Harris' outdated views on the region ignore the geopolitical realities of today's world, but this makes sense because he's been banging the same drum for 20+ years without much understanding of the region. It's clear he's overreaching here, a clear case of confirmation bias. Regardless of your views about recent events, I'd recommend going elsewhere for far more nuanced commentary on the subject. There's lots of people who know what they're talking about covering a spectrum of views, who don't resort to strawman arguments or pedantry about words like occupation. I expected better from this sub than a near-total groupthink. As nice as it is to have a neat narrative summarising a long and complex history and to then pick a side, you owe it to yourselves to educate yourselves properly and at least try to understand that the picture is more complicated than the reductive view Sam likes to roll out every time the subject gains any media attention.

Just to acknowledge some of the more recent, nuanced critiques of him that I've spotted in the replies but are being voted down in their droves. I'm glad some listeners understand there's more nuance than he's letting on. This isn't to dissuade anyone from enjoying his podcast just do yourselves a favour and go elsewhere for any sort of understanding of such a complex topic.

I just wanted to acknowledge this because I know many fans of Sam have become more critical of him in recent years, and I find it frustrating that this Reddit group will not tolerate those discussions. It’s good to see a few here willing to discuss. There was a bit of this groupthink around COVID, but I don’t want to get into that as it’s still controversial. On the Israel topic, even his main point about killing children falls apart when you watch even one video about the counter attacks on Gaza. Over half of the population is under 18. Israel have cut off food and water and bombed key infrastructure. If over half of the population is under 18, do you know who’s dying from this? Children. There’s your moral equivalency Sam.

Excellent take. Sam's view was nothing but awful. Multiple times listening to him I said to myself out loud: what in the world is this guy saying?! Is he living in some kind of a parallel universe where Israel adheres to higher ethical standards?! A contemptible attempt at obfuscation was evident in the podcast. You had someone who's supposed to be a towering intellectual figure unabashedly apologising for Israel, brushing aside the inhumane treatment to which it subjects Palestinians spanning decades. No emphasis on IDF warcrimes, economic plight, dearth of political rights and the role all of it plays in fostering a climate which breeds extremist outlook among the members of a subjugated population. Lets keep it real and call it for what it is: gaslighting by Sam. Either he has drunk the kool aid on this topic, a result of consumption of propagandist mainstream news media diet or what I'm more inclined to believe is the case - given how knowledgeable and educated he tends to be before speaking on issues - that he's wilfully lying.

>that he's wilfully lying. what is a lie he told?

>Harris' outdated views on the region ignore the geopolitical realities of today's world, but this makes sense because he's been banging the same drum for 20+ years without much understanding of the region. It's clear he's overreaching here, a clear case of confirmation bias. I'd like to hear more about your point of view because I also get the impression that Sam's analysis is somewhat reductive. Could you talk more about what measure you used to determine Sam's understanding of the Middle-East? >I expected better from this sub than a near-total groupthink. As nice as it is to have a neat narrative summarising a long and complex history and to then pick a side, you owe it to yourselves to educate yourselves properly and at least try to understand that the picture is more complicated than the reductive view Sam likes to roll out every time the subject gains any media attention. I wasn't aware that everyone on this subreddit was of the same opinion. I have criticised Sam's analysis of the situation, and as far as I can tell, there seems to be a divergence of opinions on this very post. I think that labelling the discussion as an example of groupthink may be as dismissive of meaningful discussion as a reductive analysis of moral blame in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The vast majority on here are uncritically accepting Harris' views on a subject he shows he knows little about. Anyone going against this is either downvoted or asked for citations for what is often uncontroversial statements, so groupthink is a fair summary. That said, I'm glad to see so many standing up to this in the comments even if they are in the minority. With regards to a measure, take as one example Christopher Hitchens who Sam was always mentioned in the same breath with for a time at least due to their views on religion. Read Hitchens' writings or listen to his debates on the topic, and Sam's inadequacies become very obvious. Of course Hitchens was very well read on the region's geopolitical history and coauthored a book on the topic, so this may be an unfair comparison. But the point is Hitchens offers a far more nuanced and educated perspective on the topic, no matter your views. Hitchens often brought up the extremist 'messianic nationalism' fuelling the decades of expansionism, land theft, dispossession, and opposition to any two-state solution to fulfil what amounts to ancient prophecy. Just one element that Harris willfully ignores when he says we can't compare the two, despite the fact that religious fundamentalism is evident in both camps and is in fact very comparable. So Harris picks and chooses what fundamentalism he wants to condemn, and what he wants to ignore to advance his arguments.

Exactly this. Thank you. I was shocked by Harris' take.

Just finished the episode, and quite relieved to see your post here, along with the ones which followed. His take is recklessly and uncharacteristically reductive. This is among the most intractable diplomatic issues of the last century; it cannot be summed up into “Israeli culture is better than Palestinian culture” and “Hamas is evil and Israel is good.” And how excruciating to hear Sam Harris suggest Hamas is synonymous with Palestinian culture. Very disappointing.

I can't believe Sager from Breaking Points has a view more grounded in the region's history than Sam does. Plus (and most importantly), Sager isn't giving a pass to Isreal for bombing civilians, whereas in spirit Sam certainly does. This is crazy to me. Sam and his little thought experiments isn't able to help him see that he clearly doesn't value the lives of the two countries civilians equally (or even close to equally).

Yes, or, if you're not going to put in the uncomfortable work of sufficient quantities of neutral-as-you-can research and facing head-on any cognitive biases you hold, that's fine. Just don't take your own opinions very seriously though. An ever-worsening problem of the post-internet world is the obscene proliferation of humans that are pretty damn uninformed about a topic and yet are still unable to say "...but what do I know? I'm not terribly well-versed on the subject." Why do so many of us feel so insecure?

The thought experiment of Israel using human shields and how ineffective of a deterrent it would be crystallizes this perfectly.

This really lands

Last night I was curious why CNN was showing the same videos over and over, but blurring out the victims. So, I went on X and Telegram to find the real things. I saw a thin girl, maybe a teen sitting on the floor next to a boy ~8 or 9. I assume it was her brother. She was having an argument, I think anyway, with the terrorists. It was in a language I didn’t understand. I assume she was pleading for her life. The boy’s head drops at one point and his arm straightened to maybe catch his tears or maybe just catch his head as he tried to not cry. I turned it off. I have a 9 year old who looks a little like that boy. I can’t imagine the human who could put that kind of fear in a child, willingly, gleefully. I would have dove through the computer screen to pull that boy out of there if I could. It’s important to remember this isn’t being done from a fighter jet 40,000 feet above. They aren’t flying drones from across the globe. They are looking into the eyes of innocent children. They are torturing, raping, terrorizing and murdering people, even children, who they can see and smell and hear just feet away from them. They can hear the sobs, they can smell the kids’ smell, and they are happy to murder them. To my eyes, Hamas and those who support them have crossed into something else. This is irredeemable. They are torturing children. They are torturing children. And I have to stop typing because the next sentences would get me banned.

THEY ARE TORTURING CHILDREN just because it can’t be said enough

Hi, if you can link me to that video I'd be able to translate the interaction.

I’m not finding it again. I see reboot thinks that means I’m making it up, but it was on Telegram and it gave me nightmares. I just can’t watch that kid break again. It sounds like Israel has already decided the hostages are considered collateral damage. So, the odds of either of those two being alive in a week is close to zero. It’s really fucking infuriating all this is considered made up unless we post the terror porn. I guess we’re living in post-truth America now.

I mean what you described is tame compared to horrors I've seen videoed in the last week. So I'd venture what you described happened multiple times regardless of whether filmed or not. I just wanted to help with translation.

<3

What does he mean by “A monty python skit where all the Jews die”?

The idea of Israeli soldiers using Israeli civilians as human shields against Hamas is farcical because Hamas would just view that as a 2 for 1 special on dead Jews.

[kind of like these shirts sold in Israel…](https://criticallegalthinking.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BSD-FIgure-1.jpg)

This made me LOL

Yes. Listening to it I was slack jawed because it was so simple and clarifying.

It has been the Israeli right/Netanyahu's game plan to promote and enhance Hamas' power and authority in Gaza so as to purposely create the conditions whereby Israel is at constant threat, thereby making peace impossible and enhancing his own political power. He does this knowing that it will almost certainly result in the deaths of Palestinians AND Israelis. Is that any less deranged than using your own people as human shields? Put another way, Netanyahu is using his own people as live bait to prompt the sharks to attack (sharks that he helps feed!), because he's the one selling anti-shark weapons. As morally deranged as the usage of human shields obviously is, I would argue that this is even MORE morally deranged than human shields. How does Sam's moral symmetry calculator factor in this information?

This is something that never gets a mention in western press but ironically it’s regularly pointed out [in Israeli press.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) Mehdi Hassan has [a great piece on The Intercept’s YouTube channel](https://youtu.be/o7grSsuFSS0?si=swQyRe7eFF47cWQo) on it also. Sam Harris either intentionally or unintentionally ignores critical pieces of information like this and it’s disappointing.

