The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Anti-Israeli Protests, Palestinian Genocide, Noam's biases - Elizabeth Spiers (Gets a bit heated)

Episode Date: June 20, 2024

Writer (NY Times, Salon, Fortune, Gawker, Slate) Elizabeth Spiers joins the Table to discuss her columns on student protests & social media. The conversation veers off into a debate on whether Israel is committing genocide. Columns mentioned: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/opinion/student-protesters-gaza-hillary-clinton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/opinion/social-media-israel-palestine.html

This is Live From The Table, the official podcast of the world-famous Comedy Cellar, coming at you on SiriusXM 99 Raw Comedy. Also available wherever you get your podcasts, available on YouTube, where you can see us and hear us. Dan Aderman here, Comedy Cellar regular-ish, with Noam Dwarman, the owner of the Comedy Cellar. It's his little passive-aggressive way of saying he's not getting enough spots. Go ahead. Correct. Perry Alashinbrand is with us. She she's our producer she also is an on-air personality in her own right sort of happened gradually and there's nothing we can do about it now we have elizabeth spires here is she is a contributing writer for times opinion and co-host of slate's money

slate's money podcast new york times opinion, Dan. New York Times. It says here, Times opinion, which I think is the name of the... I think that's how I tend to put it whenever I talk to people. Yeah, so make sure people know you're not Time Magazine, not Time Out New York, not Time Life Books. Talk a little closer to the mic if you can. About the Old West. A co-host of Slate's Money podcast about economics, financial news of the week.

And contributing opinion writer for the New York Times, which I guess we've already covered, but Ariel sent that. In any case, here she is in studio. We are happy to have her. And I guess Noam had a specific... Thanks for having me. Yeah, we're very happy. That he wanted to discuss with her.

I want to say a few things first. So this is our first kind of attempt in this new environ. My wife is trying to construct a version of the olive tree because we used to actually do the live from the table every week at the olive tree table. And then during COVID, it got knocked around. I don't know what cameras see this, wires and stuff, but it's going to be nice. But just for for the first time just as you were doing the introduction it hit me

that i have a picture of my father right behind me and over there watching me which made me a little sentimental for a second it's just like downstairs except keith robinson is not scowling at us yeah and as he tended to do and it's a little hollywood here the slate table this slate tables are not this is not actual slate so it doesn't it's a little Hollywood here, the slate table. The slate table's not slate. This is not actual slate. It's like the backlotted Paramount. So before we get started on all the issues of the day, Perrielle tells me that you had the temerity to criticize us for not having enough non-conservatives on our show.

I don't know if it was a criticism. You've had a couple of friends of mine on the show. You've had Nick Gillespie and Bob Wright. But I wouldn't refer to them as progressives. I suggested that you didn't have a lot of progressives on the show. We've had Nick Gillespie and Bob Wright, but I wouldn't refer to them as progressives. I suggested that you didn't have a lot of progressives on the show. Well, they will not come on the show. Really?

That's surprising to me. You don't know me, but I don't even want to ever talk. Like we have Jamie Kirchick coming on later. He's a conservative, and he's a friend of mine, and I like him. But I'm not like,

oh, great, i get to talk to jamie kirsch because i know that we agree on everything and that doesn't actually get my my juices flowing but when we try to get um liberals and progressives normally they i mean she does a book and normally they will not come on the show well I got a whole list for you. Send it. No, because Noam is... I was excited to get it. Noam tends to, you know, he tends to speak his mind. So I think he scares people. Well, maybe, but as a listener,

it's much more interesting and informative to hear people who disagree. Well, I wonder if sometimes, you know, I've been brigaded by some of the, you know, very right-wing influencers like ben shapiro and uh mike chernovich and people like that yeah and sometimes i think you know if you go back and look at the podcast that you guys have done like there's a definite ideological position maybe some people think they're walking into a hostile environment, it's not hostile, although we've had some hostile flare-ups,

like with Phil Bump, but... Rashid Khalidi, another notable... He perceived it as such, whether you did or not is another matter. If you watch that podcast, the second half wasn't hostile at all, but, you know, I don't want to get sidetracked with Rashid Khalidi,

but what happened in that podcast is that it's actually something I wanted to bring up with you coincidentally today. He got kind of caught red handed, you know, with some saying some stuff that just turned out not to be true. The whole hospital bombing story that was hot at that time when fell apart in between the time that we did the podcast and the time that it came out. And he had gone on record as saying that he knew from firsthand information from people who worked in the hospital, that the hospital had been bombed and there was 471 people dead. I know you invited me on to talk about a column that I wrote about. The campus protest. Yes, campus protest. But I write for The Times a couple of times a month and I don't have really

a beat. So I've written about recently the the cyber truck and what it means for tesla uh i've written about i have a tesla donald trump and why new york hates him uh you know wide range of subjects but when right after october 7th i wrote a column that was i think a lot more controversial than my student protester column, where I said, you know, people need to sort of step back and figure out what the fuck is happening before they immediately go on social media and declare allegiances and say very confidently that they know what's going on.

