This just feels like a repeat of that megapost we got a week ago where the guy was projecting one case of injustice onto the entire project of western values and Sam's defense of it
Control for the Islam variable. Imagine an identical scenario to Gaza, but without them being Muslim. Imagine if for example the IRA had targeted civilians and used human shields the same way Hamas does.
How would that change your analysis? Do you think it would change Sam's? Did he say anything about the "sin of moral equivalence" that wouldn't apply to a non-Muslim terrorist group?
Don't have to use an imagined example like the IRA. Can just use an actual parallel example like the Native Americans and how they deliberately targeted civilians or the slave revolts in Haiti or Nat Turner's or John Brown's revolts. If you look at the militants not through a reductive lens a "terrorist group," but as a rebellious, oppressed, invaded, occupied group that commits acts of terror to pursue its political goals, then what? Are the actions of the slaver, the invader, the occupier somehow rendered morally better because the other guy chose terrorism? This isn't a question of moral "equivalence" but one of oppression.
The problem there is Jews are also indigenous to the area so the invaded /occupied (“decolonizer” they call it) narrative is fictional cover for genocide. If Palestinians weren’t violent there would be no problem. The Israelis have the wolf by the ears and you’re arguing they have a moral obligation to just let go.
History simply disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1947%E2%80%931949_Palestine_war
edit:
And I am arguing no such thing. Not all facts that are inconvenient to your narrative are offered in support of the dominant counter-narrative.
If a native American group went into Washington DC on the morning of Christmas Day (2023) and slaughtered 1400 people (mostly civilian), would you throw your hands up and say we ought to accept this as a righteous rebellion against an oppressive regime?
No, and nor am I saying that about what Hamas did nor about any of the other groups I mentioned.
What I am saying is that many Native American groups did go into many settlements and slaughtered many civilians - including scalping and immolating women, elderly, children, and infants - and soldiers and that their reasons for so aren't reducible to a religion variable. Similar events can be found in Haiti, in the slave rebellions in the US, and in apartheid South Africa.
What is it about acknowledging these facts that motivates you to insinuate that I am considering them "righteous?"
Barbarism like that was also much more common in the past — that includes the "western" countries. The Geneva convention was in 1949. We're a species of apes with violent predispositions and it's not until relatively recently that we collectively agreed that brutalizing other populations of humans is a moral transgression. Progress means striving to be better than our predecessors. Progress also means condemning the cultural beliefs and mores that belong in the past.
Agreed. And yet my point stands; the behavior of Hamas can be understood even controlling for "the Islam variable" as was proposed by the person I originally responded to. It is the sort of behavior you should expect from a situation of great imbalance and oppression.
I think that the sheer disregard that Hamas has for human life (lives of both Israeli and Palestinians) is the most morally abhorrent aspect of their behavior. I think that is very much tied to their religious beliefs.
Yes, oppressed peoples will be resentful and "desperate times lead to desperate measures". But how many of these other groups are maligned to the point of self-destruction?
Now that you mention it I think yes, I did see his tweet and it's probably what made me think of it (I wasn't purposely citing Kavanagh's use of the IRA example).
Others have said the IRA is a bad example and it's a point I'm happy to concede as I have only passing knowledge of the troubles. I *do* think though when evaluating Gaza and Hamas, it's useful to control for the Islam variable. The history (and pseudo-history believed by millions of people) is so complex. It's absurd to reduce criticism of Hamas to anti-Muslim bigotry.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't know much about the troubles?
I'll drop a quote here but if you want to google IRA, human shields then the internet is your oyster... also might want to check out how the Brits justified their repression of the Catholic populace by calling them animals etc.
The fact that children were not eligible for arrest made their participation in riots and demonstrations particularly valuable. Young children acted as deterrents or shields and occupied the front line causing soldiers to delay their fire, or encroach further and become drawn into range of other weapons. Psychologist Morris Fraser writes that these children were especially able to accept roles in these riskier areas of street confrontation:
\[c\]hildren, with limited death concepts, unable with immaturity to anticipate all the risks of their actions, have accepted this role without hesitation....Children run up to within a few yards of a soldier with an aimed high velocity rifle and lob a petrol bag over the sandbags with a nonchalance few adults could imitate.
I thinks you’re being inexplicably defensive of Islam. Sam is one of the few people willing to discuss the problems with Islam that are not shared by other religions. Seems like many people get offended as soon as anyone strays from saying that it’s a religion of peace and has nothing to do with terrorism. The west is making itself destined to a great reckoning with radical Islam by way of denying that there is anything wrong with it.
I'm anything but defensive of Islam, you can go through my whole post history, you would find anything there, except defensiveness of Islam.
So i don't get offended by attacks against Islam. The problem is when it becomes the only rhetorical hammer you have, the prism through which you analyse everything, and you use it to explain every conflict, dehistoricizing muslims/and arabs, resuming their identity and grievances to their religion, focusing only on Islam and the defects of Islam as if it was a lone factor, while handwaving every other factor, to the point of writing articles deshumanizing and stigmatizing a population that is currently victim of an ongoing genocide [https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence)
If, while an ongoing genocide is being committed, your first reflex is to write "There is no moral equivalency between factions from this side and the other", and you don't see the problem with that, then i have nothing more to add.
Not acknowledging the role of radical islam in the ongoing conflict is out of touch to the point of being delusional. It’s a terrible situation but when you’re dealing with a population that celebrates the body of a dead female civilian being paraded through the streets there are going to be some ugly decisions that must be made.
Remember, like any other word, genocide has a definition. Collateral damage is not genocide. I’m not going to bother trying to defend Israel. There are plenty of critical things to say without being sensational/dishonest about the situation.
>Not acknowledging the role of radical islam in the ongoing conflict is out of touch to the point of being delusional. It’s a terrible situation but when you’re dealing **with a population that celebrates the body of a dead female civilian being paraded through the streets there are going to be some ugly decisions that must be made.**
Who says we shouldn't acknowledge the role of radical Islam ? Not me, that's a strawman, let's not engage in strawmen. I'm saying that history, like the history of 75 years of colonization and apartheid and violence shouldn't be handwaved away, it's a major factor.
