Breaking News from Pod Save America - Mehdi Hasan vs Jeremy Ben-Ami in Fiery Debate on Gaza, Israel and America's Role

Episode Date: July 30, 2025

As heartbreaking images of starving children and desperate families emerge from Gaza, pressure is mounting on U.S. politicians — especially Democrats — to reassess America's relationship with Israel. Tommy Vietor sits down with Mehdi Hasan, founder of Zeteo, and Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, to tackle some of the toughest questions facing the Democratic Party: Should the U.S. cut off military aid to Israel? Should Democrats support Palestinian statehood? And can the party hold together a coalition that includes both progressive critics of Israel and liberal Zionists? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The latest images out of Gaza have shocked the world. You've got starving children, desperate crowds of people seeking food, and the unbelievable gaslighting by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Nanyahu, who demands that we believe him and not our lying eyes. Here's an example. Israel is presented as though we are applying a campaign of starvation in Gaza. What a bold face lie. There is no policy of starvation in Gaza.

And there is no starvation in Gaza. So this conflict, this issue, it comes with a lot of history. It's very emotional. It's politically fraught here in the United States in particular. And there are, as are so many of these seemingly intractable political problems here in the United States. So what we are trying to do here at Potsave America is create a new space on this channel for debate and conversation that brings together everybody from the left, the never Trump right, all the pod bros, all the neolib shills, all the abyshills, all the abut. London's pill dorks, everybody in between to have a conversation that tries to help us figure out some answers to these problems. Today's conversation is about Gaza and what the Democratic Party's

position should be going forward about the U.S.-Israel relationship. To help us work through it, I'm joined by two of the smartest thinkers on this topic that I know. Medi Hassan is the founder of an independent media company called Zateo. He's the reigning champion on the Jubilee Debate Circuit. Congrats on that. And a journalist who's covered this region for many, many years. Medi, great to see you. Thank you for having me, Tommy. Jeremy Benamy is the founder and president of Jay Street. It's a nonprofit group, which describes itself as the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans.

Jeremy, great to see you. And thank you both for doing this. Thanks, Tommy. Which category do we fall into the categories you listed at the beginning? I cannot say. I'm just a neo-lib shell. I'm a pro-abundance dork. I don't know.

Well, Medi did a bunch of events with Liz Cheney for Biden. So, yeah, just kidding. Just kidding. I love spending time with this changing. Love Cheney. So very quick background for listeners. So the war in Gaza has been raging for 21 months since the Hamas terror attack on October 7th where nearly 1,200 Israelis were killed and more than 200 were taken hostage.

20 of those hostages are believed to be alive and in Hamas captivity still. Since October 7th, the Gaza Health Ministry says 60,000 people have been killed, though many independent organizations believe the casualty count is much higher. And on Tuesday, a UN body called the IPC said, quote, the worst case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip. Mounting evidence shows that widespread starvation, malnutrition, and diseases are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths. So the situation is dire, and the world's attention is now focused on how to respond.

And so today we're going to step back, debate some of these bigger picture questions, and figure out how to go forward. My role here will be to hopefully kind of push you both on uncomfortable questions and then just facilitate a conversation and get out of the way. So let's start with Jeremy. Jeremy, how do you think the Democratic Party should adjust its policies in the wake of this war? Specifically, should Democrats announce that they're going to stop supporting military aid to Israel? And should Democrats support recognizing Palestine as a state like French President Emmanuel Macron recently announced he's going to do in September?

Yeah, there's got to be major adjustments. It should have been adjusted 15 years ago, 30 years ago. The idea that we're going to provide a blank check to Israel, act as it's large. lawyer in international fora and then put ourselves forward as a mediator and a conflict with and other people. It never made sense from the beginning. And so either we need to get out of the way and let somebody else try to mediate this. And I think the French have shown some real leadership working with Saudi, working now, obviously with the UK and others. But we need to stop writing a blank check. You know, our aid is not an as-of-right, you know, birthright. And we need to

stop providing protection for Israel in international institutions for accountability for the violations of international law that it perpetrates. And so those are core elements of Democratic and Republican foreign policy of the United States. They are, in my opinion, they have been for 15 years. As long as J Street's existed, it is part of the problem. And the Democratic Party needs to shift and make sure that it's understood. Its support for the state and the people of Israel is real, but it cannot be in the

form of blank check and providing immunity. So, Medi, on Positive America this week, I argued in favor of cutting off military aid to Israel, someone I really respect and who's been a tough critic of Israeli policy and of U.S. policy said he felt like even that was going too far. This person argued that military aid has been critical in helping the U.S. broker peace deals in the past, like the Camp David Accords, and will likely be part of peace deals in the future and that we should be more nuanced. And instead, the U.S. should be for conditioning aid and enforcing laws already on the books like

the Leahy law, which says the U.S. cannot train or equip military units that commit gross human rights violations. That law has never been enforced against Israel. What do you think about that? Do you think that reproach would be easier for Democrats politically, but also sort of get us where we want to be? I think that debate is done. I think the conditioning of aid was something, people forget 2020, you had mainstream centrist candidates like Pete Buttigieg saying he was willing to consider conditioning aid. This is well before the current genocide, but post, obviously, the various Israeli attacks on Gaza over the years. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders. In 2020, they were talking about conditioning aid and people like me, like, wow, that's a new topic. At the J-3 forum. I was at with Jeremy,

me and Ben Rhodes. And I was thinking to myself, that's a new topic for me to hear about. But we're way past that now. Fundamentally right now, the United States is complicit in a genocide. It's complicit in one of the worst crimes of our lifetimes. And therefore, the only question is, do we want to be complicit or not. It's a moral question. It's a legal question. The politics has to come later. Morally and legally, we should not be arming and funding a military that is being invested by investigated both by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice and is using our weaponry to kill innocent civilians. Yes, we're in violation of the Leahy law. Lehi himself says we're in violation of the law he wrote. He said that a year ago. So that's just a

no-brainer, but I think we have to go past that now. We have billions of dollars that we've given over the last year or two. I think $20 billion under Biden alone. I think Trump came along with another $5, $10 billion. Can't even keep track. What's a few billion between friends? But a lot of money in military aid and hardware has been given to Israel just since October the 7th, separate to our annual $3 billion going back, you know, several decades. So I think the debate about conditioning aid, that's all over. Israeli General set off to October. the seventh that without American bombs and bullets, we can't do what we're doing. And that's why people like me, I wrote in The Guardian, I think over a year ago, that if Biden made a phone call like Ronald

