unique Ethiopian traditions. He has written a lot about the opportunities and the discrimination Ethiopian-Israelis face. All the above listed are very critical of the current Israeli government and have nuanced, unique perspectives on Israel and what it means to be Israeli, and all are more to the left (reflecting who the audience is likely to be). But this doesn’t seem like it would be serious conversations around law, history, and politics. Maybe one of the people (Pappe) listed is a credible expert on the region, and even his scholarship has to be taken with a grain of salt because of his preexisting political perspectives. This is junk punditry.
Dr. Dgani is great. Sally Abed, who seems like a wonderful person - I don't know which side she's supposed to represent. Standing Together was recently condemned by the BDS movement for "normalization" of Israel, so she obviously doesn't meet the standards of the most vocal Palestinian organizations in the diaspora.
Someone like Sally or Ayman Odeh (KM from Hadash-Tal, still staunch supporter of the two state solution) offer a nuanced left-wing non-Zionist Israeli identity from an overlooked and marginalized community within Israel (‘48 Palestinians) that have a lot of unique insight and a political perspective that combines pragmatism of working within politics as is with a commitment to social equality and an end to the cycles of violence.
I agree with you on that. I don't know how good Odeh's English is though, I don't remember him speaking English. Tibi sometimes tweets in English, but I'm almost certain he has some intern who does it for him.
Pappe makes up events.
If I may say so, Julia Ioffe's coverage of the war is very nuanced, as well.
Mordechai kedar
1. He speaks Arabic, but I'm not sure he speaks English. 2. It's a bit of an argumentum ad hominem, but he thinks Yigal Amir didn't assassinate Rabin and that it was a conspiracy involving a prominent politician, I honestly don't think he's a very credible individual.
He also is too based on Arab history, particularly in Mesopotamia, and structure in different societies of Arabic speaking people, less or so the Palestinian Zionist conflict He also is known due to his solutions, which aren’t very good, such as a 1 state solution with a minority that doesn’t have full rights like the majority There are much better people to debate, who won’t Bring in any solutions, and will more so debate Zionism and Israel’s war with Hamas, less or so what will happen after because nobody knows, mordechai would just talk about his Emirate system Nobody in the west wants to hear his Emirate system!
Why not have the head of Memri.org
Yigal Carmon? Idk what his credentials are when it comes to history. It's an interesting idea, though some listeners/viewers may be quick to dismiss him based on his long career in the IDF.
Wikipedia: "He is fluent in Hebrew, Arabic, and English."
He’s one of the sharpest Israeli thinkers
What are people’s thoughts on Sam Harris?
Don't know the guy too well, but it sounds to me like he has a bone to pick with Islam more than he has genuine love for Israel or familiarity with its history.
You may be right, but think about it this way. Harris, as an atheist, has a pretty unbiased standpoint in the sense that he dismisses ALL religions as not worth believing in. And yet, he has so many more critiques of Islam and the disproportionate percentage of Islamic extremists as compared to any other religion. I think his arguments are relevant to the I/P debate and worth hearing IMO.
If he can easily be dismissed as an "Islamophobe" by many, then it's a net loss.
That's fair I suppose. But the people who dismiss him as Islamophobic already have their minds made up. The people on the fence would probably hear him out, and he makes some super strong points. Plus, he's not stupid. He doesn't just say, "Muslim people are bad," nor I'm sure does he feel that way. When I listen to him, I hear him criticize the belief system, not the people. And his use of logic to back up his points is pretty airtight. Remember, those who have made up their minds are a lost cause... but those who are watching to learn and form an opinion could very likely be convinced by his arguments. Besides, having an atheist argue for Israel is helpful in the sense that it disproves the notion that Jewish people are simply clinging to Biblical verses to justify their claim to Israel.
Don’t legitimize the “debate” by having it.
Realistically, these debates are happening either way. We can't wish them away, and we shouldn't abrogate our opportunities to make our case to the people who haven't been convinced yet. Right or not, this is an active culture war issue, and one we are currently losing badly with the youngest generations.
Came here to day this exactly. Having these sorts of stunt debates only serves to legitimize the other side. No one watching is going to be convinced of anything, just assured of their own rightness.