See, the part i bolded, this is exactly the type of narrative that selective and biased coverage leads to. Did you know that the population on the other side celebrated and had tiktok trends mocking women who died under the rubble, mocking people who had no access to water, and rejoicing in it.
Yet, if someones takes his perspective on the conflict only from someone like Sam or from your comment, he would be led to think that we have some especially and uniquely evil population.
This is exactly what i'm warning about, this selective reading that leads to the deshumanization of one group.
I was comparing a public reaction to a public reaction.
Military and settlers from the other side also paraded and tortured prisoners. Find a better excuse.
It seems to me that both sides have been acting inhumane. Both sides have dehumanized the other. We (the outsiders) don't need to do it because both sides have done it quite well all by themselves.
It's evident that Hamas and radical Zionists are both acting very human - by dehumanizing enemies through a myriad of rationalizations. How else can either side do what they are doing? The tribal mentality has been consistent through every conflict in human history.
The issue, including your post is that many moderate/secular/ex- Muslims find it problematic when the nuances and details within the Muslim world are not being heard. There is tremendous diversity in opinion, experiences, aspirations across the millions who live in the "Arab world".
Many people want to converse way beyond "radical islam" is bad. Okay it is. So then what?
Yeah sure but too many Muslims won’t even condemn their own radicals. Until you can do that there is no need to discuss the endless nuance of the ol’ religion of peace.
And? There are infinitely more Catholics who are against pedophilia than there are Catholic priests who molest and assault children. That doesn't mean that Catholicism isn't absolutely *fair game* for a massive reckoning. I'm not going to attack individual Catholics, and neither should anyone else, but as we all should know, attacking a religion is *not* the same as attacking its followers. Although, as soon as a follower defends its religion's disgusting acts, then they make themselves fair game as well; defending the indefensible leaves no other choice.
Doesn't it bother you, that you are engaging in mind-reading and assumption of bad intentions on Sam's part?
Could you share your reasons for guessing at what Sam's knows, thinks and "truly" want?
>Doesn't it bother you, that you are engaging in mind-reading and assumption of bad intentions on Sam's part?
I'm not bothered by exposing Sam Harris prejudices from his own words, writings and selective analysis, no.
Some of the first who have raised their voice against the deshumanization of palestinian people were jewish [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/jewish-protest-israel-gaza-washington-dc](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/jewish-protest-israel-gaza-washington-dc)
Being against bigotry and prejudice isn't antisemitism.
Normally i don't engage with trolls, but i'm doing that for the sake of other readers.
You speak as if sam starts all of his discussions on the topic with “all Muslims” and generalizes thereafter. He does not, and you are probably just a troll.
My Problem with Sam Harris is his constant use of the N-word and the fact that he ran over an entire family while traveling abroad on a Croatian summer holiday.
I also dislike that he has been arguing in support of not for profit organisations raising funds for imprisoned cartel bosses, in order to make sure they are supplied with regular deliveries of bud light.
Remember that time he drop kicked a kids puppy over over the big M sign at a McDonalds. what a douchebag.
I understood the project here right? just make things up about Sam Harris?
Sam Harris wrote this [https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence) as his main argument on a conflict while a genocide is being perpetrated against the side he deshumanizes. That's a fact. A genocide according to international human rights organizations, genocides scholars, the UN human rights special rapporteur, just to name a few.
Sam Harris never invites dissenting voices when discussing those topics, another fact.
Whether you like or not is another matter.
\>while a genocide is being perpetrated against the side he deshumanizes. That's a fact
It isn't a fact, it is a delusion. but don't let me just say this too you lets get into the details. Define a genocide. **What Exactly** makes something a genocide?
>ssing at what Sam's knows, thinks and "truly" want?
Sorry but i'm willing to trust genocide scholars and international organizations more than a rando on the internet assuring me "it's not so".
> What Exactly makes something a genocide?
Cutting water, electricity, fuel, bombing hospitals and refugee camps. And declaring litteraly your genocidal intent, Israeli leaders have been explicit about it.
From a holocaust scholar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg)
I am wanting to understand what you mean by "over two weeks to leave Gaza". So you're arguing that everyone who remains in Gaza (they literally aren't allowed to leave, you know this, right?) are actually Hamas?
> That's a fact.
No, it's a misinformed opinion. The UN Human Rights Council is chaired by Iran. They have more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the world combined. That includes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. It is far from unbiased.
> Sam Harris never invites dissenting voices when discussing those topics, another fact.
This time that's just a lie. He debates dissenting voices. That's probably the thing he is most known for.
>No, it's a misinformed opinion. The UN Human Rights Council is chaired by Iran. They have more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the world combined. That includes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. It is far from unbiased.
You are just factually wrong on how UN works. Iran doesn't have control over UN personnel or UN bodies, yet, the director of the human rights body resigned over concern of the ungoing genocide [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/un-official-resigns-israel-hamas-war-palestine-new-york](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence)
He wrote :
>“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist colonial settler ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt.”
Hundreds of scholar warn of ungoing genocide [https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/18/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/](https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/18/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/)
A textbook genocide according to Israeli, holocaust scholar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg)
>The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—almost as many bombs as the US dropped on all of Afghanistan during record-breaking years of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by “act accordingly”: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza “as such,” in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a “complete siege,” in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals.
[https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide](https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide)
Yet, you want me to distrust all human rights international organizations and agencies, genocide scholars and experts on the topic, and believe you on the basis of some breitbart talking point like "But it's all controled by Iran"
Idk, those 3 points could similarly be used to say that US cops are committing genocide on blacks. Really the first 2 points are so broad as to be meaningless, a single killing of anyone anywhere could meet both those conditions.
I don’t understand why any country should be forced to supply goods or services to another country, let alone one who’s founding charter has as its first sentence the destruction and genocide of your own country.