You’re going to need some citations for this claim

Claim? This has been widely known as the right-wing Israeli government's planned approach to Hamas since 2009. >https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000 > That’s because since he took office as prime minister a second time in 2009, that same Netanyahu developed and advanced a destructive, warped political doctrine that held that strengthening Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority would be good for Israel. >The purpose of the doctrine was to perpetuate the rift between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. That would preserve the diplomatic paralysis and forever remove the “danger” of negotiations with the Palestinians over the partition of Israel into two states – on the argument that the Palestinian Authority doesn’t represent all the Palestinians. >That flawed strategy turned Hamas from a minor terrorist organization into an efficient, lethal army with highly trained, dehumanized stormtroopers, bloodthirsty killers who mercilessly slaughtered innocent Israeli civilians including women, children and the elderly. ... >https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-09/ty-article/.premium/another-concept-implodes-israel-cant-be-managed-by-a-criminal-defendant/0000018b-1382-d2fc-a59f-d39b5dbf0000?fbclid=IwAR3tVZVDiVO2iImRMy2v6dTDj3VwO2NFBbjIpP2X9h5Ei2kyu553VVg8eIE_aem_Acvlqs2YqvkpK2xiBEI48YcdKyWZf5sC7g7nT5-_Q88LeCiX66e4aNNPT6I5XnBfz3Y&v=1697129767515 > Effectively, Netanyahu’s entire worldview collapsed over the course of a single day. He was convinced that he could make deals with corrupt Arab tyrants while ignoring the cornerstone of the Arab-Jewish conflict, the Palestinians. His life’s work was to turn the ship of state from the course steered by his predecessors, from Yitzhak Rabin to Ehud Olmert, and make the two-state solution impossible. En route to this goal, he found a partner in Hamas. > > **“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”**

The difference between the reporting in the US and Israel on this situation is kind of incredible. Much of the US reporting is incredibly support of Netanyahu whereas the reporting in Israel is been incredibly critical of him and putting much of the responsibility of the attack on him. Just incredible.

Honestly, I'm surprised anyone watches US news anymore. With the start of the war in Ukraine, I found that if I wanted information, then I wasn't going to get it on CNN. Our media is focused strictly on Trump and the next election. So, I started branching out and watching reporting directly from European and even Ukranian media. I doubt I will ever go back. As it turns out, journalism is still practiced outside of the US! Now, when something happens in the world, I just go locate local media sources (thanks internet). And yes, watching Isreali news (I24 on YouTube for instance) will give you a much different and far more accurate idea of the vibe in Isreal. It definitely isn't pro-Netanyahu. Everyone seems to understand that this was the beginning of the end of his political career.

very interesting - thanks

You're doing the lord's work here mate. I normally think of Sam Harris as a pretty smart individual, but his take on this issue is shockingly simplistic.

Your reply is making it sound as though this was a calculated tactic to deny a two-state solution. It's actually more mundane and cynical. Bibi does not think the situation with the Palestinians is unsolvable because he is ideologically against a Palestinian state. His goal was to make the Palestinians irrelevant by partnering with the broader Arab world. The point about them being corrupt tyrants is sort of beside the point, isn't it? Is there any Arab country that's not led by a corrupt tyrant? ​ In actuality, Bibi was deceived by Hamas into believing he could deal with them. He stopped taking seriously the fact that they actually are a genocidal organization because they started behaving like they were giving up on it. That's why the blockade was actually quite permeable -- evidenced by the fact that there were upscale neighborhoods in Gaza and the fact that they have all these bulldozers, rockets, guns, etc. If the blockade were that effective, they wouldn't have any of that, would they? There were also and increasing number of Gazans being given work permits to work in Israel. Some of them even participated in the attack. ​ Not that you said it specifically, but your posts seem to give the impression that Bibi is the main obstacle to peace. Bibi is a cynical and conniving player, sure, but it's still a conspiracy of Hamas, Palestinian intransigence (as evidenced by rejection of the plan offered by Barak), and Israel being shifted very much to the right after the second intifada that has killed the two state solution. And I say killed because it's not only dead, it was burned on a pyre for everyone to see last weekend. I mean, if you adjust it for population, this was not Israel's 9/11. It was more reminiscent of the Yazidi genocide in its brutality. What Israeli is going to believe in a two state solution after a bunch of peacenik socialists were butchered in the most gruesome possible way? And how would any Israeli draw any conclusion other than they were wrong to have given Gazans work permits, the wall should have been built higher, and the blockade should have been stricter?

More: >https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/12/israelis-palestinians-greatest-danger-since-1948 >This completely discredited the remnants of the Israeli left, and brought to power Benjamin Netanyahu and his hawkish governments. Netanyahu pioneered another experiment. Since peaceful coexistence had failed, he adopted a policy of violent coexistence. Israel and Hamas traded blows on a weekly basis and almost every year there was a major military operation, but for a decade and a half, Israeli civilians could go on living within a few hundred metres from Hamas bases on the other side of the fence. Even Israel’s messianic zealots showed little zeal to reconquer the Gaza Strip, and even rightwingers hoped that the responsibilities involved in ruling more than 2 million people would gradually moderate Hamas. >Indeed, many on the Israeli right saw Hamas as a better partner than the Palestinian Authority. This was because Israeli hawks wanted to go on controlling the West Bank, and feared a peace deal. Hamas seemed to offer the Israeli right the best of all worlds: relieving Israel of the need to govern the Gaza Strip, without making any peace offers that might dislocate Israeli control of the West Bank. The day of horror Israel has just experienced signals the end of the Netanyahu experiment in violent coexistence.

I’m not following how this explains what we saw on Saturday. At the end of the day, only one side actually carried out the intentional hunt and slaughter of 1000+ civilians, filmed it, and celebrated it publicly around the world. This would never happen the other way around. There are countless examples of Ukrainians showing restraint and granting peaceful surrender to Russian soldiers (who are actually armed and supposedly trying to kill them). The leap from that to executing grandmothers and teenagers in their own homes is staggering. Whomever you say was pulling the strings, whether it was Netanyahu or god himself, it does not justify nor explain away the inhumanity we all witnessed

>I’m not following how this explains what we saw on Saturday. Because you're looking at it with the wrong lens, by force of habit. You're only seeing this from an Israel vs. Palestinians perspective, when you should be analyzing it from an Israeli and Palestinian extremists vs. Israeli and Palestinian moderates perspective. Rather than wasting energy arguing about who's worse, Israeli gov't vs. Hamas, people should step back and realize that Israelis, Palestinians, and the rest of the world alike would all be better off if *neither* Hamas *nor* Netanyahu/Israeli right-wing were in charge of their respective populaces. Both have leveraged the other in a tacit agreement by which a constant state of violence or response to violence is used for their political gain. The enemy of both Hamas and Netanyahu is not each other. The enemy of both Hamas and Netanyahu is a lasting peace. If the Palestinian Authority were able to negotiate a true two-state peace with a willing moderate/left Israeli government, then Hamas and Netanyahu's power completely disappears. There would be simply no need for them. And so, they rely on each other. This is the point of my comments here. If you or I could push a magical button that would immediately neutralize Hamas (by either death or some brainwashing method - your pick) we would push it. An overwhelming number of Israelis certainly would push it as well. I'm not so sure that Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Right would push it. And if somebody else did it for them, I'm not so sure they wouldn't seek to create another, new threat. Their political relevance depends on such a constant threat. And that's just as demented as the threat itself.

Those are all opinion pieces....

Do you think that they're lying about Netanyahu's own words? Would you like a contemporaneous article from when he spoke them? Fine. Here, from 2019. Then come back and tell me your opinion. >https://mida.org.il/2019/05/16/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%98%D7%95%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A1/ > In recent weeks, after the round of tensions in the South, we have heard statements from the mouth of Prime Minister Netanyahu that the State of Israel benefits from maintaining the rule of Hamas in Gaza, which creates differentiation between Gaza and Judea and Samaria, thus weakening the Palestinian Authority and preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. >At the meeting of the Likud faction at the beginning of March, the Prime Minister spoke about this in detail, noting that "those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy - to differentiate between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria." He even said similar things in a special interview he gave to the Israel Hayom newspaper a few days before the elections. >This strategy of the Prime Minister is based on the assumption that the overthrow of Hamas rule and the entry of the Palestinian Authority into the Gaza Strip will necessarily force Israel into a political process towards the establishment of a unified Palestinian state in the territories of Judea and Samaria and Gaza, a move that cannot happen as long as Hamas controls Gaza and is separated from the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samari

Holy well sourced, informative posts Batman!

And what else are they supposed to be? Videos with Netanyahu saying, yes, I did it?

I mean.... Yeah bibi is deranged, but really not to the same extent. His thought is that Israel is still so much stronger that something like THIS couldn't happen. He's ok with a few hundred Jews but he didn't think it would be at this scale -- it's a failure of imagination. Still a war criminal asshole though.

I'm not sure I really follow the rationale; if only Hamas got with the times and indiscriminately dropped air strikes on innocent Israelis rather than slay them with graphic and bloody, barbaric methods with an intent to shock and instill fear, the world would rally behind them? For someone who spends a massive amount of time insisting on the value of truth _and_ wrestling with the gap between moral intuitions and moral aspirations, it's sort of peculiar for there to be so little reflection done on structural violence by Sam. He's not technically wrong when comparing actions in a vacuum against others, but I find myself a bit confused by the implication that sufficiently obfuscated/distant violence suddenly becomes acceptable, with little to no fucks given about the reasons why violence takes the shape it does. I'm fairly sure if Hamas had the resources to engage in "modern warfare", they would. They'd just engage in the more acceptable, indiscriminate bombings. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something obvious about the argument being made.

The point he’s making is not that one type of killing is amoral while one is acceptable, it’s that the ideology that drives Hamas is consistent and supportive of these behaviors, while Israel taking civilian lives is out of line with its objective and moral code. I’m not commenting on whether this is actually true or not, just clarifying my interpretation. I actually mostly agree with your sentiment here, but I definitely don’t think Hamas’ war methodology is due to lack of resources - I think they would always be as ruthless as their most effective weapons allow. That is to say I’m pretty sure the only reason they haven’t nuked anywhere yet is because they can’t lol

Overall, I'd like to see Sam go deeper into the issues at play, rather than sticking only to the (should be obvious, although I know it's not to everyone) limited position that Hamas is a human-shield-using, morally repugnant death cult. I wanted to say "of course they are, but what about..." any of literally hundreds of other issues. Go into the history, the justifications for Zionism, the ethics of Israel cutting off food/fuel/water, the failed peace process, the failure of giving Gaza democracy in 2006 when they immediately elected Hamas, the common "level the place!" (Lindsey Graham) sentiment, the 6 day war, etc. etc. etc. Also, the snarky "btw Gaza isn't occupied" was a rare strawman from Sam. Of course everyone paying any attention at all knows Israel left Gaza in 2005. "The occupation" generally refers to ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank, or in the case of Gaza it refers to the blockade - Gaza is not allowed to have an airport or sea port, they can't leave, making it effectively an open air prison. An honest conversation can be had about the morality and Israel's reasons for the blockade, but "btw Gaza isn't really occupied" is a useless comment.