Reagan did to beg in in 1982, he could stop this in 20 minutes because of the leverage that we have. He didn't do it. We're way past all of that now. Right now, we are in the midst of a genocide. We're in the midst of a famine. What on earth are we doing having any ties with this rogue government, this rogue regime? So, Jeremy, a few days ago, AOC's, a congressman of Koso, Protez's office in the Bronx was vandalized. A group of protesters splashed red paint on the building. They left the sign that said AOC funds genocide in Gaza. And that happened right after she voted against an amendment to a military spending bill

that would have cut $500 million from funding for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. And so that vote from AOC, it kicked up a bigger debate about whether lawmakers should make a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons systems, like the missile defense system, are considered defensive weapons systems. Obviously, a bomb would be an offensive system. Crystal Ball pressed Senator Alyssa Slotkin on this question during an excellent interview on her show, breaking points. Let's listen to a clip.

Will you cut off aid to Israel so long as they're committing crimes against humanity? There is a difference between a weapon to protect a country from incoming missiles versus other types. Offensive and defensive weapons are different. So would you support offense? weapons ban? Like, would you stop any offensive a to Israel? That certainly, to me, would be a place to look, but I'm not going to cut off a blanket next sale on a defensive weapon that comes through. So, Jeremy, where do you land on this distinction between offensive

and defensive system as whether Democrats should be voting against Iron Dome funding? Yeah, you probably won't be surprised. No, I land where Alyssa Lacken lands on this. I actually think Iron Dome is one of the most important pro-piece systems that exist because every time a missile gets intercepted in the air and it doesn't land on a school or on a bus or on kids or whatever, you know, we are doing something right. And I think that the systems that are trying to tamp down the level of damage and tamp down the violence are part of an important equation. And so I think a sledgehammer approach that just says absolutely nothing, nowhere ever for Israel is a mistake.

I think Israel does actually have real security threats. And it can be under a different government, an ally of the United States, and we can be rowing in the same direction on things. We need to use the leverage we have. If we stop with any aid, any funding, if we decide we're just going to end the relationship, then we no longer have any leverage. We're not using the leverage. I'm not arguing that. I want us to be using the leverage, but it seems a little bit counterintuitive

to sort of take away all of that leverage and say we should give them nothing, and then nobody will listen to us or talk to us at that point. So I land where Senator Slocke and lands. Mehdi, what do you think? Yeah, I have to disagree with Jeremy. Three quick things. Number one, as I say,

I take Jeremy's point on the leverage, but I think we're way past that. If this was November, December, 23, then sure. I think we're way in a different place, 21 months of nonstop killing. This is not about leverage. This is about stopping the killing. And if that means stopping U.S. arms, sure. And again, moral complicity, which is important to me. I would say I'm a great admirer of AOC. I'm one of her biggest admirers. I don't agree with her on Iron Dome. I think that ridiculous vandalism of her office and accusing her being pro-Isra is nonsense.

I just happened to disagree with her. And Jeremy, on this issue about kind of the defensive nature of Iron Dome. The problem is that Israel doesn't simply use Iron Dome in a defensive capacity. it uses Iron Dome to project force abroad. It's because it has Iron Dome that it acts so recklessly because it knows it has impunity. It's because it has American support that it can do what it does. I can think of no other country on planet Earth that has attacked five different countries in the last year. Israel has attacked Iran, Syria, Yemen, and of course West Bank and Gaza, constant bombing of both of those places and Lebanon. Right.

So four countries plus occupied Palestinian territories. part of the reason it's able to do that is because it says, well, I'm the bully in the neighborhood, I'm the big boy, I've got the superpower behind me, I've got Iron Dome, come get me. And I think that's a fundamental part of its strategic thinking is that we can act aggressively, recklessly, unilaterally, preemptively, if that's the phrase they want to use, because we have these support from Big Brother United States in the form of Iron Dome, and not just Iron Dome. You know, you remember last year when Iran and Israel first exchanged missiles, it was the American Air Force, it was the Jordanians, the Saudis, all came to Israel's defense to block some of those

Iranian drones and missiles. So I think as long as, my, sorry to use a crude analogy, my analogy has always been, Israel reminds me of the child in the playground that goes around picking fights with everyone, knowing that his big brother will come along and sort everything out if things go wrong. And Big Brother has to say to Little Brother, I'm not there for you anymore. Fight your own battles. See how that goes. And maybe then Little Brother will stop going around picking fights with everyone. You know, I think that that's a very selective read of it. I understand many, and I hear in your voice, and I know in my voice, and in many of us, anybody with a conscience is exceedingly beyond, you know, the words, angry, and we want to do something to take out our anger.

But it's really, I think, important to take a wider lens here and understand that Hamas, Hezbollah, other factions have, over the course of the last 20 years, consistently fired missiles. at Israeli civilian centers. And they have consistently caused casualties and deaths with no strategic aim other than terror. Iron Dome has played an important role over the course of those 20 years and making sure that a lot of those missiles didn't land. You know, nobody wants more than me

to find the points of leverage to say to Netanyahu and to the extremists in this government who I despise with every fiber of my being as a Jew who cares about Israel, I think this government is doing everything in its power to undermine the future of the state of Israel, and I want them gone. But I don't think that taking away a missile defense program that over the course of decades has saved lives and prevented wars at the times that it was used, I don't think that's the right strategy. Can I just ask two questions to you, Jeremy? One is I totally take on board everything you say. But do you disagree with what I said, that having all these American armaments and defense allows Israel to you. to bomb in violation of the UN Charter sovereign neighbors like Lebanon, like Iran, like Yemen,