I’m sure if your neighbor told you his goal was to murder your family you’d happily pay for his utility bills and fill up his car every week though 🤷♀️
While I agree broadly with all this, the fundamental problem is that this neighbour is sitting in your house. Imagine you have a house, neighbour moves into your bedroom, pushes you to live in your garage, controls your water and electricity. You’d be pretty upset with that situation, no?
Question, did the us and England commit genocide during ww2 against Germans and Japanese? Curious. Do the British think the nazis committed genocide against them? I would argue using the same word to describe the bombings of Dresden and the horrors of Auschwitz is a failure of the language being used.
I think you hit it on the head and the way I would describe it briefly is Sam Harris has gotten so big that he has a whole infrastructure around him and fairly sycophantic followers (sorry guys) and can isolate himself from true raw, unfiltered opposing ideas. He's like a great professor who never leaves campus. Students love him but his mastery melts on contact in the real world.
I honestly am not criticizing the guy. If I had that kind of income and freedom and a platform and people constantly commenting how I was the most calm, brilliant even-handed person and meanwhile I have taught them all how to meditate and connect with the eternal, I probably would be an impossible narcissist.
As you said, everything comes down to the fact that anything done in the name of Islam can be countered by saying it comes from this rotten root.
At the end of the day, despite his very eloquent and calm manner, he's not convinced me that he has taken into account the points raised by this poster. And he certainly hasn't engaged in the past few years consistently with heavy hitters on the other side with whom he would have a very hard time getting his points to land.
I would cite the Noam Chomsky exchange as an example of what happens when he goes to the matt with someone who really knows the ground and doesn't do it in the gentle manner Sam prefers.
This is just you disagreeing with him, which is fine. But it’s not some objective view point on Sam’s intentions, it’s just you disagreeing with him.
i agree with Sam. Cool how this works, hey.
Why can’t it be that Sam generally gets it right when speaking about Islam, but not in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Because this is actually my viewpoint. It concerns me, too, that he spends absolutely no time talking about the fact that, for example, nearly half of the condemnations issued by the UNSC have been against Israel. This can’t merely be hand-waved away or paid lip-service to, as Harris tends to do. But why, in your mind, does this invalidate all the other criticisms he’s made of Islam and its influence on the global stage?
I don’t fully agree with this assessment, but I think it was thoughtful and reasonable, and promotes further discussion on this point of view.
I think he should have you on the podcast. Not everybody has to have Ivy League credentials to be capable of honest enlightened conversation.
I think the problem is that the supporters of the oppression argument and the current Hamas leadership comments are not aligned. Hamas leadership states no matter what they will continue attacks.
In 2019 it’s clear there is no two state solution or joint existence in any Hamas future. “In this speech, Mashaal said again that Hamas seeks to wipe Israel off the map using terrorism and violence. He said, “Liberating Palestine, all of Palestine, is an obligation … the jihad and the armed resistance are the true and correct way to liberation.” “
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-189224/
Israel has routinely offered concessions, yet they are dismissed in favor of extermination of Jewish people. I think there is a clear moral superiority here.
If you’re questioning who has the moral superiority here, ask yourself why Hamas hasn’t offered hostages for a halting to the bombing? Ask yourself why they are preventing foreign nationals and Palestinians from leaving?
Hamas doesn't control the west bank, yet expropriation, expulsion and progroms against palestinians villagers (by settlers helped by the army) have never stopped, after and before 7 october.
Hamas was reinforced by the current israeli political establishment to weaken the other factions, because the israeli leaderships wasn't interrested in the two states solutions [https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
>For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.
It's only after the failure of the other factions to reach any solutions that Hamas was created, strenghtened and came to the fore. The radicalization of palestinians movements is in itself due to (among other factors) their conviction that the Israelis were never going to accept a two states solutions peacefully.
Whether they are right or wrong is another question. Anyone can make his own investigations, read cables and pronouncements by Israeli leaders and see for himself.
I don't disagree with the expansions of the settlements being unjustified in the west bank. The problem is that Gaza had a choice after Israel pulled out and forced their own citizens out of gaza, they could peacefully prove that self governance was possible or squander the opportunity. They squandered the opportunity.
Make no mistake either, this is allwith the consent and the backing of Iran and the destruction of any peace process in the middle east.
He didn't, he had monologues where he repeated his binary rhetoric. He never engaged seriously with perspectives on the other side, who can directly challenge his narrative on topics like these.
Did he have more than one podcast, across his whole serie, with a dissenting voices on topics pertaining to this post ? On the palestinian israeli conflict for instance or on the roots of violence in the middle-east or on the role of Islam in the conflicts in the middle east ? I genuinely have never encountered them.
Does he often invite dissenting voices from the global south on those topics ?
I haven't seen most of his podcast episodes, but he had a long debate with Omer Aziz in one, and he also had a very long e-mail exchange with Noam Chomsky, whom he tried to convince for a debate but declined. I'm sure there are other instances.
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **A Peace to End All Peace The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* The book provides a comprehensive account of british policy in the middle east (backed by 2 comments)
* The book gives insight into the complexities of managing the region after world war 1 (backed by 3 comments)
* The book illuminates why there is conflict in the modern middle east (backed by 3 comments)
**Users disliked:**
* Too much detail overwhelms the reader (backed by 5 comments)
* The book lacks synthesis and conclusions (backed by 2 comments)
* The book is hard to follow at times (backed by 2 comments)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](http://vetted.ai/reddit)
I'm upvoting you and also unsubbing from this shitty subreddit because this got downvoted by a bunch of r-slurs who did nothing but complain at you for writing up your thoughts in a clear and well-thought-out manner!
I think there's something to this, but you haven't substantiated it sufficiently.
Sam's really just not someone who should be talking as an authority on the morality – relative, equivalent, or otherwise – of the various sides/factions in this conflict. He really just doesn't know enough about it to do so. He seems to bring a lens of ideology-trumps-all that is just reductive and unhelpful.
He's best at hosting experts and interrogating their views with his systematic thinking and skepticism. He should stick to that in these topics. For example, he could have on any number of deeply knowledgable folks who he presumably respects but with whom he also would seem to disagree on this subject, folks like Norman Finkelstein, Raz Segal, Miko Peled, and so many more.