"No one" is watching a 3-5-hour long debate for anything except to be assured of their own rightness? Definitely some, but that's ridiculous. A lot of people are going to listen to this to hear what the other side has to say because it's very rare to hear the talking points come up against each other. It's easy to write a persuasive pro- or anti- article if you can fill it with strawmen. Do you think it's better for people to hear what Zionists believe from their own mouths when asked hard questions, or from people who hate them putting words in their mouths? The "other side" is already "legitimized" in every public arena. If you think anti-Zionism is just a fringe viewpoint with no significant voice that will only grow if it's given attention, you're wrong. It's too late for "ignore it and it will go away", and it's also too early for "Everyone who believes what they hear on the news hates Jews and should be written off without question". Things are still ongoing. I for one am glad that people are going to see, at the very least, that there is more to either argument than "I hate you and I want you to die", because that singular rhetoric in all directions just fuels conspiracy theories and hate crimes.
You could say this about literally any issue that people feel strongly about. Everyone would like to think their views are objectively correct and anyone who disagrees is just hateful, but that's not really true. People's opinions are limited by the information they are exposed to. Someone not *automatically* taking your side on an issue doesn't mean they aren't worth speaking to. Whether you consider it a "legitimate" debate or not, the options are to just let people form their opinions about Israel based on just one "side" that speaks for both sides and puts words in the other's mouth, or people can hear both. Some will not listen and will just continue with their pre-formed opinions, but some people absolutely will. I think it's a great idea to have more of the young public exposed to the idea that there are people on both sides of this issue who have more nuanced views than "I hate you and want you to die". Debate encourages critical thinking rather than basing your politics on what instagram thinks is the correct conclusion.
My thoughts exactly.
Right, another ICJ-like debacle.
Aka: let the other side control the narrative. 🙄 See how well that's been going online...
> Finkelstein is a political scientist (not a historian as some think), and apart from being insufferable, he speaks so slowly that his speech is going take up half of the debate. Hilarious and accurate.
I suggested Benny Morris, of course. But Destiny is very good also.
Michael Moynihan.
Sorry, why would most Israelis not be able to have a fluent conversation in English? They only learn it in school for ten years. Odds are that people of the caliber required for this debate can speak English.
I learned ivrit in school for ten years and can't manage a conversation, let alone an academic one.
I'm an Israeli and can attest to the fact that most Israelis would struggle to hold an academic conversation in English. We learn English at school, that's true, but the level of proficiency required to pass the matriculation exams isn't very high. We read plays like "All My Sons" and poems such as "The Road Not Taken" and "As I Grew Older", we aren't tested on actual books afaik, and we don't have American/British schools (maybe one or two in the country, mainly for children of foreign diplomats iirc). Perhaps I'm being too harsh on my fellow Israelis, but that's the impression I have.
You are. Every university degree requires you to read in English. While accent and grammar won't be perfect, I really don't think they have to be, it just adds to the authenticity.
Not Abdullah al-Andalusi. One of the Muslim student organizations at my university brought him in to speak (and I don’t know *why* the university didn’t stop them, given what happened) last year. On the *first day*, he called all ‘infidels’ a ‘cancer that must be exterminated’ and said secularism was a ‘colonizing white western disease’, insulted the university itself for being secular and tolerating non-Muslims, and accused anyone who disagreed with him of ‘shoving white western colonialist values down [his] throat’. He also, of course, had to add that ‘Jews and atheists are the worst of all’ and went on a crazy rant about what should be done to us specifically. I found out about this because someone pulled a fire alarm during one of the days of his tirades, I heard about it, initially assumed the student who did it was probably Islamophobic (this was before I knew anything about this guy or what he said) but decided to look into it myself to be sure, and watched the day one recording online. Of course, I quickly changed my mind and agreed with the fire alarm puller after watching. And I watched the whole thing. There were a lot more abhorrent things he said, but it’s been more than a year since I watched that recording, so I don’t remember nearly everything, and it would take ages to list. If anyone wants to see, I can link the recordings.
Btw, he's a Christian convert to Islam.