like Syria. They have no legal right to be bombing Syria right now. Certainly their attack on Iran was a, there's no legal basis for that. You surely accept that they're doing that because they know that they are untouchable at home. And my other quick question is you keep mentioning this current government. I mean, the next government of Lapid, Gantz, whoever it is would be doing very similar things. Let's let's not pretend this is all just about Netanyahu. So, you know, on both points we probably don't agree. I mean, I do think that the United States has absolutely, as I said before, through the provision of essentially a get out of jail free car, through the provision of diplomatic immunity and international forums, and through the extension of its military and security

umbrella, without any questions, a blank check, it has extended that impunity. And, you know, your playground analogy, I would agree with. That still doesn't change to me the benefit of the specific missile defense programs that do defend. defend against terrorists. And I hope you would agree with me that, you know, the things that Hamas and Hezbollah have done over the course of decades, I am first in line to say Palestinians need their freedom, they need self-determination. They don't need a terrorist group like Hamas that is firing missiles at civilian centers, kibbutz's, Moshevim, doing what they do. I think Iron Dome is important and I make the distinction. And I do agree with you that part of the reason why Israel acts

with impunity is because they feel that the United States will always have its back and we need to make clear we're only going to have its back when it does things that are justified and legal. I have to disagree on the question of whether or not the next Israeli government will be different. I think this is a qualitatively different government. I may still disagree with Naftali Bennett, Yir Lepid, Benny Gans, but they are not racist ethno-nationalists who are... Nafthali Bennett is a racist, Jeremy. Come on. He's referred to Arabs climbing on trees.

come on. This, I grant you that to a government, though, which would have your Golan, which would have a your Lepid in it, would be categorically different in character than this government. So I, I just take a different approach on the difference between this government and a future government. You know, I think the fact that this provision that AOC voted against, I think only got six votes. So this is something that is, you know, very few folks are for cutting off ironed funding at the moment. But I do think we should sort of put a pin in this one because this is an important conversation going forward because I think people understandably don't want civilians in Israel or anywhere else to be hurt by rocket fire. But also, I think they know money is fungible.

And if you're not spending $500 million on Iron Dome, you can spend it on offensive weapons. And also, I do think there's an argument to be made that missile defense systems incentivize or enable more aggressive military action. But Jeremy, I want to shift gears a little bit and ask you about APAC. APAC, for those who don't know, it's the American Israel Public Affairs Group. It describes itself as a America's pro-Israel lobby. They work to build, quote, bipartisan support for the U.S. Israel relationship. That includes lobbying for the U.S. to provide security assistance to Israel,

countering Iran, a bunch of other issues. A lot of people argue that APEC is lobbying for Israel and that they should have to register as a foreign lobbying group under the Foreign Agents Registration Act or FARA. Do you think APEC should have to register under FARA? Well, that's been investigated. I mean, the stance of APEC has always been that we should. should back up whatever the Israel government supports right or wrong. The reason we started J-SERD is because that's the wrong way to be pro-Israel.

You know, disagreeing with the government of Israel and actually trying to chart a different path for the United States and for Israel is pro-Israel. And so we disagree 100% with them, but their stated approach to everything is we're just going to support and back whatever it is that the government of Israel does. And so, you know, whether or not they're doing it at the explicit behest of and, you know, actually acting as an agent or they're just simply doing it, you know, we'll let the courts decide, but that they state it themselves. That's their mission. That's the way that they approach their advocacy. And, you know, you don't need a court case to just know that that's who they are. Yeah, I mean, Nadi, same question to you, but also with a twist. Because in 2020, the Department of Justice ordered AJ Plus, the U.S. affiliate of Al Jazeera to register under Farah. And I believe

they're still fighting that order. But, you know, DOJ said, well, AJ Plus's activities are controlled by the Qatari government. You worked at Al Jazeera back in the day. Do you think that's a fair characterization? And what do you make of the disparity between the treatment of APAC and AJ Plus by the Justice Department? I mean, I worked to Al Jazeera and if anyone's seen my interview with the Qatari Foreign Minister, I think it's fair to say that the Qataris were not telling me what to say or what to do. And if they were, I wasn't listening. No, and I still do a show for Al Jazeera call head to head. And no one interferes in the editorial line of that. And you can see it for yourself on YouTube. I think it's an absurd analogy that Republicans might make to try and

defend it. Republicans are particular right now because of course APAC has become so partisan. It's interesting that Alyssa Slotkin interview you mentioned on Breaking Point. She was asked about registering and I was surprised to see her kind of go, well, maybe, I'm not sure, which was surprising to hear from a leading Democrat. Yeah, I think it is shifting. I mean, look, AJ Plus is a media organization. Al Jazeera is a media organization. There are many media organizations either owned or funded by foreign government. That doesn't make them foreign lobbying operations, Al Jazeera, English, when it covers, whatever it is, the conflict in South Sudan is not lobbying for Qatar.

APEC, as Jeremy just pointed to that, is very brazen about what it does. If memory serves me correctly, the predecessor organization to APEC was investigated by RFK, the good RFK, not the evil one we currently have, back when he was AG under in the 60s. So this has been a long-running conversation. I think Senator William Galbraith, the famous chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, had asked for AAPC to be investigated as a foreign agent. And clearly, look, there's been cases in the past where people have been accused of spying, indicted, etc., etc. Clearly, there needs to be at minimum an investigation into what's going on here. But, you know, if you try and ask these questions,

people say anti-Semitism and try and shut you down. As I say, Alyssa Slotkin actually being open to it, shows the ground is moving. Of course, Tucker Coulson, infamously asked Ted Cruz about APEC in that take down interview. And, you know, someone would have to point out to where has the APAC ever taken a different stance from the Israeli government? Has it ever taken a different stance from the Israeli government? And that is a question worth asking. Yeah, agree. The answer is clear that that's their whole raison d'etre. I mean, this isn't a hide the ball, right? They're not saying, oh, no, we're, you know, we're very different. This is what they say. This is what they do. The interesting thing is, of course, that the hundreds of millions of dollars that they are funded with