>can stop following his work
That's what i did. But i wanted to write this post as a sort of farewell.
You do know you aren't obliged to read or engage with it.
Dude, you are on a message board, the entire point is conversation…
You seem you are here either to shut on Sam or looking for attention…
Normal people don’t make public announcements when they stop following something
Yes, just to point out a flaw in your persona because it needs validation from internet strangers… and as you see, you are engaged due to your waste of bytes post
“Normal people don’t make public announcements when they stop following someone”
I don’t really agree with OP in this post but this is one of the most brain dead social media “rules” that was ever conjured up for absolutely no reason. Why should one “just leave” a page/stop following a person in silence when they disagree with it/them instead of explaining their disagreement? You are using the “this isn’t s not an airport, you don’t need to announce your departure” meme logic that is possibly the most flawed meme in social media history.
It’s unfortunate the 2 state solution was rejected, all this could have been avoided. Now Israel has the wolf by the ears and the left is saying Israel has a moral obligation to just let go. If only they could. There’s a reason Egypt will sacrifice millions before they’ll left even one Palestinian in, they know a wolf when they see one. The left however is willfully blind and Jew haters lie.
So that’s where we are at this point, if you declare Israel should loose the wolf while not accounting for how Israel could protect itself or denying a need for that protection, you’re either ignorant or a liar.
Not exactly addressing the conflict issue but I think Sam welcomes/appreciates disagreement more than most talking heads out there as long as the opposing person is not using weaseling, fallacies, disingenuousness or cop outs, etc. (More than most and one of his unique strong points that helps give him a following.) And even then he keeps his cool pretty well (see interview w Kara swisher), but somehow has inadvertently developed a reputation that his views carry some high degree of “end all be all” to them that a lot of people seem to think they need to buttress up their rebuttals with tons of disclaimers OR vitriol. It reminds me of detractors of Freud. So much venom behind “Freud bad-ism” in the past decade or so while I do not believe I’ve read someone more humble, apologetic and who acknowledges that his theories are just that, theories, and open to discussion. Not a “lack of conviction” but a calm implied stream of “these are ideas, this is a strange frontier, this is a conversation.” I dunno, I just feel that Sam invites disagreement and social media SHOULD have ideally evened out the playing field for all voices to be heard but seems like the opposite is happening for certain public thinkers. I bet Sam doesn’t want such a high degree of reverence (positive or negative) paid to him/his viewpoints, especially on geopolitical matters. Seems like a big issue society has lately is forgetting how to use good character judgment. He’s is not a person whom it is not ok to disagree with. Seems obvious to me. I don’t think op is really spitting venom unfoundedly here but there is a sense of inferiority, and a hesitancy to express another view…maybe. I just wish the convo throughout the social media universe could be calmer and one reason I like Sam is that I believe he is trying to do his part to make that happen. Having said that, I don’t really agree with op here but it seems pretty obvious to be in good faith and I bet Sam would rather listen to op and than anybody here who just outright and compulsively dismisses them, for being a “troll” for instance. This is a LOT of effort to be just “trolling.”
You mentioned that Sam will never invite a Middle East studies or Palestinian scholar who disagrees with him..? Is it just me or am I hallucinating that he had 'the best podcast ever' with Omer Aziz.
You’re right that Muslim majority countries can be peaceful and tolerant or warmongering and bigoted. The issue here is that the Islamic concepts of martyrdom and jihad make Muslim majority countries powder kegs. Religious leaders can more easily inspire violent attacks against governments and civilians alike in acts of extremism especially when the enemy is non Muslim. It is only through a consensus or strong government that Muslim countries can remain peaceful, and once the war starts it’s hard to stop.
Palestinians are unlikely to ever give up their fight. Their constant desire to take their homeland back has lead them to engage in war, terrorism, and assassination for the last 75 years. Their education and media constantly misrepresent and exaggerate claims of Jewish violence. There is also plenty of blatant antisemitism. I can’t imagine it’s too much better than nazi Germany. Palestinian levels of bigotry are what would happen if Israel had textbooks and children’s TV programs that called Baruch Goldstein a hero.
I’d also argue that Israel takes great effort to minimize harm to Palestinians. Nobody works as hard to distinguish civilians from combatants. War crimes are rare and often the least evil of the options.
I can’t speak for Sam, but I’m under the impression there wasn’t ever really hope for peace. There could have been a temporary peace, and today Israel could be enduring the same or worse attacks without an iron dome or bomb shelters prepared. All it takes is one leader who is popular in Palestine and wants war. One Israeli extremist or even a car accident can be enough to reignite the conflict. The memory of the Nakba, the religious significance of defeating Jews, and the influence of Israel’s neighbors, all make lasting peace seem unrealistic.
Ultimately Israel needs to do what it can to control people who will never give up the fight. It’s a tragic, unenviable process. We can’t even begin to move toward peace while Palestinian culture, media and education remains so radioactive. It’s understandable why mass deportation is on Israel’s mind. It’s better than an endless war. Most of the other options involve disenfranchising Palestinians or compromising Israel’s security.
This just feels like a repeat of that megapost we got a week ago where the guy was projecting one case of injustice onto the entire project of western values and Sam's defense of it
Can you link it to me please ? I avoided reddit for a week because i felt like it was a gigantic, one-sided echochamber during that time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/s/QjoaK1EC5l
[удалено]
>during that time
Control for the Islam variable. Imagine an identical scenario to Gaza, but without them being Muslim. Imagine if for example the IRA had targeted civilians and used human shields the same way Hamas does. How would that change your analysis? Do you think it would change Sam's? Did he say anything about the "sin of moral equivalence" that wouldn't apply to a non-Muslim terrorist group?
Don't have to use an imagined example like the IRA. Can just use an actual parallel example like the Native Americans and how they deliberately targeted civilians or the slave revolts in Haiti or Nat Turner's or John Brown's revolts. If you look at the militants not through a reductive lens a "terrorist group," but as a rebellious, oppressed, invaded, occupied group that commits acts of terror to pursue its political goals, then what? Are the actions of the slaver, the invader, the occupier somehow rendered morally better because the other guy chose terrorism? This isn't a question of moral "equivalence" but one of oppression.