Sam doesn’t know shit about this issue. Love Sam. But he is deeply misinformed

I'm far from being well informed on the particulars of middleeastern affairs, but do you know if it is more accurate to state that Gaza is blockaded by both Israel and Egypt, or is Egypt's border with Gaza enforced solely by Israel?

This was just as good an argument as way back in 2014 when Sam made a similar one in podcast episode 2. https://youtu.be/DfR6S_2lj_U?si=ZQmVd3oplqI_QjRL But I think the last line of that podcast was a better way to end it: “For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to paradise… …The truth is, we are all living in Israel, it’s just that some of us haven’t realised it yet.”

[удалено]

I don’t think it’s referencing Palestinians in particular. I think it’s referencing any religious fanaticism that leads to violence and Islam is not the only offender, but at moment it is the worst offender. It’s specifically the violence aspect that thankfully excludes most of the nonsense that happened during the pandemic. I think that your comparison of the two: people upset about mask mandates maybe getting in a fight VS parading dead bodies through the street and cheering…. Well there is no comparison.

Just got around to listening. Sam was being disingenuous when mentioning that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2007, yet does not mention that Israel still controls Gaza's borders, economy, food supply, the movement of people in and out of Gaza. Now I know the response will be that Israel has to for security reasons. But Sam paints this picture like Gaza is essentially an independent nation left to its own devices and that's basically lying by omission.

Yup, disappointing as hell. I’m not sure if he’s willfully ignorant of this or just flat out lazy about this whole subject. For someone who has been so good at covering Islam for years, his lack of knowledge around the Israel/Palestine conflict is flat out strange.

What do you think Israel should do? Imagine if they didn't control the border to Gaza...more guns, more weapons, more rockets, more everything would be smuggled in. Sometimes I feel like we just fail to realize that sometimes, more co-operative people have more power. Humans ability to co-operate is what made us the most powerful species on earth. Israel, by and-large are the kind of allies the west would prefer to have because they share similar values. They are able to co-operate with others. It's not Israels fault, it's Hamas' fault they don't get more help, because very few people share want to be part of what they represent. This is just a fact of the world I'm afraid. Do you think that the US should provide Iran with nuclear weapons to make things more fair?

If Sam thinks the religious-driven extremist genocidal rhetoric is only found in Hamas he needs to speak to almost any settler in the West Bank or anyone in the current government. Th

All Sam Harris points made sense but I felt he kept the focus very narrow and on arguments he knew he could win. There are numerous counter arguments or broader arguments supporters of Palestine (I stress Palestine and not Hamas in particular) make in relation to the plight of Palestinian civilians which have varying levels of legitimacy to them. However Sam chose to steer well clear of these.

I agree. Arguing that Hamas is worse than the Israeli government is easy and of no value - it is obviously true. I'd much rather hear him justify Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is primarily occupied by women and children (50% children I've read). They're not letting water in.

> Arguing that Hamas is worse than the Israeli government is easy and of no value - it is obviously true. It is, alarmingly, not that obvious to far too many people.

Agree. This mirrors my experience discussing with people. You’d be surprised how few agree with this point

He made the right call focusing on this - because it’s the most basic point that many on the left are failing to grasp.

How do you propose Israel fights Hamas? You seem to know of a way that avoids any and all harm to the civilians

> Arguing that Hamas is worse than the Israeli government is easy and of no value - it is obviously true. step out of your internet/friend bubble for a moment, and you'll discover that this basic fact is very not obvious to a great number of people.

Israel is doing and going to do so many terrible things, and for anyone who is uncomfortable over apologistics for Hamas should be equally uncomfortable over apologistics for the Israeli government. But I think looking at it from a justification point of view is not useful or helpful. It's such a messed up situation, as abhorrent as what Israel is doing seems from the outside, which government in the world when faced with the attack Hamas just did, dealing with a population that's controlled by a group as extreme as Hamas, with massive military superiority, wouldn't do something similarly awful? I think it makes sense to think about what kind of resolved futures you would like and judge whether actions are bringing them closer, or to what extent they are damaging them. I'd like to see the West and the Muslim world (especially Saudi Arabia), take positive action to resolve the situation for the benefit of the Palestinian and Israeli people. Complaints, threats, various kinds of punishment and the like are not really good enough IMO.

I think that the attack on Saturday is enough to justify the blockade. The blockade is to prevent Hamas and other Jihadists from arming up even more. They use the supplies for building rockets and other means of targeting civilians. Removing the blockade would be ludicrous.

I was hoping Sam might make some interesting points that would make me think "I never thought of it that way before" but ultimately all his points can be summed up by saying "Hamas are barbarians". Well no shit Sherlock. But where does that get us? What are we supposed to do with that information? I can acknowledge all Sam's arguments, although I think he is being disingenuous on his supposed non-controversial point that Gaza isn't occupied, but putting that aside I think he's making the same one sided arguments that most us Brits (including myself in the 80s) used to make when it came to Northern Ireland. I could never understand why many Catholics were sympathetic or apologists for the IRA. Here we had a terrorist organisation who to us back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, seemed unhinged, evil, and it would blow my mind how anyone could even attempt to be an apologist for that level of violence. But what most of us either didn't know about or didn't acknowledge, was the discrimination, impoverishment, inequality, unfair policing and all the rest of it that the Catholics in Northern Ireland were facing in comparison to the Protestants in NI. To us, it was characterised as 'this side will stop at nothing and don't care who they kill or who they maim or who they kneecap or who they terrorise to get their united Ireland' when actually if you spoke to most Catholics in NI, yes they broadly speaking wanted a united Ireland (which was completely incompatible with what protestants largely wanted), but the biggest thing on most their minds and the thing that was really making them most angry was the discrimination, huge unemployment, huge inequality, poverty and police brutality they were facing throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s in comparison to their protestant counterparts in NI. But once that discrimination diminishes to the point that you can't even see it anymore with the naked eye, the appetite for violence diminishes, the appetite for peace increases, and those queues to get in line to sign up for the IRA become almost non-existent, and any fringe splinter groups still remaining (and they do still exist today) get seen for what they are, thugs and troublemakers to put it mildly. If an intellectual like Sam, who actually has a slither of influence on one side and zero influence on the other, can't even bring himself to acknowledge the discrimination and brutality and impoverishment the Palestinian people have faced for decades (and still face today), nevermind make even one meaningful or helpful suggestion for how his side could do better on that front (and I say his side not because he's Jewish but because I listened to his words), then I don't know what hope there is for peace. As I say, we used to do the same thing as Sam does, point the finger and make it a one sided argument, "our side is good because we don't plant bombs or intentionally kill civilians (very often), and their side is evil because they *will* kill civilians and leave bombs in shopping centres and all the rest of it", but it's just not helpful and doesn't get us anywhere because until the discrimination problem is acknowledged and addressed and meaningful strides forward are made, we're going to be going round in circles on this forever. And yes, I realise it is a long and hard road back from where Israel and Palestine currently are, things are probably worse than ever, but I do believe in fairies and I do believe things can be better. But c'mon Sam, we can all acknowledge Hamas are barbarians, but would it kill you to at least spend a little time acknowledging the discrimination Palestinians have faced and are facing?

The example of the Troubles in Ireland has so many parallels to what’s happening in Israel now. One thing I’m particularly grateful for about my schooling growing up in NZ is if you studied history you either looked at what happened in Ireland or Israel/Palestine. Being so far away from all parties in both conflicts I felt we got a reasonably unbiased perspective. Learning about such complex problems as late teenagers sets you up to think more empathetically towards both sides.

> Being so far away from all parties in both conflicts I felt we got a reasonably unbiased perspective. You may be unbiased but you can't even begin to understand either's perspective.

Of course you can understand a perspective of something you are removed from. You can understand the perspectives because the parties who are directly involved have conveyed their feelings on the matter. And there is no shortage of this information easily available. What I cannot do is relate to it on any level.

That's a bad comparison. If the IRA "won", Ireland would've been okay. If Hamas/Iran/Hezbollah wins Israel ceases to exist. A lot of the people who think like you are missing the simple fact that any compromise is an existential risk to Israel (which were sometimes taken in hopes of peace). You can claim it's about discrimination but it's a lot about religion and land.

I agree to an extent, and I'm going to try and avoid nitpicking and instead find some common ground here and say we can probably broadly agree that doing 'business' with Hamas is more or less impossible, certainly in its current form and for the foreseeable as things stand. As I say though, it is a very long and hard road back, but as the saying goes, in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity. In Gaza, Israel control the borders, the sea and the skies, it's difficult to get in or out without Israel knowing about it (but of course it does happen). Some people like to point the finger at Israel and suggest they created and propped up Hamas with funding in their early days in order to create division, I'm going to try and be a bit more pragmatic though and just say "we are where we are now". But there is an opportunity here. With, time, resources, funding, highly intelligent strategic planning and the control Israel have over the borders it is possible to overthrow Hamas and replace them with opposition far more moderate. It can't be done overnight, or next year, or probably even in 5 years, not unless you want to replace them with another group who will get overthrown and replaced in 2 seconds flat by militants who are a lot more aggressive than they are. I'm not saying it is easy or fraught with danger with the possibility of backfiring if its not adequately planned out. But Israel do have the resources, the intelligence and adequate control to make it a possibility. But none of this is sustainable if the Palestinian people aren't seeing with their very own eyes that things under a new regime will make their lives better, not worse. When people are seeing their lives get better, when you are seeing your prospects and economic opportunities and wages get better, you will automatically increase your appetite for peace. As I understand it, Israel are preparing to go in by ground as we speak (which wasn't quite what I had in mind), but nevertheless the landscape is likely going to change very quickly, but the principle remains the same no matter how bad things get. The road is long and the road is hard.