is not coming from Israel. It's coming from Republican billionaires, right? I mean, it's, important to actually call out specifically, you know, whereas other foreign agents are getting back channel funding, perhaps from foreign governments. This is a advocacy organization where you do see publicly, you know, its finance records for its super PAC, and it's just one Republican billionaire after another. And then they use that money to interfere in Democratic primaries. Right, exactly. And they did. it to take down Jamal Bowman. They did it to take down Corey Bush. They were quite open and proud about that. What's interesting is, and this goes back to the heart of this discussion, in the ads they ran in

those primary campaigns, they did not mention Israel. Right. Right. They talked about the infrastructure bill and how Corey and Jamal were not pro-Biden enough. They didn't mention Israel because they know that Israel is a hugely unpopular issue. And that is where we are right now as a country. Americans are not happy with Israel. I think Pew found for the first time ever a majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of Israel. Surprise. surprise surprise. A majority of Americans want restrictions on arms sales. I don't know if you guys saw the data for progress poll that came out this week. Astonishing numbers from New York primary Democratic voters. 79% say the U.S. should restrict arms to Israel. 78% say Israel's committing a genocide. 86%

say the $30 billion paid to Israel since October the 7th will be better spent at home here in the U.S. These are Democratic primary voters who are not being represented in Congress. There's no representation of those views in Congress, not at all. I mean, I would, I would say that the majority of Jewish Americans also have an unfavorable view of what Israel is doing. The majority of Jewish Americans do not want. But Congress doesn't, Jeremy. That's the point. The Democratic Party does not. But you're seeing a very, very significant shift. I mean, you are seeing unanimous letters coming out of the Senate that are condemning what is going on. You are seeing increasing calls for restrictions on, on aid. I mean, you are seeing. No, Jeremy, come on.

We're sitting on a day where there's going to be a vote for Bernie Sanders's arms bill. That is not going to get a majority of Democrats, let alone a majority of members of Congress. That is the tragedy we're in. You can sign all the letters you want. But as long as they keep voting for arms and money, they are complicit in the genocide. And they are not representing the party base. I have not seen such a disconnect on any issue from the Democratic Party where you've got 80, 90 percent of Democrats saying one thing. And in Congress, it's 80, 90 percent the other direction.

That's a crisis of democracy at this point. But I will say, I mean, just to give the Democrats in the Senate, I mean, I do think that it is very possible you get a majority of the Democrats voting for this joint resolution of disapproval today. I, you know, all of us have been around this for a very long time. We are working on this one senator at a time, one state at a time, and there has been a sea change. And if you had introduced this kind of a resolution a few years back, you would have maybe gotten Bernie, you know, and one yes vote. And I believe we're at the point out where you're going to get a majority of the Democrats in the Senate. I think it's a sea change, Medi. I think, you know, change doesn't happen.

I hope you're right, but, you know, it took 22 months of 60,000 people dead and 17,000 children dead and a man-made famine for them to even come out and vote on some resolutions and sign some letters. So, look, I'm all for welcoming people. Tommy was having this debate on Twitter the other day. I'm all for welcoming people who changed their minds. I'm all for Angus King coming out strongly against Israel. But that doesn't change the fact that for the last two years nearly, these people,

Democrats in Congress were, A, not representing the American. public and be supporting a genocide, arming a genocide, funding a genocide, funding war crimes, funding Israeli snipers, shooting kids in the testicles, funding torture in Israeli gulags, funding, you know, the blocking of infant formula going into Gaza. That happened on a Democratic President's watch. That happened on Democratic Senators' watch. And that, I think we have to, we really have to have a reckoning about that. We have to have a reckoning, but I also think is really important to have a balanced reckoning. You know, and I think that one of the reasons why it is 22 months is because what did this begin on October 7th with, it began with what you know,

was a horrific, you know, a day that is beyond description of what was done. And I think that it takes a little bit of perspective on the fact that there is a deep problem on both sides here. And it isn't, you know, to only go one point after another about Israel does make the conversation difficult. What do you mean by both sides, Jeremy? Who are you talking about? What I'm saying is that Hamas is an evil terror organization. We don't fund or arm Hamas, so it's not relevant to the conversation. But it's exceedingly important if you're going to have a rational conversation and reach people across an aisle that there be some acknowledgement, that there was a crime committed

and there are terrorists on the other side and their worldview. But that's all we've acknowledged, Jeremy. But that's all we've acknowledged for 22 months. Every American member of Congress only talks about Hamas and hostages, doesn't talk about Palestinian deaths and hasn't voted against arms restrictions or leverage. To go back to where we started, forget ending arms cells. You said you support conditioning and you support using arms as leverage. That has not been the case in the Democratic Party in government. Joe Biden barely paused one set of two thousand pounds. That's it.

Otherwise he gave everything he wanted. So the Democrats, I take your point. Look, October 7th was a horrific day. but every day since October the 7th has been a horrific day for people in Gaza. I know that there was no good part of this war. I know J. Street came out for a ceasefire in about January. But that doesn't mean October, November, December were not horrific months for Gazans who were being bombed with U.S. bombs. Thousands of people died in those first few months after October the 7th. Right. And October 7th happened. And for those of us in the Jewish community, those of us who have friends and family who died on that day, those of us who are really, really deeply committed to. defining a peaceful resolution to this conflict, that first few months was a very, very difficult period. And it remains a very difficult period for the people whose families are still in tunnels underneath Gaza. I mean, it is important. Again, I think it is a one-sided presentation of this

that makes it difficult to come to a positive place for American policy, for intercommunal dialogue. You know, there is a terrorist group holding people hostage. If tomorrow they decided to release the hostages, all of this would end too, right? Jeremy, you don't believe that. You don't believe that. No, you don't. Come on. That's a J-Stra, you're not A-Pact. That's an A-Pact talking point. If you release the hostages, this all ends. The Israeli government have made it very clear. That is not the case. The Israeli government have made it very clear. The settlements ministers said it just last week. It's not about the hostage. Smotrich has said it. Netanyahu has said it. They've all said that this is not just about the hostages. Come on. They could release every hostage tomorrow.