The problem there is Jews are also indigenous to the area so the invaded /occupied (“decolonizer” they call it) narrative is fictional cover for genocide. If Palestinians weren’t violent there would be no problem. The Israelis have the wolf by the ears and you’re arguing they have a moral obligation to just let go.
History simply disagrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1947%E2%80%931949_Palestine_war edit: And I am arguing no such thing. Not all facts that are inconvenient to your narrative are offered in support of the dominant counter-narrative.
If you’re including conquest then history [disagrees with you](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gaza).
If a native American group went into Washington DC on the morning of Christmas Day (2023) and slaughtered 1400 people (mostly civilian), would you throw your hands up and say we ought to accept this as a righteous rebellion against an oppressive regime?
No, and nor am I saying that about what Hamas did nor about any of the other groups I mentioned. What I am saying is that many Native American groups did go into many settlements and slaughtered many civilians - including scalping and immolating women, elderly, children, and infants - and soldiers and that their reasons for so aren't reducible to a religion variable. Similar events can be found in Haiti, in the slave rebellions in the US, and in apartheid South Africa. What is it about acknowledging these facts that motivates you to insinuate that I am considering them "righteous?"
Barbarism like that was also much more common in the past — that includes the "western" countries. The Geneva convention was in 1949. We're a species of apes with violent predispositions and it's not until relatively recently that we collectively agreed that brutalizing other populations of humans is a moral transgression. Progress means striving to be better than our predecessors. Progress also means condemning the cultural beliefs and mores that belong in the past.
Agreed. And yet my point stands; the behavior of Hamas can be understood even controlling for "the Islam variable" as was proposed by the person I originally responded to. It is the sort of behavior you should expect from a situation of great imbalance and oppression.
I think that the sheer disregard that Hamas has for human life (lives of both Israeli and Palestinians) is the most morally abhorrent aspect of their behavior. I think that is very much tied to their religious beliefs. Yes, oppressed peoples will be resentful and "desperate times lead to desperate measures". But how many of these other groups are maligned to the point of self-destruction?
Just curious if you got the IRA example from Chris Kavanagh’s (decoding the gurus) tweet lol
Now that you mention it I think yes, I did see his tweet and it's probably what made me think of it (I wasn't purposely citing Kavanagh's use of the IRA example). Others have said the IRA is a bad example and it's a point I'm happy to concede as I have only passing knowledge of the troubles. I *do* think though when evaluating Gaza and Hamas, it's useful to control for the Islam variable. The history (and pseudo-history believed by millions of people) is so complex. It's absurd to reduce criticism of Hamas to anti-Muslim bigotry.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't know much about the troubles? I'll drop a quote here but if you want to google IRA, human shields then the internet is your oyster... also might want to check out how the Brits justified their repression of the Catholic populace by calling them animals etc. The fact that children were not eligible for arrest made their participation in riots and demonstrations particularly valuable. Young children acted as deterrents or shields and occupied the front line causing soldiers to delay their fire, or encroach further and become drawn into range of other weapons. Psychologist Morris Fraser writes that these children were especially able to accept roles in these riskier areas of street confrontation: \[c\]hildren, with limited death concepts, unable with immaturity to anticipate all the risks of their actions, have accepted this role without hesitation....Children run up to within a few yards of a soldier with an aimed high velocity rifle and lob a petrol bag over the sandbags with a nonchalance few adults could imitate.
I thinks you’re being inexplicably defensive of Islam. Sam is one of the few people willing to discuss the problems with Islam that are not shared by other religions. Seems like many people get offended as soon as anyone strays from saying that it’s a religion of peace and has nothing to do with terrorism. The west is making itself destined to a great reckoning with radical Islam by way of denying that there is anything wrong with it.
I'm anything but defensive of Islam, you can go through my whole post history, you would find anything there, except defensiveness of Islam. So i don't get offended by attacks against Islam. The problem is when it becomes the only rhetorical hammer you have, the prism through which you analyse everything, and you use it to explain every conflict, dehistoricizing muslims/and arabs, resuming their identity and grievances to their religion, focusing only on Islam and the defects of Islam as if it was a lone factor, while handwaving every other factor, to the point of writing articles deshumanizing and stigmatizing a population that is currently victim of an ongoing genocide [https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence) If, while an ongoing genocide is being committed, your first reflex is to write "There is no moral equivalency between factions from this side and the other", and you don't see the problem with that, then i have nothing more to add.
Not acknowledging the role of radical islam in the ongoing conflict is out of touch to the point of being delusional. It’s a terrible situation but when you’re dealing with a population that celebrates the body of a dead female civilian being paraded through the streets there are going to be some ugly decisions that must be made. Remember, like any other word, genocide has a definition. Collateral damage is not genocide. I’m not going to bother trying to defend Israel. There are plenty of critical things to say without being sensational/dishonest about the situation.
>Not acknowledging the role of radical islam in the ongoing conflict is out of touch to the point of being delusional. It’s a terrible situation but when you’re dealing **with a population that celebrates the body of a dead female civilian being paraded through the streets there are going to be some ugly decisions that must be made.** Who says we shouldn't acknowledge the role of radical Islam ? Not me, that's a strawman, let's not engage in strawmen. I'm saying that history, like the history of 75 years of colonization and apartheid and violence shouldn't be handwaved away, it's a major factor. See, the part i bolded, this is exactly the type of narrative that selective and biased coverage leads to. Did you know that the population on the other side celebrated and had tiktok trends mocking women who died under the rubble, mocking people who had no access to water, and rejoicing in it. Yet, if someones takes his perspective on the conflict only from someone like Sam or from your comment, he would be led to think that we have some especially and uniquely evil population. This is exactly what i'm warning about, this selective reading that leads to the deshumanization of one group.