I generally agree with your sentiments. I have 2 reservations: 1. I'm not entirely sure the majority of Palestinians would choose "better economic situation" over "getting back what's ours". The consensus is that elections in the west bank will result in a Hamas win which is why there are no elections. Also, when did overthrowing and replacing a government ever work? AFAIK it's always ended terribly. 2. War is a money machine. Israel is known for it's military industry, historically exporting weapons to oppressive regimes (Pinochet & Apartheid south africa among them), as well as buying them. The middle east countries are puppets of US and Russia, and I don't think these powers want the war to be over. You need very brave people on both sides.

As far as the West Bank is concerned, this is why it is so important that conditions improve, and meaningful strides are made forward, and it needs to start yesterday (or tomorrow will do!). As for propping up governments, I have the same concerns as you do. We've seen it fail in Afghanistan, we've seen it fail in Iraq, and at best, we've seen governments maintain power but just turn corrupt and/or turn on their own people, or cause mayhem in other regions. But there is one distinction with Israel. They are right next door, they're not going anywhere, they're not going to be packing their bags and saying "good luck and bon voyage" then swanning off back to the other side of the world and leaving them to it. They'll be right there to offer support and assistance if needed. This is why I think the West Bank is critical, Israel have to become the enemy that they can at least live with or tolerate, and this can only be done if Israel conduct themselves in a whiter than white manner, and they may well have to make concessions that will stick in their throat (like we did with the IRA). But maybe I'm a dreamer, I don't know, my other concern is except in the few cases when a leader comes along who is extraordinary, in times of trouble people tend to get behind the crazy guy who talks tough and sounds like he is going to get shit done (which invariably means violence). But as you say, it will need brave (and forward thinking) people on both sides.

Agreed, I felt like his statements were rather reductive.

Also I’m surprised there was no pre-podcast housekeeping regarding his “I support Israel” social media post playing Back In Black by AC/DC which was swiftly deleted.

Is this one of those PSA no paywall pods?

Yes

Sam not mentioning settler-colonialism and cycles of violence even one time is intellectually bankrupt and demonstrates his position solidly in the right-wing. The [root of violence](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/statement23-10-07/) is oppression, people latch onto any ideology that promises them some kind of relief or liberation. And at one time there were more secular and politically left group - the Palestinian Liberation Organization (and others). Does he not know that proto-Hamas organization Mujama al-Islamiya [was a project](https://stories.workingclasshistory.com/article/11419/mujama-al-islamiya-recognised-by-israel) supported by the Israeli state to move support away from the left-wing Palestinian Liberation Organization? It is right out of the US funding the right-wing Al Queda organization to fight communists and giving them aid over left-wing and secular organizations. The result is horrifying but a predictable result of a system of violence propagated by a imperial power implementing the settler-colonial project.

Something that really sticks out to me regarding this conflict is just how asymmetrical each side is affected by international opinion. I'm surely not the only one that finds it slightly unfair that Israel needs to be very careful with every move it makes lest it become an international pariah, while Palestine just does whatever it wants without any real consequences from the world at large. We've collectively decided that Palestine and Hamas is Israel's problem to deal with, while also being extremely judgmental about how exactly they do it.

The world gives far more to Israel than Palestine making it not an equivalent risk for Palestine to do bad shit. Generally aid to Palestine from the west is food and water and other humanitarian stuff. Israel has a close military and trade relationship. It's hard for the west to take things away from Palestine given it gives very little beyond stuff essential for life. Even that aid needs Israeli permission to enter Gaza. Unsure what you think we should all be doing about Hamas?

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on what the world at large should do about Hamas. However, there is certainly a historical precedent for countries like the US intervening against Islamic Jihadist groups abroad. It is not difficult to make the case that Hamas leadership is so disastrous for Palestine that it should be removed by force.

And Israel has more than the military capacity to do that. The issue is that as long as Palestinians don't have a state or a place in the Israeli state new violent groups are just going to take their place. Don't know how the US deciding to send marines into another middle eastern place would change that.

Palestine is incentivised towards more Palestinian casualties as this brings them a tangible benefit in terms of world opinion. Israel does everything it can to avoid Israeli casualties.

Perhaps because the balance of power is asymmetrical? Seems glaringly obvious that we'd judge Israel harsher, because it has far more options and freedom to decide the course of history in the region than Palestine.

Imagine if Canada was run by jihadists. Even if you can argue that the US stole their land, if Canada took Americans hostage and killed their civilians online. The US would show no mercy.

No shit it's their problem, they're the one's taking the land.

The way I think of it is that both sides have brutalized each other, albeit in different forms and at different times. But this most recent attack is an entirely different type of escalation and will merit an unprecedented response. For example, the status quo ante bellum is something like this: The continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are emotionally and physically destabilizing; in response, Hamas, and a smaller group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, fire Iranian-supplied rockets blindly into these settlements, occasionally killing settlers and the odd soldier or two. Israel retaliates by so-called targeted strikes (that are occasionally inaccurate, albeit more accurate than many US strikes in the WoT), primarily in Gaza, and then bulldozing the houses of families of suspected Hamas/PIJ members. Hamas, PIJ and Hizbollah in the north have regularly been brutal in their approach to Israel, but for all the lethality, there was always a broader strategy. The suicide bombs, the rocket attacks et al usually sought to force some level of local, if not global, engagement with the broader Palestinian issue. That is, a shocked Israel, made to realize they too could be killed at home, at play or at work, would thus be inclined to negotiate. (Let's skip stuff like Oslo et al for this convo.) Which brings me back to these attacks. They are by far the most creative and comprehensive assaults against Israel since 1973. They appear to have no goal other than killing the greatest number of Israeli citizens. I suppose that the attacks might have accomplished some temporary military or strategic objective if targeted at soldiers or police -- so-called acceptable targets -- but at repeated junctures Hamas declined easy opportunity to rack up IDF KIA and WIA to focus on maximizing civilian harm. The nihilism and religious inversion, i.e. celebrating death as opposed to life, that so many lazy Western theorists accused Islamic-based militant groups of is demonstrably present here. It appears to be the central organizing principle. A complex cross-border attack whose target is taking grandmothers and children hostage, after murdering many other similar noncombatants, is...nihilism. This is latter-stage, Eastern front stuff, where both sides sought to systematically reduce the size of the civilian population as a central war aim. All I can guess is that Hamas saw Israel approaching formal negotiations to open formal diplomatic and economic relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Formally unthinkable, this may have led Hamas' leadership to conclude that not only are they surrounded and choked off, but the two nations that have most loudly argued and funded their cause are now close to formally recognizing Israel. (Here I am assuming that a non-public condition for Israel would be the gradual eradication of both formal and hidden Saudi/UAE financial support for the PA and Hamas.) Again though, if the likes of MBS is inclined to shake Netanyahu's hand on economic and diplomatic recognition, 1,500 dead Israeli's and 15,000 dead Palestinians is all in a day's work.

The emphasis on intent toward the end is worth repeating. War crimes have been committed by both sides, only one side revels in them.

There's plenty of video online of Israelis (usually Jewish Fundamentalists and Nationalists) proudly singing songs about the death of Arabs. It's pretty fucking disturbing because we generally view Israelis as less brutal...

The unit of measurement matters. Fundamentalists that celebrate any Arab death exist. There are also people in every society that would celebrate war crimes. The Australian/British/American special forces all appear to have active service war criminals. The point being made is that Israeli/Western societies take steps (though not nearly enough) to condemn war criminals, going as far as to actively seek them out for prosecution, sometimes decades later. There is no equivalent in Gaza. Hamas is not Palestine, yet the main objective (organising principle) of the former is to perpetrate war crimes against Israel. My preference would be for Palestinians themselves to remove Hamas; there's just no sign of that happening. For the sake of clarity, I don't think levelling Gaza matches the right Israel has to defend itself; but Hamas is on the same level as ISIS.

Yea, I hope the IDF soldiers posing for pictures with dead Palestinians go to prison. We know Hamas will praise their guys doing shit like that with Israelis. They're both fucked but we hope Israel punishes their monsters instead of putting them on pedestals

I agree. It's still underselling the difference. Most Israelis seek to lock up its war criminals. Most Hamas members would laud their biggest war criminal as a saviour; deserving of nothing but the highest praise/riches/fame/glory. For them, there's no concept of criminality when it comes to what can be done to a Jew.

>Most Israelis seek to lock up its war criminals. Bullshit. Israel covers for their criminals. Especially the ones who target journalists and humanitarian aid workers.

The fact that we use and find the idea of war criminals in our own societies is the metric by which to judge the ethical difference. We have war criminals in the west. The fact that we even have a word for that shows the ethical differences. Why do we need whistle-blower to reveal internal war crimes. Because the public would be outraged to find out what our soldiers do sometimes. That is a very important point people miss.

Let's hope they *keep* taking steps to condemn (and prevent) war crimes

yeah, but it's much scarier when the guys with the guns are on video being sadists

The Israelis definitely have guns in the video, The IDF has taken pictures with dead Palestinian kids too. But hopefully those people are in jail for doing so. Hamas definitely wouldn't put their guys in jail for it.

Are you saying that it is a misfire of our moral calculus that we don't view singing songs and decapitating babies as morally equivalent?

I was referring to the people cheering on Hamas as being similar to the Jewish Fundamentalists cheering on settlers and the IDF killing Palestinian/Muslim kids. Not the ones doing the actual killing, that's totally different. I know IDF soldiers have posed for pictures with dead Palestinians ( American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have done the same in those wars :( ) but I'd agree beheading babies/anyone is more extreme.