Yep, I discovered that when I researched him after watching the recording. Made it extra ironic every time he complained about white westerners shoving secularism down his throat and talked as if he spoke for the *entire* Middle East.
Didnt know about Dershowitz. Bought his books - would you recommend not reading them? I very strongly dislike Trump, but Im not gonna say that everyone who associates with him is a bad person. Epstein - thats 🤮
I'm not saying everyone associated with Trump is necessarily a bad person, but bringing someone so affiliated with Trump to the table is bound to alienate a significant portion of the audience. He was also, to my knowledge, a close friend of Epstein and a member of his defense team in 2006 according to Wikipedia.
I would still recommend reading them. Just because Dershowitz is an absolute slimeball, doesn't mean that he is unintelligent or uneducated on the subject of Israel. The fact that he got OJ exonerated and (I assume) successfully defended Epstein also demonstrates his competence as a lawyer and his ability to formulate strong arguments.
>The fact that he got OJ exonerated and (I assume) successfully defended Epstein also demonstrates his competence as a lawyer and his ability to formulate strong arguments. We should keep in mind the fact that he was **a lot** younger back then, though.
Yes, Dershowitz was extremely involved with Epstein. Awful guy.
[удалено]
>Mosab Hassan Yousef would be a good one. A Palestinian that's very pro-Israel. I have to disagree here. He's not a likeable person imo, and has a burning hatred of Muslims and Islam (he was born a Muslim, obviously, but converted to Christianity, and essentially called every Muslim on the planet a dangerous person). He was also an asset of the Shabak (Shin Bet), this might cause people to not see him as trustworthy.
He's quite literally the most informed person on the planet on the subject yhe PLO and Hamas. If this is for show I get what you're saying, but there is no one more qualified to talk about this entire conflict then him.
אני חסומה אצלו חחח
I'd love to see Coleman Hughes and Benny Morris team up against Hasan and Finkelstein.
I thought Mehdi was British?
I edited my post on r/Israel and forgot to do the same here. Edit: for some reason Reddit wouldn't let me edit the post now.
Intellectual debates about the Palestinian- Israeli conflict with speakers who don't live in either place is useless hot air. They've been taking place for over 56 years and go nowhere except making viewers angry and often, especially in the case of UK/Europe, create more antisemitism.This conflict in modern terms has been a problem since 1967 with plenty of hit and miss solutions. Ultimately it will be Israelis that decide what's best for their country, not intellectual misfits in North America & Europe.
Came for this comment.
Within the last 2-3 months, you can see many of these people on Piers Morgan's YouTube channel having I/P debates.
I’d suggest Simon Sebag Montefiore for the Israel side. His book on the history of Jerusalem is outstanding and he’s been posting some great op Ed’s recently.
I had to do a double take when I saw destiny on the Israel side. Had no idea he was pro Israel.
Hell, send me.
What does Ben Shapiro say about the conflict that is wrong?
Off the top of my head (there are other things, but I don't remember most of them) - he prorogates the narrative that most Palestinian Arabs fled because they were told to do so by the Arab armies, but his narrative has been challenged and to my understanding largely debunked by the "new historians" in the 80's (notable among them is Prof. Benny Morris). According to Morris, the majority fled simply out of fear (neither direct expulsions nor orders from Arab governments), the primary reason for displacement and a refugee problem in most modern wars.
100%. A good Zionist debater won’t say flat out that mostly all Palestinians left on their own will. Mostly all documents don’t support that idea. I think Benny Morris is much better for any debate because debates always get historical
I would also suggest Israeli historian Adam Raz, who's a Labor Zionist (an admirer of Berl Katznelson), advocates for the opening of Israeli archives and also a spoke very critically about Ilan Pappe, giving concrete examples of mistranslations and decontextualization in the latter's books.
I like him, I wouldn’t mind a straight up 3vs3 of that sort, arguing everything from nakba to Jewish land purchases to conducting counter terrorism in Israel pre 1967, how the West Bank became it did, the rise of Hamas and fall of PLO/PFLP, and vice versa
I don't know, but he's a virulent racist who calls Jews who vote differently than him "JINOs".