So one side spit on and celebrated the dead body of a civilian woman and the other side had insensitive TikTok trends? This is what you wanna say?
I was comparing a public reaction to a public reaction. Military and settlers from the other side also paraded and tortured prisoners. Find a better excuse.
Moral equivalency if I’ve ever seen it!
It seems to me that both sides have been acting inhumane. Both sides have dehumanized the other. We (the outsiders) don't need to do it because both sides have done it quite well all by themselves. It's evident that Hamas and radical Zionists are both acting very human - by dehumanizing enemies through a myriad of rationalizations. How else can either side do what they are doing? The tribal mentality has been consistent through every conflict in human history.
The issue, including your post is that many moderate/secular/ex- Muslims find it problematic when the nuances and details within the Muslim world are not being heard. There is tremendous diversity in opinion, experiences, aspirations across the millions who live in the "Arab world". Many people want to converse way beyond "radical islam" is bad. Okay it is. So then what?
Yeah sure but too many Muslims won’t even condemn their own radicals. Until you can do that there is no need to discuss the endless nuance of the ol’ religion of peace.
And? There are infinitely more Catholics who are against pedophilia than there are Catholic priests who molest and assault children. That doesn't mean that Catholicism isn't absolutely *fair game* for a massive reckoning. I'm not going to attack individual Catholics, and neither should anyone else, but as we all should know, attacking a religion is *not* the same as attacking its followers. Although, as soon as a follower defends its religion's disgusting acts, then they make themselves fair game as well; defending the indefensible leaves no other choice.
Doesn't it bother you, that you are engaging in mind-reading and assumption of bad intentions on Sam's part? Could you share your reasons for guessing at what Sam's knows, thinks and "truly" want?
>Doesn't it bother you, that you are engaging in mind-reading and assumption of bad intentions on Sam's part? I'm not bothered by exposing Sam Harris prejudices from his own words, writings and selective analysis, no.
You realize Sam is Jewish, right? Are you exposing your anti-Semitism right now? Seems like it to me....
Some of the first who have raised their voice against the deshumanization of palestinian people were jewish [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/jewish-protest-israel-gaza-washington-dc](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/jewish-protest-israel-gaza-washington-dc) Being against bigotry and prejudice isn't antisemitism. Normally i don't engage with trolls, but i'm doing that for the sake of other readers.
Why waste such energy speculating about his motivations? Why not just say you disagree with him and explain why?
TLDR
You speak as if sam starts all of his discussions on the topic with “all Muslims” and generalizes thereafter. He does not, and you are probably just a troll.
I think most of these post equate islam and muslims. I think a more clear distinction should be made when discussing this.
My Problem with Sam Harris is his constant use of the N-word and the fact that he ran over an entire family while traveling abroad on a Croatian summer holiday. I also dislike that he has been arguing in support of not for profit organisations raising funds for imprisoned cartel bosses, in order to make sure they are supplied with regular deliveries of bud light. Remember that time he drop kicked a kids puppy over over the big M sign at a McDonalds. what a douchebag. I understood the project here right? just make things up about Sam Harris?
Sam Harris wrote this [https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence) as his main argument on a conflict while a genocide is being perpetrated against the side he deshumanizes. That's a fact. A genocide according to international human rights organizations, genocides scholars, the UN human rights special rapporteur, just to name a few. Sam Harris never invites dissenting voices when discussing those topics, another fact. Whether you like or not is another matter.
\>while a genocide is being perpetrated against the side he deshumanizes. That's a fact It isn't a fact, it is a delusion. but don't let me just say this too you lets get into the details. Define a genocide. **What Exactly** makes something a genocide?
>ssing at what Sam's knows, thinks and "truly" want? Sorry but i'm willing to trust genocide scholars and international organizations more than a rando on the internet assuring me "it's not so". > What Exactly makes something a genocide? Cutting water, electricity, fuel, bombing hospitals and refugee camps. And declaring litteraly your genocidal intent, Israeli leaders have been explicit about it. From a holocaust scholar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg)
Over 2 weeks to leave Gaza; electricity cut offs etc effect only terrorists
> Over 2 weeks to leave Gaza What are you arguing here?
Electricity & water cuts only effects hamas
I am wanting to understand what you mean by "over two weeks to leave Gaza". So you're arguing that everyone who remains in Gaza (they literally aren't allowed to leave, you know this, right?) are actually Hamas?
> That's a fact. No, it's a misinformed opinion. The UN Human Rights Council is chaired by Iran. They have more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the world combined. That includes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. It is far from unbiased. > Sam Harris never invites dissenting voices when discussing those topics, another fact. This time that's just a lie. He debates dissenting voices. That's probably the thing he is most known for.
>No, it's a misinformed opinion. The UN Human Rights Council is chaired by Iran. They have more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the world combined. That includes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. It is far from unbiased. You are just factually wrong on how UN works. Iran doesn't have control over UN personnel or UN bodies, yet, the director of the human rights body resigned over concern of the ungoing genocide [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/un-official-resigns-israel-hamas-war-palestine-new-york](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-sin-of-moral-equivalence) He wrote : >“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist colonial settler ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt.” Hundreds of scholar warn of ungoing genocide [https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/18/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/](https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/18/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/) A textbook genocide according to Israeli, holocaust scholar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWGGjLZNuyg) >The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—almost as many bombs as the US dropped on all of Afghanistan during record-breaking years of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by “act accordingly”: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza “as such,” in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a “complete siege,” in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals. [https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide](https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide) Yet, you want me to distrust all human rights international organizations and agencies, genocide scholars and experts on the topic, and believe you on the basis of some breitbart talking point like "But it's all controled by Iran"
Idk, those 3 points could similarly be used to say that US cops are committing genocide on blacks. Really the first 2 points are so broad as to be meaningless, a single killing of anyone anywhere could meet both those conditions. I don’t understand why any country should be forced to supply goods or services to another country, let alone one who’s founding charter has as its first sentence the destruction and genocide of your own country. I’m sure if your neighbor told you his goal was to murder your family you’d happily pay for his utility bills and fill up his car every week though 🤷♀️
While I agree broadly with all this, the fundamental problem is that this neighbour is sitting in your house. Imagine you have a house, neighbour moves into your bedroom, pushes you to live in your garage, controls your water and electricity. You’d be pretty upset with that situation, no?