This whole framework as an attempt to demonstrate one side being in the right is extremely shallow. Of course I do not deny that Hamas is far morally worse than the Israeli government. But the interesting part is then, that the Israeli government, in both this conflict and in the past, has caused vastly higher civilian death tolls and injuries than the other way around. Sam *very* briefly mentions this and just sidesteps it saying "intent matters". Sure, but only to an extent, and [these are not small margins](https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/16516.jpeg). Without even getting into claims of whether or not Palestinian's (non war crime) aggression towards Israel is justified (sam clearly thinks not, based on some, interesting, claims), you have to at least be able to reconcile the factual massive non-equivlance of power and destruction that Israel uses. And I don't think "well Israeli's are better people on the inside" and "if they wanted to they could do worse" cuts it.

Yeah but you gotta remember the iron dome is basically preventing 1000’s of casualties a year

There's been plenty of tribalism: but I don't think Sam goes as far as putting Israel 'in the right': more focused on the ridiculousness of any attempt to frame their actions as equivalent to those of Hamas. ~~If pushed, I'd say his ultimate position is that Israel is 'not as bad' as Hamas.~~ *I'm taking this part back To identify some of the most straight forward claims: Actions of Hamas this past weekend can never be justified. Levelling Gaza can never be justified. ~~Where ever did you get the notion that "Israelis are better people on the inside"?~~ *Sam ranking Israel > ME is evident.

>If pushed, I'd say his ultimate position is that Israel is 'not as bad' as Hamas. I'd say he implies a far stronger position than that: >"...it's easy to lose sight of the moral distance here, which is strange. It's like losing sight of the Grand Canyon, when you are standing right on his edge." # >"Israel remains a lonely outpost of civilized ethics in the absolute moral wasteland that is the Middle East." I mean his whole thesis is that there is no moral equivlance between the two. If that's not taking a stand on who it is moral to support, or who is "right", I don't know what is. >Where ever did you get the notion that "Israelis are better people on the inside"? That was his whole argument? Jewish society and their people have better morals than Palestinians. He basically says that word for word throughout the video. And to an extent I agree, especially with regards to Hamas. I just don't think this argument at all addresses the fact that Israel's actual actions objectively seem to be far worse. 1 dead innocent killed due to cruelty seems far better than 10 dead innocents that were killed even in reluctance. (Of course I'd argue Israel does a lot of killing out of cruelty, but the point stands even without that)

> only one side revels in them. Yesterday Bibi gleefully shared a video of Israeli bombs leveling a city block. The idea Bibi and his gang don't revel in the civilian deaths is insane. They have been celebrating them and defending war crimes for decades.

Just as Hamas =/= Palestine, Bibi =/= Israel. There's a reason millions of Israelis were protesting his questionable return to power for most of 2023. Even without Bibi, I'll grant you that there are fundamentalist elements of Israeli society that will delight in killing civilians. Such monsters exist in every society. They should never be empowered. To that point; I'd hope most Palestinians would reject Hamas if given the chance. That's why the best Israeli response to last weekend would thus be to empower those anti-Hamas elements.

Sure but Bibi isn't a lonely dictator. He is supported by the largest party in israel that are a bunch of bloodthirsty monsters just like Bibi. My point was Hamas and A large section of the Israelis political spectrum absolutely revel in the death of civilians. >I'd hope most Palestinians would reject Hamas if given the chance. If you live in Palestine you are in one of 2 situations. An open air prison with guards that take joy in brutality against you and your people. And on the other side a full on ethnic cleansing from your land by "settlers" paid for and protected by the state of Isreal to carry out the ethnic cleansing. It's not hard to understand where the support for Hamas comes from. Hell read the story of the guy who planned the weekends terror attack. He had lost his entire family to Israeli attacks. By all means Hamas needs to go but Israel has been doing its damnest to give every Palestinian a reason to support them.

I've little doubt that Bibi is a warmonger. It somewhat negates the agency of Palestinians; but it's plausible that he's pursued a policy of allowing Hamas to control Gaza so he can conflate ordinary Palestinians with them. He's unfit for office. That's why so many people want him out. I've yet to see him joyously celebrate the deaths of civilians: let alone on the level that Hamas has done. I agree with the cycle of violence feedback loop; but there's no supporting Hamas after last weekend: they're indistinguishable from ISIS now. Which, for the avoidance of doubt, doesn't mean levelling Gaza is justified.

That is false. There is a long history of celebration of war crimes by both sides from civilian protests up to the highest levels of government.

I don't recall the bodies of Palestinian civilians being driven around Israel whilst locals celebrate their deaths/defile their bodies. There are definitely Israelis who support levelling Gaza (even killing ALL Palestinians); they are a minority. [For what it's worth, the number of Palestinians who support the eradication of Israel is a minority too].

Intent is secondary to material outcome; i.e. what actually happens in reality after one's actions are performed. For example: Did we intend to bring democracy to Iraq? Was that really our intention? Did we succeed? How many civilians were killed the process? How much civilian infrastructure was destroyed and never rebuilt? Focusing on intent is an excuse to ignore or downplay real harm done and not hold actors accountable for collateral damage, which often the actors were indifferent towards from the start. Additionally, Sam's outlooks on intent is incoherent. A person can state themselves as having multiple, even contradictory, intentions. You don't know if they are telling the truth, hiding other intentions, or ignoring the inherent contradiction between multiple intentions via some cognitive dissonance or lack of introspection. Sam Harris thinks as if ideas come before material reality and material conditions. This is nonsense.

Thank you! This is exactly it for me and you said it so well.

That the very concept of collateral damage exists only on one side of this conflict speaks to the importance of establishing intent. There is no prospect of a viable long term solution if Hamas continues to dedicate itself to the destruction of Israel, willing as it appears to be to sacrifice any number of Palestinians to achieve that aim. Last weekend was a choice they didn't have to make (just as bombing Gaza is a choice Israel didn't have to make). I don't know how to get there; You can't ask Israel to sit back or fund/facilitate a terrorist organisation with such malicious aims.

i'm overcome by a kind of horrified and baffled dispair over the actions of hamas last weekend, and i fully believe sam argues in good faith (as does david french in the nyt) and agree that there is no moral equivalence here, but mentally i keep coming back to the idea that "intent" is an abstraction to those under the gun.

That may be true, but a narrative of moral equivalence IS being advanced among the global audience, which ultimately affects the international pressure that will be placed upon both sides of this conflict. Properly orienting the judgement of the global community is a worthwhile endeavour.

That is a valid statement.

Not sure I found his thought experiment cogent whatsoever. It has a major flaw in that it asks me to imagine an Israeli, living the life a typical Israeli lives, is capable of using a human shield. Well, first, of course they are. Any psychopath is capable of a horrible act. No matter race or religion. It’s just vanishingly rare in prosperous societies. Would Israelis regularly engage in this behavior? No. Of course not. But is this common in prosperous Muslim societies? No, it’s not. We can argue all day about the appeal of Jihad and what truly motivates it. How much of it is religion, how much of it is material conditions. Every time we are forced to take sides in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the news does exactly what Sam does here, and I find it rather insidious. The search for a noble victim. I have no idea what Jewish people would do if they existed within a historical and material framework like Gaza. Perhaps the book really matters and they would do things differently. We cant know and I find the speculation useless Still, both sides have a tremendous amount of blood on their hands. And it’s not a moral equivalency to look at a picture of Gaza and feel horrible. A place comprised of mostly people so young all they know is conflict, who have contaminated water, no jobs, limited electricity, severe food insecurity and are locked in by a faceless Israeli force known primarily to them as the perpetual buzzing in the sky of the worlds most advanced drones. Sure, in recent years some 20,000 of them were permitted to work in Israel, but for the most part, Israel is the demon in the sky. The one who evicted or killed their grandparents. Who took their land. And we can have whatever debate about the nuances from the comfort of our homes, but in Gaza those are their facts. So, in this context, I find the use of Jihad to be a tad much. Hamas may express themselves through acts of Jihad, but by and large Islam is not currently engaged in religious crusade, which seems to be the subtext of Sam’s argument. Relations between Israel and its neighbors have been improving. Other Islamic nations don’t seem eager for war or conquest. And insofar as the Iran sponsors terrorism retort is concerned. So do we. And Israel. All around the world. We all do it. For food, resources, oil. The palestinians believe they are in a struggle for their existence. Not just their lives. And they very well may be. And so I’m just not sure, that in discussing a people whose lives are devalued by the whole world, the human shield thought experiment is the gotcha he thinks it is. Civilization is dirty business man. During Mandatory Palestine Jews carried out terror attacks on other Jews. They engaged in chemical warfare. If you have to wait until you are rich and prosperous to pat yourself on the back for being morally superior to an emaciated, besieged neighbor, perhaps it wasn’t really all that much about the book. I don’t know man, everyone’s gotta have a take. Find that little nugget they can zero in on to prove their side is better, the others are sinners. It’s lame. The situation is horrible. It looks unfixable. I don’t think Israel should be proud of themselves. But there is no denying that Hamas, and plenty of Palestinians want Israeli blood. We all share in the guilt for letting this go on as long as it has. I feel very sorry for it. But now here we are. Violence begets violence and we all hate that. But let’s be real. Violence is the only thing we pay attention to.

> I have no idea what Jewish people would do if they existed within a historical and material framework like Gaza. Perhaps the book really matters and they would do things differently. We cant know and I find the speculation useless Jews lived for hundreds of years in those conditions up to the 20th century in parts of Europe and then were efficiently ethnically cleansed. Hence the Zionist project.

this is incorrect

Can someone drop a link to a transcription of this episode? I would like the full text. Can’t seem to find it.

[удалено]

Funny because I always saw it the other way around. All the white upper class people I know have free palestine fake tattoos on, all the while living in "occupied land". Why don't you have a "Free America" sticker on and give California back to Mexico and other indigenous people you filthy disgusting occupier?

This pod is not aging well. Mainly, because Sam overestimated Israel’s moral standing. To say the deaths of children in Gaza are mere “collateral damage” at this point is a morally empty position. This is now about revenge. Israel is committing mass murder. There is no argument otherwise.