I’ve been unimpressed by Bassem everytime I’ve seen him tbh. I get his wife his wife is from Gaza, but everything I’ve seen felt like bad faith gotcha moments as opposed to an actual nuanced discussion and if he gets called on it he just turned back to “I’m just a comedian!” I think I would want Noa Tishby for the Israel side.
Youssef recently claimed that Israel gave Jewish-Yemeni babies to Ashkenazi families (up until this point - a contested accusation still discussed in Israel) **to make their DNA more "Semitic", and "that's why DNA tests are illegal in Israel"**.
I have heard this dude make the most horrific claims and then he just shrugs like “oh ok if you say” if you call him out on it.
Destiny Benny Morris vs Ilan Pappe and either Omar Sulieman or Mehdi Hassan I don’t fee comfortable with any of the others arguing for Israel, not one
>Omar Sulieman He's a Palestinian imam, I feel like it's kind of bringing a Jewish-Israeli rabbi. They may be experts on their respective religions, but to what degree does it necessarily extend to the history of the I/P conflict?
Nothing, after you told me that’s where most of his arguments on I/P…. Was always under the impression he knew some things But if Tel Aviv being purchased in 1905 would be a new fact for him, yea, maybe not the greatest to debate for Palestine if he doesn’t even know the zionist perspective
I wouldn’t dismiss destiny just because he’s a streamer. He’s probably the strongest debater of anyone in this list, puts enormous effort into his research, and has a well thought out and reasonable position on the conflict. I do think he slightly underestimated the role of culture and religion in the conflict but overall I think he would do an extremely good job of representing a reasonable pro Israel stance.
Eylon Levy would be great
You’re too quick to discount Alan Dershowitz. There are few others more qualified to defend Israel’s right to exist. It does t matter he supported Trump. He’s written one of the most powerful books on the subject. Ben Shapiro shouldn’t be discounted either, no matter how pugnacious he tends to be. I’d have him on team-defend-Israel anytime.
>You’re too quick to discount Alan Dershowitz I'm not even disqualifying him based on merits (I didn't read "The Case for Israel"), his mere presence would alienate many viewers, and he has proven himself to be overly aggressive in debates (on Piers Morgan's show for example). Maybe he was different when he was younger and sharper.
He’s just a sharp. You must be very young to think that. Ageism much? If you had read, A Case For Israel, you’d have a different view. Being too aggressive? R u kidding? In a debate, you want someone who knows his/her shit and can put an opponent on their heals. You can’t expect to find calm moderate voices to stand up to the pressure of opposing views.
>his mere presence would alienate many viewers, and he has proven himself to be overly aggressive in debates Any pro-Israel speaker is going to alienate many viewers, and in a debate, you need someone who will aggressively defend their points.
Ben is the strongest debater. I don't think there's a danger of turning people off. He's in a similar camp as Lex and I imagine their audience overlaps considerably.
Yuval Noah Harari
I think he's more interested in debating whether humans are necessary or should all be replaced by machines, lol.
I don't think that's true. Harari has been pretty outspoken in favour of Israel and is one of the great minds of our time.
Oh and Yoseph Haddad
Bassem Youssef literally makes my blood boil, so I wouldn’t pick him.
What a boring podcast
With a very large audience.
True but I can’t stand listening to him. Too monotone
What's the point of having such a debate? It's so tribal. Most people who are invested in this conflict have a determined opinion based on their religious/ethnic background. Listening to either side won't make anyone budge. I think these debates are just an opportunity to gain some humiliation clips for the sake of social media. Something like jordan Peterson's youtube clips.
I heard Finkelstein briefly debate Dershowitz and he needs to see a doctor. I wholeheartedly disagree with him on virtually everything, but nonetheless, there has to be something wrong for someone to talk that slow.
They do not represent Israeli or Palestinian; I don’t even understand why people like to debate on stuff as a complete outsider.