They made it very clear. The ethnic cleansing of Gaza is happening in front of our eyes. It's happening with a Trump green light. Netanyahu is not hidden it. Smotridge is not hidden it. Ben Gavir is not hidden it. In fact, opposition politicians who you've praised have not hidden it. So let's not fall back into that trap. Hostages were released. This would all be over tomorrow. It's just not, it just defies what we've seen for 22 months. Anybody on any side of any argument who is making the case that it is a 100 to zero situation where the entirety of the blame, the entirety of the problem lies on one side, I have a problem with that. And, you know, I just don't think it is true. It depends what we're talking about, though, Jeremy, right?

Like, I agree with you. 100% of the problems in the Middle East are not on one side. Agreed. But when we're talking about what's happened in Gaza, yes, 100% of the responsibility for the killing and starving of Gaza and civilians is on Israel. That's undeniable. I have to. Just as the civilians who were killed on October the 7th, that's on Hamas.

Right. But if October 7th had not happened, then this wouldn't have happened. But that doesn't justify it, Jeremy. Are you justifying 60,000 dead because of what happened on October 7? I'm just saying it's a matter of fact. And if you don't admit that, then you're going to lose a very large portion of the community. Hold on. I'm admitting that what happened in Gaza came about as a result of October the 7th.

I'm saying it doesn't justify it. I would argue nothing justifies October the 7th. But October the 7th doesn't justify what happened in Gaza. And that's what my position is. Your position is up until January. It was justified to do that. And then you came out for a ceasefire. I'm saying when they bond.

the Jabalia refugee camp in the end of October and killed a hundred people to get one Hamas commander. That was a war crime and that should be investigated as a war crime and the people behind that should go to prison. And the American politicians who provided the bombs that dropped on Jabalya refugee camp should be held to account. Let me ask you about the sentiment I'm taking away from what Jeremy is saying and what I've heard from some people in my life. People I love, politicians, I know, activists. I mean, on Ponte of America Monday, I talked about some positions I'd like to see the Democratic Party take. that meant, you know, my list was like not funding the Israeli military, recognized Palestine as a state, don't take money from APEC, some other stuff. And I got a message from a friend, you know, good progressive Democrat who was genuinely hurt.

And he said to me, you are making the Democratic Party tent feel smaller to me. He said, there's room in your new Democratic Party for Zoramamandhi and, you know, sort of anti-Zionist views. But me, a liberal Zionist, I'm no longer welcome in the Democratic Party, as you described it. because I think the U.S. should support Israel. And I guess I'm wondering, what would you say to a liberal Zionist who feels that way, who feels like they're no longer welcome in the kind of party I'm outlining? So your friend may be a progressive, but he's what's called a pep, right? He's a progressive except Palestine because there is this carve out when it comes to liberals

and the approach to the Middle East that we want equality, human rights, progressive values, except on this one conflict. And I would say, spare me the self-victimization. I just mentioned earlier to Jeremy. The entire Democratic Party in Congress does not support Palestine. It still supports Israel, even while 8% of Democrats told Gallup this month that they support Israel's actions in Gaza. In Congress, it's about 88% of Democrats. So the actual Democratic Party, the organized party, the leadership, the establishment, the presidential candidates, the senators, the donors,

organizers, the DNC, they are all hardcore still pro-Israel. They are not pro-Palestine. The idea that your friend would say, this is a party that welcomes Zoran Mamdani. Are you kidding me? Zoramamandhi is still not been endorsed by Chuck Schumer, has still not been endorsed by Hakeem Jeffries, had Islamophobic abuse thrown at him by Kirsten Gillibrand, give me a break. If anything, it's the other way around. You have a pro-Palestine candidate, a Muslim immigrant as the Democratic mayoral nominee and the party can't even get behind him. Why?

Not because of his freeze-the-rent policies, but because of his Palestine position. So I would say that this kind of wanting to be the victim is great, but it's not true at all. And Israel behaves in the same way. oh, we are oppressed by everyone. No, you're a nuclear power in the Middle East that just bombed four of your neighbors and has kept millions of people under apartheid and occupation for decades and thumbs its nose at international law, the Geneva Convention, the ICC and the ICJ. So this whole self-victimization stuff, it's all a distraction from the fact that babies are being starved to death in Gaza right now. And if that's not what we're talking about, then sorry, forgive me if I don't accept your progressive credentials.

Well, you know, I just think that this is, it's just too simplistic, Netty. And I really respect you, but you know, you are just simply making this into a black and white issue and not here. Genocide is a black and white issue, Jeremy. Forgive me. Right. But, but, you know, if you make this into you either are pro-Israel or you are pro-Palestine, we are condemning these people to forever war. And we're condemning people to have more generations of genocide and famine and bloodshed and horror because you have to pick a winner and you have to pick one side. And I think where I fall, I believe it is where the majority of the Democratic Party fall, where I know Tommy's friend, you know, the liberal Zionist probably falls, is we are looking for a win-win out of this. We are looking for a way in which the Jewish people can feel that they do, in fact, have a state, that they have a right to have a national home in, and that the Palestinian people, too, can have the same exact state and freedom and rights. And I know we are a long way from that, and I know what the problems are. And I've articulated them what the problems are with American Farmers, policy with democratic policy, Republican policy, the United States has been a failed mediator. And those who have carried out, with all due respect to Tommy, those who have carried out the

foreign policy of the United States over the course of the last 30 and 40 years on this conflict have failed miserably. But it doesn't change the fact that there isn't only one good guy in this. And everything that is evil is on one side and everything that is good is on the other side. Both sides have a history of trauma. Both sides have committed crime. Both sides have been victims. Both sides have legitimate rights and needs and claims. And the only way forward is not to put this as 8% are pro-Israel and 92% are pro-Palestine. So we win. No, and 100% should be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. We should be looking for a way that both people can have a future. Jeremy, with respect, a couple of things. One is, it wasn't about winning. It was about pointing out