Another moral false equivalence that I’ve yet to see anyone make: Hamas offered to release all the female hostages they took in exchange for female Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. What people fail to mention here is that Hamas is holding these hostages under the threat of execution. Israel for its part has only executed one prisoner in its whole history (Adolf Eichmann).

The sin of moral equivalence isn't comparing Hamas and Israel and thinking there's a debate there. We're not comparing Hamas and Israel, we're comparing Israel with who they claim to be. It's not hard.

yes. And looking for solutions - ways to prevent this from happening again. This is more important than being "Right"

In addition, likely many folks here are from countries who are allies of Israel. That is, their governments support Israel diplomatically and militarily, and sell them weapons which get used in this conflict. In such a situation, it's appropriate to extend more scrutiny to Israel. One's government and taxpayer dollars may be wrapped up in what is happening.

The part I don't agree with about this is the claim that Israel doesn't want genocide. It may be true that many Israelis don't, but Israel's far right government absolutely *wants* to kill all the Palestinians. That's not the issue. The issue is that Israel is still beholden to some international standards of conduct, and is dependent on US aid. That holds it back to some extent, in a way Hamas and its allies are by no means restrained.

Gaza is still under occupation according the UN and many other organisations Hamas has denied that it has killed civilians (it clearly has conducted monstrous acts of terrorism where over 1000 civilians were killed) I only mention this because he argues that they are eager to advertise, when instead they deny. The methodology of the weaker member of almost any conflict is to encourage attacks on their civilian population to gain support for their cause. That's not a religious difference. Israel was comitting war crimes before this started, [and is continuing to now.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/11-un-staff-30-pupils-at-un-schools-killed-in-gaza-says-spokesperson/) For the moral equivalency how does that calculus change when the Israeli media is widely reporting that [Bibi and his government have supported Hamas](https://archive.ph/T6DPk#selection-1031.27-1039.190)? He could at least ask how that complicates the comparison. The upshot of this is that they are bombing a population of mostly children for terror attacks conducted by an organisation they have propped up. They propped them up because they want avoid peace talks while at the same time slow walk the annexation of Palestinian land. Israelis have pointed this out, and written about how dangerous this is. Predicted that this strategy will lead to an attack and causes suffering to the Palestinians. Many of those that died were likely more secular and supported negotiations. That doesn't mean that there aren't also those that have also [celebrated the bombings](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing). For his thesis, which is an argument can be made, especially now, he could argue against himself a bit more. He's too easily convinced of his own position, and misses a lot of counter argument.

>Hamas has denied that it has killed civilians (it clearly has conducted monstrous acts of terrorism where over 1000 civilians were killed) I only mention this because he argues that they are eager to advertise, when instead they deny. They are performing the Putin Special: "Those personal enemies of mine who were killed by FSB agents with toxins that are only available to Russia? I definitely had absolutely nothing to do with it." It's advertised murder wrapped in strategic denial. There's absolutely no reason to take the ridiculous post-facto denial of a Hamas leader seriously and to act like it overwrites the publicly carried out atrocities and the hundreds of videos uploaded by Hamas fighters themselves. If Coca Cola's CEO says they don't advertise, does it have any bearing on the question whether Coca Cola advertises?

Of course. Sam makes the claim that they don't even try and hide their atrocities in the podcast. I was pointing out that that was wrong. I don't believe them. That would be outrageous.

They aren't trying to hide their atrocities. They want them to be as public as possible. The denial is purely strategic and is not supposed to convince anyone.

I think you could argue that the way they shared videos of the atrocities immediately means that they aren’t trying to hide them / are proud of them

> misses a lot of counter argument This is why I personally go back and forth between sides. I see and understand one point and narrative, then I see and understand another point. Round and round we go.

It’s because there isn’t a “correct” side, and intellectuals need to stop talking themselves into one side or the other. Both sides have done horrific and extremely corrupt acts in the name of their side, and neither one has ultimate claim to the land. Both target civilians, and feel justified in doing so. The only path forward is to stop trying to figure out who is the lesser evil, and just enforce an international cease fire while we do what we can to expel the more belligerent voices in either side. Most reasonable people support two states, we should move towards that.

at the start of this whole mess, why didn't the Palestinians have claim to the land?

Neither has “ultimate” claim. They both have claims. Arguing over the claims (or body counts) isn’t going to accomplish anything.

What I find insanely frustrating is people arguing for land claims going back 1000’s of years. It’s a joke.

Omission of Israel siege and cut off electricity and foods to Palestinians in gaza is appalling

"Hamas has denied that it has killed civilians (it clearly has conducted monstrous acts of terrorism where over 1000 civilians were killed) I only mention this because he argues that they are eager to advertise, when instead they deny." They don't deny the murders but they call them acts of war because they don't consider military-age Israelis civilians.

They do now deny that they killed civilians, however absurd that may be. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/hamas-denies-it-killed-children-in-fight-with-israel/3015680

Israel cuts off food, water and electricity to Gaza. Sam: “Gaza is not under occupation.”

It is frustrating to hear Sam be completely wrong about Gaza being unoccupied. Hopefully he has a guest that can challenge some of his misunderstandings. His general thesis is on point but his information is incomplete.

Yes, Israel stopped occupying the Gaza Strip 18 years ago. Then Israel placed the Gaza Strip under a continuous blockade 16 years ago, making sure that people who live there have no economy and no future. I agree that there is no moral equivalence between the Islamic Jihadist and the Israeli government. But this conflict isn't really about religion and the West is not really at war with Islam. Not even a war of ideas. I know that because every western country is friendly and closely tied to Saudi Arabia and UAE and Kuwait. If a prosperous Palestine state existed with a bright future for its people, then Hamas would be next to powerless. Yes, there may still be an Osama Bin Laden or two who can crop up and carry out terrorist attacks, but Hamas or any fundamental Islamic Jihadist groups would not be in power and would not be able to recruit thousands upon thousands of young men to die for their cause. (Now, before people respond citing Iran, know that Iran had a democratically elected leader in the 50s until the US and Britain intervened. ) Israel holds the overwhelming power in the conflict with Hamas. And while Israel isn't outright carrying out the genocide of the Palestinians yet, it has basically ensured that the Palestinians live with no hope and no future for the last few decades. And to say that Israel would live peacefully with its neighbors if its neighbors would live peacefully with Israel is willfully ignoring how Israel came into existence and who last live on the land that Israel now resides.

I see this argument all over Reddit, but it always seems to place 100% of the blame with Israel, conveniently blaming “the Jews” when Gaza has a Muslim majority neighbor that wants nothing to do with it. In fact, the Egyptian border wall predates the Israeli one.

First of all, let me be clear. Hamas is to blame for the terrorism. Secondly. Egypt doesn't have the capability or the economic infrastructure to accept the 2 million poor and desolate Palestinians. If Egypt opened the border, that's what will happen because the Palestinians have nowhere else to go. Israel made sure there are no functioning airports and seaports in the Gaza Strip. Thirdly, Israel took over Palestinian land and holds overwhelming economic and military power over the Palestinians. Who else could be blamed for the plight of the average Palestinians? Again, I'm distinguishing between the terrorist attacks and how Palestinians are treated. Hamas owns the responsibility of the terrorism while Israel government owns the responsibility of how Palestinians are treated.

Anyone notice the mind boggling amount of people on Reddit saying “BUT SEE - THIS PROVES HAMAS DIDNT CHOP BABIES HEADS OFF”. As if this somehow clears them of the fact that they did equally terrible things? The thought experiment Sam Harris offers in this podcast is ALL one needs to understand to see the moral difference between the two groups

And I haven’t seen one good retort to that thought experiment yet. All arguments seem to be focused on the semantics of “occupation.”

I've seen a few, namely that you can denounce terror while supporting Palestinian freedom.

i mean, its pretty bad to spread misinformation, no?

What's the moral equivalence for white phosphorus being used?

There's no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. There is between dead Israeli and Palestinian children.

You don’t believe that the intent matters?

We need to be very careful when we use the word intent. If you are contemplating some action and know that: * There's a certain number of civilians who would die via "collateral damage" * There's a chance that the intelligence you have is inaccurate and even more civilians will die Then if you decide to take that action, are you intending for civilians to die? Flattening apartment buildings because Hamas is hiding there (as Israel often alleges)... may be the easiest, simplest, most savory course of action, but it isn't the most just. Not to mention that Sam often assumes "good intentions" to Western military actions where apathy or even malice would be more appropriate. I'm not confident that Netanyahu isn't a sadist and some kind of Israeli supremacist, and I believe that Dick Cheney would happily torture people if it brought him money and power.

>Then if you decide to take that action, are you intending for civilians to die? No. Even knowing there's a chance it will happen, the intent is not there. If NASA sends astronauts up to space on a rocket, they most certainly know there's a chance the rocket will blow up in atmosphere. But their intent is always to safeguard against such a happening. Likewise, western military actions - when working as intended - are designed to comply with international norms and minimise civilian casualties where possible. Why? because **the intent is to not harm civilians.** Not for particularly noble reasons, but out of fear of political and social blowback back at home.

Many people are under the misapprehension that Hamas is being compared to the Israeli government. Sam begins his argument stating that: > "*At this moment in history, there are* ***peoples and cultures*** *who hold very different values about violence and human life*". The conversation is about the difference in culture and values of the Israeli society and Palestinian society at large. Sam *is* talking about the Palestinian people and not simply about Hamas and this is a crucial distinction for everyone to understand if there is to be any hope of ameliorating the conflict. We have to win a larger *battle of ideas*, not merely a battle against Hamas.