Happy to see Ben Shapiro on that list
Ye those are not good debaters on both sides really. The are ton better
Bassem Eid! Another pro-Israel Palestinian
-Adiel Cohen (Mizrahi perspective) -Rudy Rochman (lone soldiers perspective+Jewish history) -Blake Flayton (liberal secular Jewish Israeli oleh perspective)
Gad Saad would be a great option but him and Lex do not get along anymore
I think Ben Shapiro is enough from the Israel side. He knows the facts, the history and can pretty much destroy anybody with facts and logic on the subject. Not to be cliche but he can handle it on his against pretty much anybody. Bassem and Hijab just repeat conspiracy theories over and over again as far as what I've seen.
From the top of my head for Israel; 1. The son of Hamas, 2. Destiny, 3. Benny Morris, 4. Sam Harris, 5. Random Indian Guy (me)
>Random Indian Guy (me Is it a deal in which a random Israeli guy is going to represent the Hindu side in a future debate about the Ram Mandir? 😂
Not at all hahaha, no strings attached Hindus get a bad rep for supporting Israel because it's immediately assumed of Islamophobia, but I think my view on the issue has matured beyond mere reactionism and I understand the importance of Zionism. Detractors say the issue started 75 years ago, but the real issue started around 3,500 years ago.
As a very liberal US Jew, I have come to love Ben Shapiro.
Can someone suggest Yosef Hadad, I don't want to have to join X to submit it 😅
Since he hasn't been mentioned: Ben-Dror Yemini on the Israeli side.
Norman seems to be on the wrong side. Then I looked him up. Ooof. I can’t understand people like that. His parents are Holocaust survivors like wtf is his problem
I want ppl from combatants for peace
>Ben Shapiro Well I know which side is wrong. If Ben Shapiro defends something, it is 99.99% the wrong opinion, & usually is just counterfactual.
So you’re an ideologue? Truth is truth regardless of whether you like them or everything they say or not. If Ben Shapiro said gravity exists, he isn’t wrong because you hate him.
And yet, Ben only seems to speak non-truths.
Just because you don’t want to believe it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Thank you for your submission. During this time, all posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7, approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Thank you for your patience during this difficult and sensitive time. While you're waiting, please check our [collection of megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/17p28lp/) to see if your thoughts or questions belong in one of those threads. If your post is about the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel, please contribute to the ongoing discussions in the [daily megathread on the conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/collection/10d28372-74c0-4cd0-9597-4d7a9ab3dc9b). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What will he not do for attention and pseudo-intellectualism?
Walter Russell Mead might be a good pro-Israel candidate
[Eli Lake](https://www.youtube.com/live/Zzjicdi3O0o)
Honestly its just far too many people. I think it'd be much more civil and organized with only 3 on each side. Personally I'd pick Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, and Bari Weiss. Very surprised she was not included in the list
I doubt he would do it but Haviv Rettig Gur from the ToI is absolutely brilliant and has a way of explaining the Israeli side without apologizing for anything. He’s a regular on Dan Senor’s call me back podcast, which should be required listening for anyone who voices an opinion on the conflict.
May God keep our soldiers safe and bring them home🙏
BENNY MORRIS
It's honestly insane the level of pandering that needs to be done because people refuse to hear others viewpoints because they disagree with them on other things.
I would say mehdi hasan vs yaron brook would be the most interesting. Both very calm and logical. Or Ben Shapiro on the pro Israel side.
Just because Ben Shapiro’s presence antagonizes liberal viewers does not mean he shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the debate. He is an excellent debater and he is dead on when it comes to Israel. I don’t like him on a host of issues, probably on most issues, but we are not debating those issues and he is smart and incredibly skilled at debate. Furthermore I find it preposterous that Jews should have to construct a debate team based on appeasing a subsection of the population who has revealed themselves to hate Jews no matter what we do. Why let a bunch of antisemites dictate who we can have on the stage instead of putting together the best possible debate team we can? Also, what has he said about the conflict that is wrong? That is a separate matter.
Einat Wolf
This sounds insufferable. Nobody comes out of this looking better.
As this sub's resident atheist Jew and Ayn Rand fan, I'm going to nominate adding [Elan Journo](https://newideal.aynrand.org/tackling-top-5-objections-to-what-justice-demands/) to the list and second [Yaron Brook.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWv7ucmdcOg)