there's a huge democratic dysfunction in this country where the party doesn't represent its voters. Put that to one side for a moment. I don't want to get into a long history argument about both sides and who's been oppressed more or less. Save that for another day. My position is one side is occupied. One side is occupied. They're not equal sides. But on the specific point about how you solve this and evil, look, I'm not someone who throws around the word evil. Maybe I'm wrong. Check my Twitter account going back years. I try not to throw around the word evil. It's not helpful when you're doing geopolitical analysis. But what we have seen, especially in recent months, there is no other word for it other than evil. When you have Nick Maynard, a surgeon from the UK,

saying he saw Israeli soldiers treating Palestinians as target practice. about Hamas and what they did on October 7th? Yes, yes. But what's interesting is in American political discourse, we only use it for Hamas. We don't use it for Israel. So it's, in fact, the reverse, again, of your both sides point. In fact, if you read Western media coverage,

it's always the brutal October the 7th Act, the horrific October 7th Act, and then it's like Israel defended itself and kill some civilians by accident. So the discourse is completely one-sided. And in terms of evil, let me just finish my point. Nick Maynard, a British surgeon, came back from Gaza and said he saw Palestinians being

shot for target practice by Israeli snipers. He said he saw patterns of injury, one day legs, one day hearts and abdomens, one day four kids into testicles, right? There is no other word for that, but evil. And when you say, you know, we can't pick aside, look, the Balkans had a genocide. And we all agreed that the Serbs were the bad guys. No one went around saying we need to be pro-Serb and pro-Bosnian. We accepted that the Milosevic and the Serbian state was a pariah state, had broken international law, had carried out a genocide, had to be punished. Now, to get into debates about military action in the Balkans, that's for another day. But the reaction is the world did not go around saying we need to be pro both sides. And I think this is the fundamental problem here.

Whatever happened pre-October 7, whatever debates we want to have about two-state solution, one-state solution, liberals are, that's all irrelevant to me right now. I just see a daily genocide on my screens. I see people being killed by Israel every day, sometimes in the hundreds per day. And I think to myself, no, I can't be pro that. How can you be pro that? How can any moral person be pro that? And I think that's where the American public is now shifting with global public opinion. And that's why Israel is so isolated. And that's not me saying, rah, rah, ra, win. I don't care about winning or losing.

I'm just pointing out people of good conscience, as you pointed out, Jewish Americans, absolutely disgusted by what is being done in their name by the Jewish state. And I think we have to call that out. As I'm not. I mean, I just want to make it really clear. I have been saying for months that this is a moral abomination. And I've said this is a moral stain, not just on the state of Israel. So why should we be pro the people doing the moral abominant?

This is what the question, you know, isn't, are we pro the people doing this? The question is, are we pro the peoples? Are we pro the peoples? Are we pro the Jewish peoples and the Palestinians? There are 15. That's a different argument. Of course, we're pro the people. We're talking about the state and the government. When I talk about Israel, I'm talking about the government and the state. I'm not going to be pro a rogue nation that is carrying out a genocide. That has a prime minister. I mean, again, I, you know, I think that you're over. All right. How do you talk about Iran, Jeremy? I'm sure. Come on. You're being. You're being. You're being. You're being. a little bit disingenuous, Jeremy. We all talk about Iran and Libya and Iraq. When we're talking about the bad states, we don't like North Korea. We don't talk about the people. We know what we're talking about here. I'm not talking about Jewish people or Israelis. By the way, Israelis as a whole, if you want to get into that debate, Israelis as a whole, the polling shows their wholesome, ridiculously genocidal views right now. So that's another problem that we need to think about. We talk about common values. I mean, 80 was it? I wrote it down for I came here. 82% of Israeli support

expelling Palestinians from Gaza. You know what's following is on the Palestinian side about Jews. So the level of anti-Semitism on the Palestinian side is about as high as the racist feeling on the Israeli side. 64% of Israelis said there are no innocent people in Gaza. There is no shortage of hatred and prejudice on both sides of this conflict. But we're only arming and funding one. I know you keep doing this both sides, but I'm an American citizen. So I don't want my money going towards genocidal Israelis.

So towards a government. And again, I draw the, there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the streets who are protesting this war, who are protesting this government. We at J Street and, you know, Tommy's liberal Zionist friend, you know, we are on the side of the people of the state of Israel who want this to end. The people whose kids, my cousins, who are being sent into Gaza and who are dying for no reason whatsoever and are coming home with TTSD and bringing home the horror of having been in the plane in the middle. of what you are saying right now. This is going to leave scars on both sides of this conflict for generations to come. Jeremy, with respect, I have great respect for you. I've known you for many years. Please do not say that this is going to leave the same trauma on both sides. What has been done to Gaza is incomparable to any other war zone in our lifetimes. I don't need to run through this.

You know them. It is horrific what has been done to Gaza. There is no comparison on the Israeli side. I don't want to, this is part of the problem with the whole conflict, is the need to try to compare trauma, right? I don't want to go wrong. With respect, it was you who said both sides. I'm just saying that's offensive to people who are going through a genocide. I'm sure Serbs, I'm sure the Serbs said that they went through some trauma as well in the Balkans conflict. A lot of Serbs died. Nobody thinks that they were equal victims with the Bosnians and the Croats.

And I'm not saying equal. I am just saying that there is a lot for hundreds of thousands of Israelis who were displaced from their homes because of October. 7th in the north and the south and who are still not at home and whose villages and communities I know well and have been destroyed and and for hundreds of thousands of their neighbors who are not going to be able to return home and then for the hundreds of thousands of families whose kids have been forced by their government into this unjust war that they are in right now and they are witnessing horrible horrible crimes it is going to leave a trauma I'm not saying it is the same as the

trauma of a family who has lost 38 family members I'm not saying that But I think it is wrong to say that there's only trauma on one side. Let me, let me just ask. I mean, look, I think we can all agree that every day since October 7th has been a nightmare. And we are not equating the two, but it's just, it's been awful. But just in the little time we have left, I mean, Jeremy, the media, I want to pick up on a point many made about sort of how Israel has acted in the region recently, really over the last decade. I mean, like, it is stated as fact all the time that Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East. But in the last decade or so, there have been some very serious breaches between the U.S. and Israel, right?