Well, I read that column as well, and I actually thought that that column and the column more recently were in conflict with each other in a certain way. Because... Where do you think I jumped to conclusions in the protester column or fired the gun too early?

Because as I recall the earlier column, you were basically making the point that people are going out on social media spouting off about stuff they don't really fully know that much about because they want to be part of a cause and they want to... going out on social media, spouting off about stuff they don't really fully know that much about because they want to be part of a cause and they want to... No, that wasn't my argument at all. My argument was that you...

This sort of immediate rush to comment on, which is a function of social media. It's a... You know, we have this sort of... We've been spoiled a little bit by the internet where we think we have perfect information when we don't. And platforms like Twitter in particular have spoiled us a little bit. You know, if you hear an explosion happen over there, where do you go first?

Is it the New York Times or is it social media? Is it social media? Exactly. And so it's sort of given us this illusion that we have access to exactly what's happening at all times, as if social media is some kind of omniscient god that can deliver this information to us. And it's a really seductive illusion that even people who know better, even journalists who know better, fall prey to, because we have seen so many big world events develop over social media we have a former president who conducted most of his public interaction through social media and not most but but well you know what i mean yes a lot it it really sort of warps our brain in terms of understanding how much information we can know and what we absolutely can't so i'll

read i just i brought it up here. I'll read the paragraph that made me say what I said. The headline was, I don't have to post about my outrage, neither do you. And I'll just. Also, I have to, just a reminder, you guys have had plenty of journalists on this show. Columnists don't write, we don't write our headlines. That's fine.

That's fine. So you're saying that you don't, you don't write our headlines. That's fine. So you're saying that you don't like that headline. I don't love it because I think it's misleading about the point. Not intentionally. But I think it obscures the point I was making, which is about people deciding that they need to position themselves ideologically when they don't have all the information. So I'll read just one part. In an environment where people are led to believe they should post or blurt out simplistic opinions, that's why I said people don't really know, you know, simplistic opinions, they will, for fear that others will think they are not informed enough.

Let me read that again. In an environment where people are led to believe they should post or blurt out simplistic opinions they will for fear that others will think they're not informed enough they don't care enough or their moral compass has been demagnetized but a reactionary social media post tells you nothing about what they really think or know cheapens the discourse and impedes progress and then it's sloganeering masquerading as moral clarity and i thought that that paragraph with a very few changes could also apply to these kids out there protesting because they protest simplistic slogans. They're not very well informed. They're trying to show off to their friends.

You're demonstrating everything that I wrote the call about. I know. And I just disagree with you. I don demonstrating everything that I wrote the column about. And I just disagree with you. I don't think that's true. Go ahead. I think, first of all, there is no monolithic viewpoint among students who are protesting.

There are a range of viewpoints. And there are also... There's no monolithic viewpoint about what you're referring to in the first column. We're just kind of taking a large segment of the population that we both know we're talking about. Yeah, but I'm talking about a discernible behavior that everyone has seen happen on social media, which is basically what in pre-social media we would just call bandwagoning.

So let's ask. So when they chant, um globalizing intifada i would say that's a simplistic opinion that they don't even know what they mean by that you think they know i would say they're not representative you can't generalize from a group of students who are chanting that because that's not by the way this is a mass movement that happens all over the country and there there is not a universal opinion all right well let's talk about whoever it is that you want to talk about tell me the group that you want to talk about that you think are not well here's the thing i want to talk about

the fact and this is what the column was about that generationally people have always opposed campus protests and there there's a reason for that you know and it's it's not what people think it's not that they generally although I understand you do oppose the substance of what's being protested by the majority of the protesters it's because they view college students is not really having the standard to protest and are not having the standing to protest I'm sorry and you know that that comes from a variety of places. You know, if you look at the way we talk about the youth vote, for example, the first thing that someone

who's a couple of generations removed from the youth vote will say is those people don't vote. And the reality is they don't vote for two reasons. One is that voting is a habit that has to be formed over time. So a lot of them just been registered for one cycle. They don't have that habit yet. Another thing is that, and I say this having worked in democratic politics, nobody targets them except for registration. Because what happens is when you have limited resources, you target people who have a history of routine voting. So students