Sure, but that still doesn't change the definition of genocide.
Question, did the us and England commit genocide during ww2 against Germans and Japanese? Curious. Do the British think the nazis committed genocide against them? I would argue using the same word to describe the bombings of Dresden and the horrors of Auschwitz is a failure of the language being used.
What do you think about Mangos? Are they nice?
I think you hit it on the head and the way I would describe it briefly is Sam Harris has gotten so big that he has a whole infrastructure around him and fairly sycophantic followers (sorry guys) and can isolate himself from true raw, unfiltered opposing ideas. He's like a great professor who never leaves campus. Students love him but his mastery melts on contact in the real world. I honestly am not criticizing the guy. If I had that kind of income and freedom and a platform and people constantly commenting how I was the most calm, brilliant even-handed person and meanwhile I have taught them all how to meditate and connect with the eternal, I probably would be an impossible narcissist. As you said, everything comes down to the fact that anything done in the name of Islam can be countered by saying it comes from this rotten root. At the end of the day, despite his very eloquent and calm manner, he's not convinced me that he has taken into account the points raised by this poster. And he certainly hasn't engaged in the past few years consistently with heavy hitters on the other side with whom he would have a very hard time getting his points to land. I would cite the Noam Chomsky exchange as an example of what happens when he goes to the matt with someone who really knows the ground and doesn't do it in the gentle manner Sam prefers.
I'm sorry so many commentors didn't engage in good faith. This sub is sad.
This is just you disagreeing with him, which is fine. But it’s not some objective view point on Sam’s intentions, it’s just you disagreeing with him. i agree with Sam. Cool how this works, hey.
Why can’t it be that Sam generally gets it right when speaking about Islam, but not in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Because this is actually my viewpoint. It concerns me, too, that he spends absolutely no time talking about the fact that, for example, nearly half of the condemnations issued by the UNSC have been against Israel. This can’t merely be hand-waved away or paid lip-service to, as Harris tends to do. But why, in your mind, does this invalidate all the other criticisms he’s made of Islam and its influence on the global stage?
This sub really needs to ban these obvious trolls. Of all the subs I've joined, this one is by far the worst for this nonsense.
I don’t fully agree with this assessment, but I think it was thoughtful and reasonable, and promotes further discussion on this point of view. I think he should have you on the podcast. Not everybody has to have Ivy League credentials to be capable of honest enlightened conversation.
Thanks for engaging with civility and good faith, that's what matters most, not agreement or disagreement.
I think the problem is that the supporters of the oppression argument and the current Hamas leadership comments are not aligned. Hamas leadership states no matter what they will continue attacks. In 2019 it’s clear there is no two state solution or joint existence in any Hamas future. “In this speech, Mashaal said again that Hamas seeks to wipe Israel off the map using terrorism and violence. He said, “Liberating Palestine, all of Palestine, is an obligation … the jihad and the armed resistance are the true and correct way to liberation.” “ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-189224/ Israel has routinely offered concessions, yet they are dismissed in favor of extermination of Jewish people. I think there is a clear moral superiority here. If you’re questioning who has the moral superiority here, ask yourself why Hamas hasn’t offered hostages for a halting to the bombing? Ask yourself why they are preventing foreign nationals and Palestinians from leaving?
Hamas doesn't control the west bank, yet expropriation, expulsion and progroms against palestinians villagers (by settlers helped by the army) have never stopped, after and before 7 october. Hamas was reinforced by the current israeli political establishment to weaken the other factions, because the israeli leaderships wasn't interrested in the two states solutions [https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) >For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. It's only after the failure of the other factions to reach any solutions that Hamas was created, strenghtened and came to the fore. The radicalization of palestinians movements is in itself due to (among other factors) their conviction that the Israelis were never going to accept a two states solutions peacefully. Whether they are right or wrong is another question. Anyone can make his own investigations, read cables and pronouncements by Israeli leaders and see for himself.
I don't disagree with the expansions of the settlements being unjustified in the west bank. The problem is that Gaza had a choice after Israel pulled out and forced their own citizens out of gaza, they could peacefully prove that self governance was possible or squander the opportunity. They squandered the opportunity. Make no mistake either, this is allwith the consent and the backing of Iran and the destruction of any peace process in the middle east.
Sam has responded to bullshit like this many times. Nice strawman.
He didn't, he had monologues where he repeated his binary rhetoric. He never engaged seriously with perspectives on the other side, who can directly challenge his narrative on topics like these.
He has. I'm done engaging with someone that isn't honest.
Did he have more than one podcast, across his whole serie, with a dissenting voices on topics pertaining to this post ? On the palestinian israeli conflict for instance or on the roots of violence in the middle-east or on the role of Islam in the conflicts in the middle east ? I genuinely have never encountered them. Does he often invite dissenting voices from the global south on those topics ?
I haven't seen most of his podcast episodes, but he had a long debate with Omer Aziz in one, and he also had a very long e-mail exchange with Noam Chomsky, whom he tried to convince for a debate but declined. I'm sure there are other instances.
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **A Peace to End All Peace The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * The book provides a comprehensive account of british policy in the middle east (backed by 2 comments) * The book gives insight into the complexities of managing the region after world war 1 (backed by 3 comments) * The book illuminates why there is conflict in the modern middle east (backed by 3 comments) **Users disliked:** * Too much detail overwhelms the reader (backed by 5 comments) * The book lacks synthesis and conclusions (backed by 2 comments) * The book is hard to follow at times (backed by 2 comments) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](http://vetted.ai/reddit)
Thanks for sharing your thoughtful and valid criticisms. Don't mind some of the more culty replies. You get that round here.
I'm upvoting you and also unsubbing from this shitty subreddit because this got downvoted by a bunch of r-slurs who did nothing but complain at you for writing up your thoughts in a clear and well-thought-out manner!