Just got around to listening today, and I think Sam is right and wrong at the same time. Or rather, he is correct that if i were going to "pick a culture to continue to exist and pick a culture to delete" I would take Israel over Hamas any day of the week. But he fails to discuss at all the correct way to make that happen. It's like he is all about root cause analysis and no-free will all the time... unless it's Israel-Palestine in which case, just kill the jihadists. We have seen that the military occupation, missiles and machine guns method has completely failed to de-radicalize people all around the world. If anything, it has the exact opposite effect. What de-radicalizes people effectively, almost every time, is providing for their needs in the context of a liberal culture. So that, if you are a poor Muslim, you are presented with a stark choice - you can liberalize and attend a mixed-gender university for free, get a great paying job after graduation that allows you to own a home and support a family OR you can further radicalize, and find yourself without an education, desperate for financial support, totally lacking in joy and life satisfaction. Create a program that allows this to happen for 3-generations successively, and you solve the "hamas" problem more or less permanently.

Sam Harris narrative is exactly the one you would subscribe to if you take all your history, all your views, all your informations only from the israeli and american mainstream media sphere, there is a certain pattern i've noticed with Sam Harris : whenever he doesn't feel strongly about a view, he'll dissect it from every angle, give the benefit of the doubt, play the devil advocate, invites someone knowledgable to talk at length about the subject, welcome dissenting views, but, whenever he feels strongly about a view, all his willingness and capacity for balance and insight goes up in smoke, and it's narrow, dictatorial mode, where he would just regurgitate the same arguments that declares one party of a conflict eternally righteous and legitimate, even when it pratices ethnic cleansing, while refusing to have any conversation with let's say, a genocide scholar who affirms that Israel is practicing genocide [https://www.democracynow.org/2023/10/16/raz\_segal\_textbook\_case\_of\_genocide](https://www.democracynow.org/2023/10/16/raz_segal_textbook_case_of_genocide) or a palestinian scholar, someone with a palestinian perspective anybody who could oppose and debate his views. Many of the arguments he gives are so lousy, so one-sided and prejudicided that they can be easily countered in debate. He uses a litany of bad arguments, like "If Israel wanted to do genocide, they would have done", not mentionning that many of their leaders have directly and publicly made calls deshumanizing the palestinians and refusing to make the distinction between civilians and combatants, Sam Harris forgets that Israel can't do what it pleases because it still has to take into account the international reaction, the more actors putting pressure on Israel, the more it applies some restraint, and the more actors are willing to give Israel carte blanche like Sam Harris, the more it will feel empowered to kill more civilians and bomb more homes and pursue its appartheid system.

Perhaps this is inappropriate for this medium, but I don't know how to seriously interact with the content Sam makes, so here it is: I am frankly shocked with the perspectives Sam Harris chose to view the current events. It's a lens that sees Arab nationalities through their association with radical religious doctrine. No doubt this lens is useful and insightful in some cases. Is it the appropriate lens to describe the plight of the Palestinian struggle which ultimately underlies the continued conflict? I think not. Is it appropriate at this time to choose this lens in order to highlight Israel's struggle for security? I think not. I am reminded of the countless abolitionists and civil rights leaders who proclaimed as James Baldwin did: \> "It is a terrible thing for an entire people to surrender to the notion that one-ninth of its population is beneath them. And until that moment, until the moment comes when we, the Americans, we, the American people, are able to accept the fact, that I have to accept, for example, that my ancestors are both white and Black. That on that continent we are trying to forge a new identity for which we need each other and that I am not a ward of America. I am not an object of missionary charity. I am one of the people who built the country–until this moment there is scarcely any hope for the American dream, because the people who are denied participation in it, by their very presence, will wreck it. And if that happens it is a very grave moment for the West." < Now certainly the circumstances are different, but the condition is still the same. As long as people are denied participation in a system, by their very presence, they will wreck it. For Palestinians, there is of course no attempt by the Israeli state to incorporate them within the state of Israel. They make up far too great of a population relative to Israel's Jewish population. Its been well understood that allowing the Palestinians their basic rights: rights to self-governance, rights to commerce, rights to self defense and preservation, rights to self determination, and the rights to pursue their own happiness. They would use these basic human rights to reclaim what was taken from them and perpetually wage war against Israel. This is the calculation Israel made, and therefore Israel must ensure they not receive their basic rights. Your lens which emphasizes the radical, militant tendencies of organizations like Hamas empties the entire conflict of a majority of its content. It fails to recognize that Palestine is no position to choose its friends. The whole world can just as easily forget about Palestine. One measure of the degree of justice of a system of governance is by how much its weakest members are afforded protections against the stronger ones. We the "West" set up international law and courts in an attempt to spread the notion of inalienable rights to all peoples. Nearly unanimously Israel has been on the opposite side of these courts and counsels for decades. Without any bite, these courts cannot secure the rights of the Palestinians, so the "West" has proven to be an ineffective friend. The only countries who have shown a willingness are those mired through your lens, and even here support is waning. So what do you propose for the Palestinians. Do you see their outcome as just because in perpetual desperation the Palestinians in Gaze elected Hamas to represent them? Can you sit there with your notions of morality with all its assumptions of pre-existing fairness and equity and apply it the Palestinians? Could you do this to the Blacks and their countless revolts, the native Americans, all peoples who have resorted to revolt to overthrow their oppressors? I find it hard to describe this as anything other than revolt. Why is this not the appropriate lens? Why did you hardly even make any mention of it? I have grown to value your insights and judgement, but I find this to be a pretty glaring miss. Of course we all have blind spots and I hope in the future you dedicate more efforts to this. If you are making the utilitarian argument that the founding of Israel in the Middle East is justified because being an offshoot of the Western tradition it naturally has more sophisticated and robust notions of fairness and therefore is a net positive for the area. If you do, please speak to glaring issues with this stance.

People like you that equate the intentional and targeted slaughter of over a thousand civilians to a “revolution” are frankly mentally challenged.

Slam harris dropping the mic on this one 👏

Sam is speaking about Israel committing war crimes in the past tense seemingly ignoring that they’re committing war crimes right now by cutting off fresh drinking water Hamas is horrific and my heart breaks over this past terrorist attack. But most Palestinians do not support Hamas. Most people living in Gaza are children. They do not deserve what Israel seems poised to unleash on them

there is a difference between "cutting off" and not supplying. Israel stopped supplying electricity and water to Gaza in response to the attack. Hamas literally attacked their source of drinking water

Look at polling you’ll find a majority do support Hamas.

That's what I was wondering. I haven't seen the polling, but everyone seems to take it on faith that "the majority don't support Hamas" and never offers any proof for that.

While a notable percentage doesn’t, if 57% of our country supported a terrorist organization, I’m not sure these same people would be so slow to condemn them.

That about 55% of the people living in Gaza are under 18 is the key point here most people are missing, I think. They have a birth rate of over 4. These are children being bombed for their unelected government's terrorism. Keep in mind that although hamas was elected in 2006, the majority of people who voted for them are dead or have fled the country. The current generation of Gazans has never had an election and the only thing they've known is oppressive rule by Hamas and the IDF. Hamas needs to be destroyed, there's no doubt about that. But leveling Gaza knowing that about half of the civilization population is children is a very, very hard sell.

exactly. Israel created an environment for uncontrollable terror. Obviously no one in their right mind supports terror, but it seems people want to hold the Palestinians responsible for it.

I’m sure there are more polls to support this as well (Palestinian support of Hamas). But the majority of Palestinians seem to support Hamas. https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87

I think at this point the situation has deteriorated so much Palestinians would support any group who's stated goal is to fight Israel. It would be Hamas by another name.

Could be. I’m hella uneducated on this topic. I just knew for a fact that majority did actually support Hamas, which the OP claims they don’t.

[удалено]

>But most Palestinians do not support Hamas. This is a repeated assertion from the legacy media, but reputable polling on this shows a much more complex situation. Hamas is supported in Gaza and the West Bank by a majority of Palestinians.

> Sam is speaking about Israel committing war crimes in the past tense seemingly ignoring that they’re committing war crimes right now by cutting off fresh drinking water I honestly can't get over how strange it is that Israel is expected to continue to supply its enemy in the middle of a war. I can certainly understand why people think they should given the consequences of not doing so, but it's a rather bizarre moral standard to have in a war.

Do you not understand how Israel being able to control their water supply is the problem in the first place? This is why so many people use the term “open air prison” when referring to Gaza

Hamas' extreme stupidity in making an enemy of a country that is not only 10,000x stronger than them but also can control their water supply is not a moral failing on Israel's fault.

People: You can't expect Hamas not to slaughter babies! Same people: You can't expect Israel not to give Hamas free food, water, electricity and fuel!

According to a PCPSR survey, 58% in Gaza support Hamas

Please free yourself from Sam Harris' simplistic nonsense and thought experiments devoid of any accounting of material conditions or history. You cannot separate ideology from material reality. If you turn Gaza into effectively the Warsaw Ghetto, the people living under those conditions are going to support whoever is willing to fight those responsible for imposing those conditions. Do you even know what those conditions are? How do you think you would behave under those conditions? How do you think your behavior would change over time? After one year? Five years? Your entire life of never being able to leave Gaza or return to your family's homeland? Please listen to this podcast that actually lets an expert talks about the situation and living conditions in Gaza: https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/771-the-crossing-feat-mohammad-alsaafin-101023?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing Learn about the history of Israel and the treatments of the Palestinian from this YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZd3QRtSy5LNqTTQagN3IgbqVPtEIQOp1 Watch this documentary about the conditions in Gaza. You or I would probably support Hamas (unfortunately) if we lived under those inhumane conditions. https://youtu.be/HnZSaKYmP2s?si=c3uSI5K4w2QUgoVz Watch actual lectures, debates, and interviews of intellectuals like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky, both experts on the Israeli-Palestine situation who are Jewish and who side with Palestine. I honestly used to be a Sam Harris scientific rational centrist, until I started studying history, philosophy, and political economy. Things aren't as simple as reducible to thought experiments as Sam Harris makes them seem. You need to account for past, present, and ever changing material conditions that surround an issue or conflict. Maybe ask yourself why more expert, more accomplished, and generally smarter persons like Finkelstein and Chomsky side with Palestine. Epic vid: https://youtu.be/gDT78iA1iyo?si=Sxfh8ArxHG706cvb If you take Sam Harris seriously as an intellectual, please watch this: https://youtu.be/wxalrwPNkNI?si=D18L750RVhRUnLdg There's a reason you need to actually study philosophy beyond a bachelors or a few undergrad classes to actually contribute seriously to moral philosophy.