generally feel disenfranchisedised even though we expect them to they're old enough to serve in the military uh if you're a republican you believe much younger people should are capable of being mothers uh and you know understandably that's kind of let the record show i think it's a cheap shot but but i i grew up in alabama i don't think it's a cheap shot i think i'm not a person who believes this but i think if you're a republican what you're referring to pro-life people yeah it's not that they believe young people younger people can be mothers obviously young people can be mothers what they what they believe is that unborn babies should not be killed i disagree with you i think that's what they believe well no no no i mean i think i know with all due respect better what rural southern baptist but they even suggest giving

the babies up for adoption i'm adopted too so that's so obviously they say but that's that's let's not get sidetracked on what religious what religious people believe or on whether or not you know that speaks for all republicans anyway so i still so let's flip it then and this is a paragraph from the column that you're referring to should i read the whole thing um i'm exhilarated to see students using protests for exactly the reason it's protected by the first amendment it allows them to stand up for their values that could be said of people on social media that you criticize invest in what's happening in the world and hold decision makers accountable that's exactly what people on so well you're almost almost almost even if it means putting themselves at risk and but that's not social media that's not and most compellingly it's getting the attention of the president and other lawmakers who can affect change far beyond the

walls of any university campus and that social media does that too well it's funny because you just contradicted yourself in saying that you you said you said you know social media it's it's or you said the students are doing simplistic sloganeering yes i don't believe they are an example whether or not well first of all, your underlying premise, well, protest is not about slogans. It's about getting the attention of people in power. It's about a way of becoming politically active

that gives you some voice in the conversation. Okay, but slogans don't matter. Slogans don't matter. No, they matter. If those people had slogans that were despicable about oppressing black people, there's no way you'd sit here and tell me slogans don't matter. Slogans do matter. I just find that a little bit naive because the protests, first of all,

they're contradicting slogans. No, no, but look at the time. Are you saying these slogans don't matter or no slogans matter? No, I'm saying that slogans do not matter in the context of what you're talking about, which is oversimplification. These protests have slogans. All protests have slogans.

And they matter. But they're also contradictory in many instances. So let's go through their slogans. Many of them are saying... I think that's an unproductive way of talking about this. Well, how do I talk about the protests except by describing what happened at the protests? What do you think happened?

Describe to me. They are, well, they camp out and they chant and they carry placards. That's such a part to me. And in some outrageous cases, they've actually done much, you know, occupied buildings and even been threatening towards students. But I'm ready not to, I want to be fair to them.

And as I said, mostly peaceful. Like, those might be isolated incidents or maybe just limited to a few universities. So I don't really want to make hay, too much hay with that. Although, well, let me just digress for one second. There is one thing about all that that really does disturb me,

and it should disturb you too. Kimani James. Remember this kid, Kimani James? He was the black kid who was, it first came out in the video saying, there's a Zionist here, take one step forward. Take one more step, you're trying to push them out. And that was really creepy when we saw that video.

And it was a large number of people. It's Columbia University. So, you know. Oh, and understandably, I understand why you're just saying that. But this is what's even worse about that. We found out later that he did an interview previously to that with the school administration that he videotaped, where he proceeded to tell them the precise things that we might see in the manifesto of a school shooter.

Zionists should be killed. People like that don't deserve to live. You recall all this. And they did nothing they actually spoke nicely to him saying well you know that's your you know i don't want to get it wrong but basically like you know thank you for sharing and they and they didn't report it they didn't expel him and they they tried to bury it this is is shocking. This is shocking that an Ivy League university would have a student confess violent wishes like that

and they would not... If he had actually killed somebody and that came out, imagine the scandal. I think this is a little far removed from the entirety of the protest movement because if you think that that's shocking, go to a state university in a red state and see what's said about trans students, about black students, and the students don't get suspended. You're saying there's a school, well, if a school administrator in the red state. There's a reason for that. Hold on.

I'm going to be much more consistent than you because i'm i'm not even gonna disagree with you if there was if there was a red state school administrator uh uh ben sass right and um somebody there just described the desire to kill trans people trans people don't deserve to live and they did nothing about it and it came out i wouldn't spend five seconds defending it i would say that's a fucking i'm not defending it you were missing the point but i wouldn't i wouldn't even feel like i had to both sides it i'd be like what the hell is the matter with those people you haven't allowed me to make my point sorry go ahead which is that you know a lot of the same people who are worried about that kind of incendiary rhetoric which i would argue is not generalizable to the entirety of the protests, which are very, you know, they have a wide

range of viewpoints. There are also there's also. What's the wide range? Give me the range of. There are pro-Israel people who are counter protesting. We're not talking about the counter protests. We're talking about the protests. You have to because there's everything in between.