Like Obama and Netanyahu had a huge disagreement over Iran policy in the JCPOA. Biden and Netanyahu fought over Gaza, although only privately, never publicly, which drove me insane. And then recently a Trump White House official told Axios, quote, Bebe acted like a madman. He bombs everything all the time. This could undermine what Trump is trying to do. This was with regards to Israel bombing Syria. at what point do you think does an alliance go from strained to broken?

Well, you know, I want to really make it clear that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans don't like an unquestioning support from any president of any party for the government of Israel when it's doing things that are not in our interest or in alignment with our values. And you won't get any disagreement from the majority of American Jews about that. And we do not want a relationship that isn't grounded in a belief in the core values that we hold both as American citizens and as Jews, right? I mean, we have a certain set of values. And it used to be that both countries at least paid lip service to the same set of values. And that was what united the countries.

Now we have governments in both of these places that are completely disconnected from either the Democratic or the Jewish values on which I was raised. and we need to work together with those in Israel and with those in Palestinian society and with those across the world who are looking to stand up for the values that we share. The relationship is broken when it isn't grounded on anything other than simply do what you will, you know, blank check, right or wrong support. That's a broken relationship. It has to be an alignment of interests and values. And right now I would say, and I think many and I would agree, the relationship between the United States, and Israel, neither serves the interests of the United States nor is in alignment with our values. And I would argue the same would be true for Israel, for the majority of Israelis, that this

government of Israel doesn't represent its best interests or values. Yeah. Medi, I mean, I want to pick up something you said earlier about the silly Twitter fight ahead over the weekend, but it's a question about, you know, activism and language around these issues and how to make political change. Zora Mamdomni in his New York mayoral campaign got a lot of criticism for refusing to condemn the phrase, globalized the entity. And then ultimately he said he would urge people not to use that slogan after saying he didn't want to kind of play language police.

Whenever I refer to the war in Gaza, there are people who get madamee and say, I should be saying genocide. We were joking earlier. What I did an event was Zetaio in Los Angeles. I mentioned the war in Gaza. And there were people in the audience who were like, say genocide. And it was, you know, it was well-meaning cat calling. And it was a great event, by the way. But like, you know, it's coming from like a profound place of a pain and hurt, right?

And wanting to feel hurt and seen for what's happening. And that brings me to a clip of Senator Bernie Sanders on CNN, I think today, where he has asked whether he believes a genocide is happening. Let's listen. Do you at the point yet where you would call what's happening in Gaza a genocide? You can use whatever word you want. But Marjorie Taylor-Green is saying that. She's the first public to go there. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Look, genocide is a legal term. What is going on now, clearly, is absolutely horrific. 60,000 people dead and 140,000 who have been wounded. But the important point is not what you call it. It is horror. And I think the whole world knows that. The answer is, what the hell do we do about it?

Should the United States taxpayer? Should your taxpayer dollars go to support a government that is doing it? That is the most important issue. So, Medi, you know, if the International Court of Justice determines that Israel has committed genocide, that will have enormous legal implications, both for Israeli officials and in the United States as well, I think for when, you know, people like us, all three of us, choose which words we use.

I mean, I think in some sense, obviously there's no legal meaning to what you and I say, but there is a moral takeaway and an urgency from when you use a word like genocide that is different than saying the word war like I did earlier. But I also think about, you know, how does the words I use impact, let's say a 60-year-old progressive Jewish woman who lives in New York who has supported Israel her whole life but is horrified by what's happening, but doesn't want to feel like, you know, like the word genocide is painful for her given the legacy of the Holocaust. How do you think about the language you use, how that impacts our ability to build the biggest, most inclusive coalition to a big political change?

It's a great question. Bernie Sanders, classic Bernie there, he says the right thing and the wrong thing at the same time. I mean, he's right that we need to focus on the crimes and the language isn't the priority, on the other hand, dismissing it as just a legal term is just not true. We know that we use genocide all the time in context where there hasn't been a legal determination. The United States government has recognized the Rohingya genocide has recognized the genocide in Xinjiang of the Uyghurs. We did not wait for the International Court of Justice on either of those issues. And by the way, by the time the ICJ rules on this, it'll be too late for the Palestinians of Gaza because it tends to take several years for the ICJ to make a ruling on genocide. What they did do, by the way,

last year, just while we're on the ICJ, is they put out a series of protective measures that needed to be followed by Israel. Israel violated all of them, like end bombing, keep track of civilians, end incitement. They violated every single one of those ICJ measures from a year ago. But on the specific question of language and building a coalition, look, I'm in favor of building coalitions. I want the violence to stop. I don't care about two state, one state solution. I don't come out of that. I want the violence to stop. That is my only priority right now as a journalist and as a human being and as an American citizen. And if that means building a coalition, you know, accept people who have come late to the party, fine. I do also think there needs to be a reckoning and

accountability to some point for the people in power, right? There's a difference between a politician who has sent money in arms to Israel who suddenly has a change late in the day because they want to win a primary versus, you know, well-meaning citizens or activists who, you know, finally came around to realize I can't defend what Israel is doing anymore. So that's one thing. In terms of the language, look, I recognize that Jews are the victims of the worst genocide in modern history, the Holocaust. Therefore, when we talk about genocide in relation to anything to do with the Jewish people, we have to be careful. I'm the person who says we need to recognize the danger of anti-Semitic tropes. We need to recognize how sensitive this issue is. Having said that,

and somebody asked me this question at an event, like what would you say to a Jewish person who says, this hurts me? And I would say, what about the Palestinian right to be able to say their truth? What about the Palestinians right to have their reality be recognized? And I think that's quite important here. I do think there are ways you can do it in a way that is sensitive. For example, when I talk about genocide, I make the point to the 60-year-old progressive Jewish grandmother who has memories of the Holocaust. I would say, listen to Israeli historians of the Holocaust, listen to Omar Bartov of Brown University, listen to Amos Goldberg of Hebrew University, who we've just published today on the subject of genocide, listen to Raz Siegel,

listen to Schmul Liederman, listen to Daniel Blatman, Israeli historians of the Holocaust. They're saying, this isn't exactly like the Holocaust, of course, but this is a genocide. Listen to, for example, Michael Ben-Jair, former attorney general of Israel, from a much more left-wing period in Israeli history, as Jeremy will remember, from the 90s. He just tweeted this week, we Jews endured a genocide. Now we're doing a genocide to another people. So that is what I would say to open-minded, good faith, Jewish, liberal Zionist, friends, colleagues, fellow progressives who say, this language of genocide is offensive. I would say, listen to the Holocaust historians, listen to the genocide scholars, listen to the former AG of Israel,

and listen to Palestinians who have a right to tell their truth, who shouldn't have to be the victims of a genocide, but also victims of a genocide who have to then be silent about the genocide they're enduring. Not loving your AT&T or T Mobile Bill? Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile Bill to Verizon, and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T-R-T mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. Best Network based on Route Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network Performing the U.S.