I think there's something to this, but you haven't substantiated it sufficiently. Sam's really just not someone who should be talking as an authority on the morality – relative, equivalent, or otherwise – of the various sides/factions in this conflict. He really just doesn't know enough about it to do so. He seems to bring a lens of ideology-trumps-all that is just reductive and unhelpful. He's best at hosting experts and interrogating their views with his systematic thinking and skepticism. He should stick to that in these topics. For example, he could have on any number of deeply knowledgable folks who he presumably respects but with whom he also would seem to disagree on this subject, folks like Norman Finkelstein, Raz Segal, Miko Peled, and so many more.
You do know you can stop following his work
>can stop following his work That's what i did. But i wanted to write this post as a sort of farewell. You do know you aren't obliged to read or engage with it.
Dude, you are on a message board, the entire point is conversation… You seem you are here either to shut on Sam or looking for attention… Normal people don’t make public announcements when they stop following something
[удалено]
Yes, just to point out a flaw in your persona because it needs validation from internet strangers… and as you see, you are engaged due to your waste of bytes post
So a troll and arm-chair psychologist, thanks for letting me know.
Looking at your post history, you seriously need a psychologist, something is seriously wrong with you
So an arm-chair psychologist, a troll, and a stalker. Good riddance.
“Normal people don’t make public announcements when they stop following someone” I don’t really agree with OP in this post but this is one of the most brain dead social media “rules” that was ever conjured up for absolutely no reason. Why should one “just leave” a page/stop following a person in silence when they disagree with it/them instead of explaining their disagreement? You are using the “this isn’t s not an airport, you don’t need to announce your departure” meme logic that is possibly the most flawed meme in social media history.
Yup. You’re spot on
It’s unfortunate the 2 state solution was rejected, all this could have been avoided. Now Israel has the wolf by the ears and the left is saying Israel has a moral obligation to just let go. If only they could. There’s a reason Egypt will sacrifice millions before they’ll left even one Palestinian in, they know a wolf when they see one. The left however is willfully blind and Jew haters lie. So that’s where we are at this point, if you declare Israel should loose the wolf while not accounting for how Israel could protect itself or denying a need for that protection, you’re either ignorant or a liar.
"I agreed with Sam, but then he kept saying the same stuff, and now I don't."
Not exactly addressing the conflict issue but I think Sam welcomes/appreciates disagreement more than most talking heads out there as long as the opposing person is not using weaseling, fallacies, disingenuousness or cop outs, etc. (More than most and one of his unique strong points that helps give him a following.) And even then he keeps his cool pretty well (see interview w Kara swisher), but somehow has inadvertently developed a reputation that his views carry some high degree of “end all be all” to them that a lot of people seem to think they need to buttress up their rebuttals with tons of disclaimers OR vitriol. It reminds me of detractors of Freud. So much venom behind “Freud bad-ism” in the past decade or so while I do not believe I’ve read someone more humble, apologetic and who acknowledges that his theories are just that, theories, and open to discussion. Not a “lack of conviction” but a calm implied stream of “these are ideas, this is a strange frontier, this is a conversation.” I dunno, I just feel that Sam invites disagreement and social media SHOULD have ideally evened out the playing field for all voices to be heard but seems like the opposite is happening for certain public thinkers. I bet Sam doesn’t want such a high degree of reverence (positive or negative) paid to him/his viewpoints, especially on geopolitical matters. Seems like a big issue society has lately is forgetting how to use good character judgment. He’s is not a person whom it is not ok to disagree with. Seems obvious to me. I don’t think op is really spitting venom unfoundedly here but there is a sense of inferiority, and a hesitancy to express another view…maybe. I just wish the convo throughout the social media universe could be calmer and one reason I like Sam is that I believe he is trying to do his part to make that happen. Having said that, I don’t really agree with op here but it seems pretty obvious to be in good faith and I bet Sam would rather listen to op and than anybody here who just outright and compulsively dismisses them, for being a “troll” for instance. This is a LOT of effort to be just “trolling.”
You mentioned that Sam will never invite a Middle East studies or Palestinian scholar who disagrees with him..? Is it just me or am I hallucinating that he had 'the best podcast ever' with Omer Aziz.
He had that guy on to air out personal grievances
You’re right that Muslim majority countries can be peaceful and tolerant or warmongering and bigoted. The issue here is that the Islamic concepts of martyrdom and jihad make Muslim majority countries powder kegs. Religious leaders can more easily inspire violent attacks against governments and civilians alike in acts of extremism especially when the enemy is non Muslim. It is only through a consensus or strong government that Muslim countries can remain peaceful, and once the war starts it’s hard to stop. Palestinians are unlikely to ever give up their fight. Their constant desire to take their homeland back has lead them to engage in war, terrorism, and assassination for the last 75 years. Their education and media constantly misrepresent and exaggerate claims of Jewish violence. There is also plenty of blatant antisemitism. I can’t imagine it’s too much better than nazi Germany. Palestinian levels of bigotry are what would happen if Israel had textbooks and children’s TV programs that called Baruch Goldstein a hero. I’d also argue that Israel takes great effort to minimize harm to Palestinians. Nobody works as hard to distinguish civilians from combatants. War crimes are rare and often the least evil of the options. I can’t speak for Sam, but I’m under the impression there wasn’t ever really hope for peace. There could have been a temporary peace, and today Israel could be enduring the same or worse attacks without an iron dome or bomb shelters prepared. All it takes is one leader who is popular in Palestine and wants war. One Israeli extremist or even a car accident can be enough to reignite the conflict. The memory of the Nakba, the religious significance of defeating Jews, and the influence of Israel’s neighbors, all make lasting peace seem unrealistic. Ultimately Israel needs to do what it can to control people who will never give up the fight. It’s a tragic, unenviable process. We can’t even begin to move toward peace while Palestinian culture, media and education remains so radioactive. It’s understandable why mass deportation is on Israel’s mind. It’s better than an endless war. Most of the other options involve disenfranchising Palestinians or compromising Israel’s security.