It might not be convenient for your argument. No, it's not that it's inconvenient for my argument. It's not be convenient for your argument, but that's the truth. It's not that it's inconvenient for my argument. It's that we're not discussing the counter-protests. But we talked about Charlottesville. But you're talking about an A and a B. If you wanted to come here to talk about Charlottesville, the Unite the Right march,

and I said, well, but, you know, there's counter-protests there. It's kind of like, what are you doing now? We're here to talk about Charlottesville. Of course there's counter-protests who are there to fight the racists. It's not binary, though. It's not a binary.

And you need to, you know, you're insisting on putting it in a binary. So we have counter protests. No, there's a range. Okay, what's the range? There are people, in fact, there are people who are participating in the protests who are organizations that exist explicitly to connect Palestinians and progressive Jewish people. There is a whole range of things being represented. And in my column, part of what was frustrating to me,

I've taught college students for 12 years, last six at NYU. I walk through campuses all the time, and, you know, the one that was sort of at the center of everything was here in New York. It was the Columbia campus, which I'm not sure everybody understands if they live outside of New York. It's a very enclosed campus.

And where people were camping is in the middle of the quad. Now, I went to a school that's widely regarded as a four-year containment unit for douchebags at Duke. And it also has a very enclosed quad. So anybody walking through there, you can't avoid the encampments. You can't avoid the protests. And one thing that I saw as a journalist that really frustrated me were people parachuting into those environments and talking to any student that they could grab. And keep in mind, not everybody hanging out the encampments. Only 8% of students were involved in the protests at any level, not just in, you

know, camping out, but sitting, going to a sit-in, going to, you know, a lecture about it. That's a very small number. But the reason it's outsized is that we do have a massive bias against student protests. And this has been the case with every student protest from Vietnam, the civil rights movement, Black Lives Matter. By the way, just so you know, I wasn't against the protests. I was not someone who was saying, I mean, at the point where they occupied the building and were trashing it, obviously, they shouldn't have allowed that. I don't care. Well, and I don't understand what you disagreed with in my column, because that's what it was about.

It wasn't about my specific orientation toward Gaza or the students' orientation. It was about the fact that there are a variety of reasons why people have a kind of knee-jerk, you know, gut level, you know, they do not like student protests. Is this gut level? In any circumstance. Is this gut level reaction confined to those who disagree with the substance of the protest?

No, no. There's a lot of research on this. And one of the people that I called, finally, was Robbie Cohen at NYU, whose entire specialty is the history of social protests. And, you know, he said, you know, look at the data. Every single social protest that has been significant on a college campus has been deeply unpopular with the electorate at large. And even with people who agree with the protesters.

And some of this has to do with the way we think about whether college students should be politically involved or not. And we do in theory, we tell them they should be civically involved, that they should educate themselves, that they should hash out these uncomfortable ideas where there are clashing constituencies. but the reality is when they actually do stuff like pitch a tent on campus, that bothers people because it's not a traditional way to participate in politics. So, so I think you're right. People have always, I'm going to presume that you're right, that people don't always like protests, although. They never like it when college students do it ever.

There's not a single instance where you can point to the mass movement where that had popular support. There's not a single instance where you can point to the mass movement that had popular support. There's not a whole lot of examples to choose from. Vietnam was the one

that I remember. Vietnam was different in many ways. That's because we're a young country. The sample size is small. But what people saw, I think, in these protests was that for, you know, seven or eight years,

we had seen colleges with extreme, almost comic solicitousness to every student that might in the slight way be made uncomfortable. Oh, no, that's a bullshit narrative. I really... Well, you can go to the FIRE website.

Or I can go to my own experience teaching for 12 years. No, but your own experience teaching is... In New York City, one of the most liberal cities in the country. Your own experience teaching is not as valid as a list of, for instance, speakers that have been disinvited no it is you have you have unless you want to unless you want to um dispute the list or for instance at berkeley all the uh not all berkeley law school i think it was many of the was it stanford or berkeley

many of the student organizations like nine nine of them had a policy where they would not invite any speaker to the campus who was a Zionist. Didn't even matter if they were speaking about anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. If somebody identified as a Zionist, he couldn't come speak about economics, about psychology, about whatever it is. Steven Pinker told a story about in the psychology department where they didn't want to hire a particular faculty member because he had a different opinion on some issue that had nothing to do with psychology. You realize you're quoting people who routinely use selective data to suggest,

and Steven Pinker, I put way up there. Okay, but you don't think FIRE is a reliable organization? Yes and no. Like, here's the thing. They do tend to support – they are heavily funded and supported by people who – and I don't think this completely corrupts them. But if you look at the overall – if you were to do – I believe I'm an empiricist. I used to be an equity analyst.