Second Half 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person who gave me the deal. Additional Terms, Conditions, and Restrictions apply. Jeremy, how do you think about this question of language, the term genocide, coalition building? I mean, look, I think that it is absolutely possible in the way that Burrne. Bernie Sanders just did, and much of what Medi has said, and you have said, it is absolutely possible to talk about the absolute moral horror of this and to talk about just how wrong this is, how we can't live with it, how this has got to stop. You can do all of that without having to

apply that label. And I just can't quite grasp. You know, it does feel like a gotcha game, that it is trying to force people into using a single word when I'm, I'm willing to, to describe this in any way and admit in any way that this is an absolutely inhuman, awful situation that I want nothing to do with. But I don't want to use that term to describe it. Why? And to me, I'm a little older than the 60-year-old grandmother, I object to your 60-year-old grandmother thing. You know, it is very, very painful for my family, who lost many people, in the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the origin story of the law of genocide. It is very painful. And it is very painful for Palestinians what is happening. And we can talk about the pain of what is

happening and the horror of what is happening to the Palestinian people without forcing people like me and my younger sister in Queens to use the word. And if we refuse to use the word to somehow say, well, then clearly you don't have morals. Then clearly you are not welcome in our our space. You know, this notion that somebody who may support the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own isn't welcome in progressive spaces, this notion that somehow, you know, Zionists are not welcome, people who don't use the word genocide aren't welcome. We're going to be booed if we don't use that word. You know, I just ask people who are looking to actually save lives, who are looking to make peace, who are looking to find solutions to realize that we can be stronger

together if we are not forcing each other to use these words. Just to be clear, Neither me nor Tommy have said any of those things. You're talking about someone else. No, I'm not saying to any of that. I've not said any of that. I would never force you to use a word. It does happen. It does happen.

But it does happen. But my point is not that. My point is about truth. Like I think language should be truthful. It shouldn't just be about whether you offend or not offend people. And I think just to go back to your point, you said about forcing you to use a word. I would never want to force you to use a word and I hope vice versa. But it works both ways.

When you say that somebody says to you to force you to do a genocide, you don't want to find. But the people who do use the word genocide are accused of doing blood liables. They're accused of being anti-Semites. You would accept, would you not? Right, of course. Exactly. But you would accept that when I say Israel is committing a genocide, you would, you don't agree with me. I would, I would, I would say both sides, but I know you'll get mad at me, but both sides do that. But, but, but on this, you're on this both sides is appropriate. But my point being, my point being, my point being, you do recognize that there is a huge pressure now. And I would ask you this, genuine, you said the word gotcha. It's not a gotcha because I don't get

as many chances to have these conversations. I appreciate Tommy and Crooked for having this conversation. But Jeremy, I genuinely don't ask you in good faith. When you hear Omar Bartov and all these Holocaust historians, Jews, Israelis, saying we studied the Holocaust and we think Gaza is a genocide, what do you genuinely think about that? Does that make you think again? Does that, I'm just wondering. I feel absolutely no need to get to the point where I'm comfortable with that word. God bless the scholars who, you know, really look into this, the lawyers who understand the ins and the outs. You know, this word was only invented 70 years ago.

There have been plenty of mass killings and horrors throughout human history. Sure, but if I said the Nazis didn't do a genocide, you would rightly call me a Holocaust denies. So you do that. You do put value in the word in certain places. As a million Armenians were being killed by the Turks, nobody was, you know, arguing over, do we need to call it a genocide? But now we have this term, Jeremy, come on.

Right. But the issue isn't what we call it. And there's no need to force people into that place. Well, actually, I mean, there's a legal argument. Yes, put that to one side. So leave it to the courts. Leave it to, you know, ultimately there will be a legal decision. Ultimately, there will be that call made and people will have to face.

What do you call Gaza out of interest? Do you call it crime against humanity? No, moral abomination. It violates every sense of who I am. Jewish people should not be doing to other people. But in terms of accountability, it's a crime, right? People should be held to account. It's a crime.

What is happening to starve another people, to deny food, to deny medical aid, to destroy 90% of the housing. I mean, this is a crime what is happening. And there needs to be accountability. I'm completely there on that. But for me, I am not comfortable using that term. And I think that in the interest of trying to keep some form of coalition, built across lines that bring together Jewish Americans and Muslim Americans and Arab Americans, Palestinian Americans, Progressive Americans. It is really important to understand why it is so

hard and painful for us to use that word to describe this. And we are willing to admit how horrible it is and to work across lines to try to solve it, but feel cornered on the issue of the word. One thing I would say is that, according to the polls, last year, a year ago, one in three American Jews thought it was a genocide in Gaza. So it's not like it's a universal position in the Jewish. I would argue that number's probably higher now if you poll them again. There's no universal positions in the Jewish community. If we can elit.

Or in the Muslim community. Or in the Muslim community. Well, listen, I want to thank you both so much for this conversation. I know damn well how challenging it could be to talk publicly about all the things we cover today. There's a cottage industry of people on both sides who look for. ways to take you out of context and slap the shit out of you. Hi, Jonathan Greenblatt. Good to see you again. So thank you both for talking with me for the work you're doing. And I just really appreciate it. Thanks, Tommy. Thanks for making the space for this, Tommy. Metti, I respect you deeply

and I really appreciate it. We may disagree on things, but I have the highest respect for you. Right back at you, Jeremy. Thank you.