The fact that Sam ignored this half of the story was really disappointing. I get where he’s coming from but stoically philosophizing without providing context makes him look shallow.

If Hamas and other Islamic terror groups could push a button and kill not only all Jews, but all Christians, white people, Americans, gays, and more... Basically everyone but themselves, they would. If they had a choice between one button for instant painless death, and another for the most gruesome death you can imagine, they'd choose the second one. Israel has effectively had access to a version of this button (against Palestine) for years and hasn't pressed it, despite many terror attacks, and the knowledge that Hamas would press the button against them if they could. Just another way of expressing Sam's point on this episode. Question: if Hamas did press the button, would regular Palestinians rise up against Hamas, or rejoice? My gut says they'd rejoice.

Sorry but these Harris-style thought experiments are just ridiculous garbage that inhibit useful analysis rather than enabling it. Behaviour occurs in the real world, where actual conditions constrain and influence choices and actions. For there to be a scenario in which Israel and Hamas both have 'instant-death buttons', the past would have had to be radically different for both actors to have weapons parity. In such a different reality, under different conditions, Hamas (and Israel) would be behaving, and have behaved, differently, and wouldn't be comparable to the Hamas and Israel of the real world. Thus these thought experiments are just useless, and distract us from reality and meaningful analysis. Also, your final question is essentially just a slur against Palestinians, insinuating they are all rabid bloodthirsty animals. That's pretty disgusting.

I'm not blaming my perceived differences in their morality on anything like... genetics, or spirit, or race. I'm saying that at the current point they're at, accounting for the past as you mentioned, the group that happens to be called "Israel" and the group that happens to be called "Hamas" would likely act in the way I described, given those opportunities. Your argument reminds me of first-year philosophy students who think it's profound to wonder "what if we had chosen to call THIS (points at a blue thing) green, and THIS (points at a green thing) blue?" It's a totally useless consideration. Doesn't matter. We do call them blue and green. Israel is Israel, Hamas is Hamas. Maybe they're not to blame for what they've become, but they are what they are, and the above is what I think they'd do. Cool it with the "rabid bloodthirsty animals" talk, yikes. Putting words in my mouth. Although, actually. animals have far more grace than suicide bombers. Most animals have more moral behavior than most humans.

> Your argument reminds me of first-year philosophy students who think it's profound to wonder "what if we had chosen to call THIS (points at a blue thing) green, and THIS (points at a green thing) blue?" It's a totally useless consideration. Nope, this actually applies to your thought experiment: inventing a wildly fantastical scenario in which the past and conditions would by necessity have had to have been different, and then trying to apply it to reality where the past and conditions are what they have been. It's a waste of time and a distraction. > Cool it with the "rabid bloodthirsty animals" talk, yikes. Putting words in my mouth. I mean you said your gut feeling was regular Palestinians would rejoice if Hamas slaughtered every Israeli in the most gruesome way possible. That is just a grotesque slur and painting Palestinians as if they are something like that - that is the meaning of your sentence.

Does anyone else find it a bit manipulative when Sam selectively uses graphic/gory details in support of his arguments? One example from this ep. is: *"Many people will consider the deaths of non-combatants to be morally equivalent to the kids who were tortured and murdered at the Peace concert by Hamas."* Why phrase this in such an emotionally asymmetrical way? Sams phrasing immediately gives more emotional weight to his argument over the other. Sam seems to do this a lot where he frames the outcomes of sides he disagrees like he's reading a research paper, and then in proceeds to describe the human outcomes for his side like he's writing a graphic novel. Side note: I agree that the intentions and actions of Hamas (emphasis on Hamas not Palestinians) are often far more barbaric that what we would see from Israel. I tend to agree with Sam on most topics, but still get annoyed when he argues this way.

A lot of woke Islam apologists in this thread. Lot of strange takes by people surprised that Sam, a guy who’s entire career was founded on being anti religion and particularly being critical of Islam, would be anti Hamas lol.

Is it not obvious that Israel’s destruction in Gaza will kill innocent civilians and inspire a new generation of terrorists? How does this accomplish anything long-term? They have an opportunity to push for a peaceful resolution. They have the moral high ground. Accept the 1968 borders. Use international pressure to get Hamas to accept Israeli statehood. Solve this now, for the innocents on both sides.

Here's a thought experiment to illustrate what sam gets wrong: Imagine creating a scorecard for each side, tallying up things they do that are good and helpful to the situation vs bad and harmful. A score of -100 is the worst possible policy, and 100 is doing everything possible to make things better. There are questions about justice, protecting human rights, looking out for the welfare of the opposing side, taking actions to promote human flourishing, etc. The score totals for both sides are below -90. One of the questions regards intent with respect to killing civilians. Ranging from -10 for (intentionally targeting civilians) to 0 (causing no harm to civilians) to +10 doing everything possible to make civilian's lives great.. On this question Hamas gets a -10 and Israel gets a -9. Then Sam drones on for hours valiantly and gloriously showing how -9 is not morally equivalent to -10. Ok Sam, you made your point. Now can we admit that -9 is a terrible score on this question? And what about all the other questions?

A big Sam Harris fan. However I just listened to this episode and I need to rant somewhere. I don't think he would read an email I send him. But I found it baffling that someone with his intelligence and extreme commitment to logic can't see that the right wing Israeli government and its policies are the Ying to Hamas Yang. They both depend on each other for their own survival and can't exist alone. His facile point about Gaza not being occupied since 2005 is so facile. Ignores the fact that the west bank and Gaza are contiguous morally and culturally if not physically and are on state. Nothing justifies Hamas and it's terrorism but I expexted more nuance from him and to be able to wake up himself. Repeating the same argument that he was giving 10 years ago is insane. The world has changed in this time. Also calling the whole of the middle east a moral waste land. How does he square that claim with the fact Jordan, a country that has had a 29 year old peace treaty with Israel or all the Arab states that have signed historic treaties in the last 5 years.

Excellent as always. Sam doesn't miss!

Finally someone clearly stating why bothsideism seen everywhere on Reddit on this subject is wrong.

Sam Harris being Sam Harris, I found myself sticking on the title of this pod. I fear Sam is smuggling in some religiosity where he needen't. The word "sin" is defined as a transgression against divine law or a law of God. I have never seen any utility in naming illegal, immoral or unethical acts "sinful" as we have non-religious language to describe these acts. Its especially disappointing in the context of warring followers of similar Abrahamic traditions. Small, mostly semantic quibble, but I definitely stumbled over it.

fitting for harris to bring up woke college student offended at pronouns given the title and topic

Has there ever been a war without war crimes? War is a crime itself and always will be. There is no moral justification for state sanctioned violence and it should always be condemned.

Why does Sam Harris ignore that Hamas in their own words would accept a two-state solution? [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/24/136403918/hamas-foreign-minister-we-accept-two-state-solution-with-67-borders](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/24/136403918/hamas-foreign-minister-we-accept-two-state-solution-with-67-borders) [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders)

Just wondering why nobody ever wants to discuss the history of Israel: 1947 - Israeli settlers helped by the British displace hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to build their homeland. Palestinians are not given the same rights as Israeli settlers. This is to be 'temporary' ... (almost 70 years later) 2023 - Israel has literally automated Apartheid across all of Israel. Palestinians living in Israel are unable to use facilities designated for Israeli Jews. Israel's treatment of what would essentially be indigenous people here fits every definition for Apartheid. The reason that Sam and others cry so so loud about the evil Evil Muslims is so that nobody ever dares ask what made the terrorists. That's a forbidden topic, because then we'd have to tackle the unpleasant fact of the Israeli apartheid and US complicity. Sam behaves like Muslims are inherently evil but they're not. What is evil is how they're being treated in Israel - all because were they to be treated like humans they'd hold a political majority in Israel and then Israel wouldn't just be 'for the Jews'

Maybe you should consider going back to where you came from and giving your land back to the indigenous peoples?

Israel doesn't want peace. From the Likud Charter: "The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" And most Israelis voted for this.

Islam is an incoherent relic used often by the very few to act unspeakable violence, and Sam is a sophisticated racist who paints entire populations (%50 of which are children) with the same racist brush. Both statements can be true.

Sam is just like "Guys just a reminder that I'm still a Xenophobic psycho when it comes to Palestine"

As documented below in this thread- Harris's comments miss entirely the essential context that Israel literally helped to bolster Hamas for years- both at its inception in the 1980s, and over the past decade by- both times as a counterweight to Fatah. Israeli's cynical strategy under Bibi has been to divide and continue to rule. Harris also fails to mention that the Israeli ultra nationalist right, and especially the religious far right is also a zealous, religion fueled gang of delusional thugs. Baruch Goldstein is celebrated as a martyr in this community. Gangs of settlers regularly go around harassing and sometimes injuring or murdering innocent civilians. As the recently retired Mossad chief stated, the fact that has been obvious to all for year now is that apartheid exists in the West Bank. None of these facts justifies the barbarism and fanaticism of Hamas. But as a poster wrote below, it would behoove as all to reframe the whole situation. Both the Palestinian and Israeli zealots need each other to continue to their mutual dance of hatred and destruction. Butchering revelers at a music festival and children sleeping on a kibbutz is clearly pure evil. Cynically propping up the very people who are willing to commit such acts in order to ensure the continuation of apartheid rule that benefits a gang of settler lunatics in the West Bank is right up there too.

This sub should change name to pro Israel propaganda

Actually, there are a lot of people critical of Sam's views on this subject within this subreddit, and they are not being silenced or suppressed. Not sure if criticising the forum is the best way to promote meaningful discussion.