You're not an empiricist. Well, it was my job. But if you're going to tell me that we did not live... You have to stop interrupting me. Okay. Because you're not letting me get to an argument. Okay. Which is that one thing is you look at the range of speakers

who have been invited at every single university in the country. How many of them have actually had to back off? And how many conservative... I mean, I i you know off what do you mean back off from an engagement also have you ever been to a state school in a red state okay because there there is no but you're going to keep doing that we're not talking about schools in red states you brought it up no but you brought it up no i didn't no i did there's a leftist problem on campus and that these conservatives are being kicked off. I'm saying that. Well, OK, what about Duke?

To be fair. Duke is in a red state. To be fair, I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. I'm saying that we saw many, many years of campuses. administrations being extremely as i said solicitous of anybody who took offense at any that's just not true though that narrative is not true i've literally never seen that happen in 12 years of teaching in new york city there are these narratives where people will find the most ridiculous antidote and then generalize okay but entire academic. Okay, but I just told you about the case of the law school. Yes, so you have one data point.

No, you can go to the FIRE website and see dozens of things. Let's say FIRE has 55 data points. Out of what? Like, is that a baseline or are these aberrations? At Columbia, there are data points. I should have researched them. How many and versus how many speakers? Okay, let me ask you another question. these aberrations at columbia there are data points i should have researched them of people how many and versus how many speakers okay let's let me ask you another question if this movement

on campus was pro-life and the pro-life people came and took over the quad and pitched a tent and went into the building and all that stuff and and if somebody and if somebody who they suspect walked by, in some way, some percentage of them menaced that person, do you think we'd be having the identical conversation? And do you think you'd be here defending them? And you believe that Columbia, and you've seen the recent thing that just came out. You're telling me that you have not been to outer borough universities where this does happen. There are pro-life people in new york talking about columbia well well that i mean that again is convenient you're trying to generalize a whole protest let's just start with columbia then we're on columbia are you going to grant me

columbia and just say columbia is not not okay but i'm going to say some stuff that you don't like about the fact that columbia is not representative for a lot of reasons so you so you criticize you think columb Columbia handling the protests was bad? Well, I think the administration handling the protests was bad for reasons that have little to do with the substance of the protests. They have to do with the way academia works, which is that now we're in an environment where colleges are largely for-profit engines,

even if they have non-profit status. And the first priority, especially for-profit engines, even if they have nonprofit status. And the first priority, especially for undergrads, because undergrad teaching is not a profit center for colleges, but undergrads are important for public relations. They're important for donors. And what happens is, you know, parents come in, donors come in, alumni come in. We saw this with Bill Ackman, and they exert pressure on the administration. And so the administration cracks down.

But another thing that people really don't understand, if you have not taught on a college campus, this does not, or you haven't been a student in the last, I would say, five to 10 years, you don't see this, which is that, you know, I had parents complain to me. They're like, well, why don't the students just go through formal channels? They don't understand that there are not formal channels for that. So let me ask you. We have faculty who tried to help with the problem

and they don't even have formal channels. Okay, a couple of days ago. And the second you want to say Columbia is bad, but they don't represent other schools. I don't think they're bad and they don't represent other schools. So there't think they're bad, and they don't represent other schools. So there's just a task force, you know about this, at Columbia, to investigate anti-Semitism.

It's reported in Haaretz. Haaretz is pretty reliable on things. Yeah, they would disagree with it. Even Barack would disagree with it, I think, in a lot of ways. So Columbia task force reveals full extent of anti-semitism on campus anti-semitic comments by professors harassment of jewish students columbia university's anti-semitism task force has heard hundreds of testimonies since its formation in november its members tell her it's about the mandatory orientation they plan and say they have agreed okay uh one professor

encountering a jewish sounding surname while reading names before an exam asked a student to explain their views on the Israeli government actions in Gaza. Another told their class to avoid reading mainstream media declaring it's owned by Jews. A third revealed a student's complaint about an offensive comment regarding Jews by publicly displaying their email to fellow students. Several times professors encouraged students to participate in pro-Palestinian protests or the Gaza solidarity encampment for extra credit or conducted classes at protest sites. Other incidents included students wearing Jewish symbols, having them torn from their person. Some were pushed out of student clubs they had been part of because they did not want to participate in group action and statements against Israel's right to exist.

These are just a few of the hundreds of testimonies of Columbia Task Force Antisemitism. Now that's why I say, so if you're an empiricist, then you're going to have to be open to this. No, I, and here's the thing you're, you're creating a straw man. You're suggesting that I'm saying there's no anti-Semitism. I never said anything of that sort. I'm saying Columbia, Columbia was, Columbia would not have been hospitable to this.

If the target of all these stories were black people. I wildly disagree. One professor at Columbia giving extra credit to people for joining an anti-black protest is going to be a national scandal, okay? I just wildly disagree. Well, give me an example of where it's happened. Give me an example of anything that's comparable. I think you're cherry-picking things that you read in a certain kind of

media, and Horowitz, I generally think is reliable beyond... So then why are you accusing me of cherry-picking from a certain kind of media? I haven't done anything except from... I haven't read you anything but Horowitz. Because you don't understand the sourcing. What am I cherry-picking? You don't understand the sourcing.

Yes, but you accuse me of cherry-picking from a certain type of media. I'm saying, what are you referring to? No, I'm saying you're cherry picking a certain type of incidents. If you do read Horowitz every day, you also see many defenses of the student protesters and you don't seem to register those. You're registering, you know, events and this is a normal cognitive bias. You register the events that confirm your prayers. Everybody does that. I didn't have any priors about what was going on at Columbia until I read the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism, which you're actually saying...

I think you did. I've watched some of your podcasts. You have a clear ideological position. If you're telling me that I'm supposed to... What you're saying to me is actually remarkable. You're saying that if Columbia forms a task force to investigate themselves and it comes out with findings and then I say, well, this is what they found, unless it comes out the

other way, I'm cherry picking and explaining cognitive bias. That's not what i said and that doesn't even make sense that's exactly what you're saying and it doesn't make sense i think i know what i meant what it looks better than you okay tell me what you meant i also think you you really don't understand the the extent to which a lot of this is liability focused there is a big concern anytime you see a university perform you know can basically put together a task force or do a self-investigation there is never a you know we're doing this for the good of society

or the university there there's always a liability concern there's always a profit concern you know the fact that you take that at face value but you don't whenever it's done apparently don't do this whenever it's been done around the way universities treat black people or Asian people or trans people. You're making accusations. They're completely groundless. I haven't denied. But you're saying that this is

unique. It's not. For instance, the Missouri Police Department, the one that killed Michael Brown. Was it Missouri, right? I think so. Same thing about Ferguson, probably. police department the one that uh michael brown that killed michael brown was it uh was it uh missouri right thanks um same thing about ferguson probably yeah they they did a a whole study and they found all sorts of racism within the department i i would be crazy police departments

are not universities wait but i would not i would be crazy to challenge that are you kidding but i'm just a little unclear are you police through missed report they're from internal investigations what people know but they found they found racism in the department which is an exception to police investigating them right i just they generally don't so sorry but just some clarification i'm are you saying that columbia's investigation that these findings were not true or are you saying that Columbia's investigation that these findings were not true or are you saying they are true but they're not representative? No, I'm saying they're not extraordinary. Here's the thing, you go to any college campus in the country whether you think it's very liberal or very conservative it does not matter. You are always gonna find bigots, you're always gonna find people who are extremists. In the

faculty? Yes, yes yes a big college is yes depends on how big they are i mean we have a tenure system that protects people for decades i mean you know it took forever for you've accused me a lot of things i don't think i've accused you of anything but um i i i so but this is why this is why liberals will come on the show, because it goes this way. But I know that you've, just to kind of like fill in the spaces on your priors, right? You believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, correct? I don't know. I have mixed feelings about it.

Or you tweeted it. No, here's what I would say under the Geneva Convention definition, it definitely looks like that. But I also think that this is a thing that's in flux. And I do believe that Israel has overstepped. black and white line where it goes from inappropriate to violating the Geneva Convention to, you know, moving toward a place that is genocidal to genocide. There's no, it's not like taking a blood test. And so I do think that it's not unfair for people to debate. And, you know, you've said, you know, you've made arguments for free speech here to talk about whether it's acceptable that 70% of Gaza is uninhabitable now or that there are starvation problems.

Of course you should be able to debate it. It's ridiculous to think. Yes, but you're taking it for granted that that is the wrong position. And you keep coming at me on that basis. I'm talking about priors. You've tried to put a lot of prior. No, I don't have. Here's the thing.

What do you think my priors were before October 7th? Just tell me i don't think you followed me before october 7th i think you first time you read anything i wrote was i don't know when i wrote that i actually know i do recall reading something i do recall reading something early on where you expressed uh sympathy uh for for israel maybe even that it had the right to exist i don't i don't know you wrote something yes i've written that before. I also, you know, when I was in college, I wanted to work in foreign policy, and I wanted to work specifically

on the problem of religious terrorism, and partly because I grew up in a rural Southern Baptist community, and, you know, I know what that kind of mentality at the fundamentalist level looks like. That's why I was interested in it. Okay. And so... Go ahead. I want to get to the genocide. My point is that's why i was interested in it okay and so

so go ahead i want to get to the genocide my point is that you don't know what my prayers are so you can't really talk about what whether i was confirming my prayers or not i mean when i say when i say your prayers i mean the things that i know you to believe now while you're writing these essays that's all i mean so the genocide thing and when i get bogged down on it but you could give us a sketch of why you think it meets what your understanding of the geneva convention standard is but i i also just want to make it clear we started out talking about you know my actual column that you asked me to come on here and talk about was about and i'm sorry if i seem like antagonistic i i'm an arguer. It's fine, I like that.

My parents are like, you should go to law school and stop arguing with us. So this is the kind of thing that I enjoy. But I also, when you brought me on, you wanted to talk about the column. Right, but in the conversation of the column, you personalize a lot of things that you feel that I believe. So I think it's fair.

No, I didn't. I think you might be taking some shit personally that was not about you. It's certainly not directed toward you. I do want to get to the Tesla truck at some point. Go ahead. Yeah. I think it's, you know, I didn't write in the column what i believe like it was nowhere in the column and so you know i i am happy to talk about it but you know when you said you want to talk

about the column the column is about generational disdain for college protests and that's not a dodge you know if you'd said come on and i want to talk to you about whether you agree with the protesters you know i have a nuanced opinion on that but also you're kind of talking over me, so I can't really get to it. Let me take it from a different angle, because that's actually why I clipped out the tweet. Not because it's that. The charge of genocide, talking about whether these students are not, you know, shallow and simplistic in their opinions, And the students, I mean, many of them, a great number of them, I think, agree that they believe a genocide is going on.

I'm not sure that's true. I think you wildly underestimate the range of opinions among people who are protesting. Some good segment of them believe it's genocide. Sure. And some good segment of them believe that it's not and that there's not and that there's an overreaction from the pro-palestinian okay but would you call those counter protesters

or just part of it depends on where they are if they are literally yelling at people in the encampment they probably are but if you've actually been to the encampments you talk to these students a lot of it depends on what their interest in the issue is. And not everybody is interested just in the thing that's like right in front of us. You know, for a lot of people, it's about whether, you know, the U.S. is financing the war machine in other countries. There are STEM students who are taking STEM classes who don't want to use their machine learning skills for defense contractors who are then going to deploy them in ways that they don't like. And particularly whenever that stuff gets laundered through private companies, there are people who are protesting for the, you know, in this movement, if we're talking about the movement, not just Columbia, there are a range of motivations. And I think it does a disservice to the entire discussion of it to suggest that

there's a platonic protester that has a specific viewpoint when they just do not. And also the kind of student who protests is very different from the literal 92% who don't and the kind of student who protests you know some of them have connections to the conflict that are direct their family or cultural connections some of them uh you know are there because they have some sympathies for whoever they consider you know more uh the the people who are oppressed in this situation or they just have an idea that government is not being responsive to them so it you know you can't sort of reduce all that to a single slogan that you don't like that some students said because also in any mass movement you always have fringe people you always have assholes you always have people are going to believe in genocide a fringe a fringe opinion

no and by the way you are taking it for granted that your position on that is right listen i i'm trying to i wanted to discuss it with you you don't want to discuss it i understand so we don't have to discuss no i i'm happy to discuss it but you you you are really pulling away from what you said you brought me on to talk about i told well first of all it usually when we have a guest it's i tried i never intend to limit it just to that one column i don't know what perry all told you but i i i will i will tell you you want to talk about the column yeah Because obviously, a discussion of a column can... Well, you can bring me on again, and we'll talk about the Geneva Convention.

A column can then spark a conversation in other directions. If I'd asked you about the Tesla, you actually started by saying, you know, I talk about a lot of other things, too, as if you wanted to be clear to us that you would talk about other things. And if I asked you about the Tesla, I didn't think you'd react.

No, I was saying that to suggest that I'm not an employee of the New York Times, so what I rate as a calmness is not like an institutional viewpoint. Let me see. The reason I fixated on the genocide thing is because, to me, it's so shallow.

I disagree. There's a literal technical definition for what... Yeah, the technical definition requires a special intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. Yes, but it also includes things like destroying majority of the habitat, which, by the way, 70% of Gaza is uninhabitable right now. None of that matters if you don't have the intent. No, it does no it does no but also i just how do you know you're incorrect you have what you have to have are you so sure that there's no intent i'm then i'm not i can tell you why i can tell you why i think there's

no intent but let's just first establish if you destroy uh 100 of the habitat without the intent it is not genocide that's because we destroyed raqqa and mosul nobody accused the united states of genocide well because it's not 70 of iraq you know there's everything is the context is important that's not no that's not the way we do regard the dropping of the atomic bomb as a violation of the Geneva Convention. I've never heard it characterized as a genocide, even when talking about it by today's standards. I've never heard Hiroshima being characterized as a genocide. And that was much closer to a genocide than this, because that was the target. That's because a lot of the rules that we're talking about were a reaction to that. Okay, this is why it's not

there's no intent to genocide let's let's so um you know about the hutus and the tutsis yes and uh the the nazis and the jews what uh demands did the nazis have of the jews if only the jews has acceded to the demands that they would have stopped killing the Jews here what what what territory were the Jews holding that if only they'd given it back to the Nazis what what what beef did the Nazis have it's not a good analogy it's just not like it well because because because what what did what did the Jews do do uh to attack the nazis and then retreat and continue to send uh weapons or you are confusing a strategic plan for intent and they're not the same thing when because the difference is and the same thing with the

hutus and the tutsis where they killed a million people or 700 000 to a million people in 100 days basically with their bare hands in both those cases they were they were exhorted to kill the tutsis and the nazis and the jews because they were jews and tutsis and there was nothing the other side could do about it here and that is the fear here you have government and i'm not except the only person who said that. There are plenty of Israelis who say that. Here, I don't think you'll go through this. There's been like, you know, 40 or 45,000 bombs dropped, and something like, let's use a, you know, not a ridiculous, 20,000 civilians killed. No, no, no.

Far more civilians have been killed than combatants on the Palestinian side. I think that is wildly wrong. The total number is like 35,000 until they drastically, 10,000 disappeared somehow. Again, this is what I mean by, you know, cherry picking. I think you're. I'm using the UN numbers. They revamped their numbers to. They didn't revamp.

What they did was they have confirmed deaths and estimated deaths. And as they get confirmed, they they have the two metrics and so the confirmed numbers are the new ones they're not they didn't change the oh that's not correct we wouldn't need to get sidetracked that is literally no it's not because they went from one ministry's numbers to another but they're not the same metric and the and the the 10 000 that are missing nobody knows where they are how they they're created. There are media reports. Nobody knows. But what is clear is that the ratio of men to women and children drastically changed.

And the men, presumably, are fighters. And by the way, children is defined as 18 and under, which also complicates it because I'm sure there's fighters as young as 15. Or younger.

Who knows how young the fighters are? But I use 20,000. Let's say it's half of that. What number do you want to use? Whatever number you want to use. What number do you want to use? I said 20,000. It doesn't matter.

Okay, let's use 20,000. I'm saying you could use half of that. How many, if Israel had the intent over the last eight months to destroy Palestinians for being Palestinians, what number would that be? Genocide is not just about casualty numbers, though. It is about whether

you're making the area uninhabitable, whether you're starving the population. No, it's not what genocide is about. That happens in every war. Can we address the issue of starving the population? Wasn't there a recent recently study? The UN found that they couldn't find starvation. But the thing is,

it's really very important because there are horrible outcomes in wars. Yes, but this is extraordinary. I'm sorry, this is extraordinary. No, this is not extraordinary. This is not extraordinary. What other war can you point to where 70% of the area in question has become uninhabitable. Has that happened in Israel? I don't think the number is 70%.

It is 70%. But I really don't think it is. But if it's 70%, I don't know that metric on other wars, but I've seen pictures of areas of the same size as what we're talking about. But that doesn't matter. One second. But obviously, when the enemy embeds itself in tunnels

under everything that's habitable, you're left with two choices. Let them win or obey the Geneva Conventions and treat them as military targets. Now, that is a very deep philosophical argument of which I am not actually fully confident

how I feel about it because of some number of deaths. I don't know. I don't know. Wait, wait. But I will say this. But what I will tell you is there is no definition of genocide

which would include that. When the enemy buries itself under every city block of people living and fires rockets and takes hostages, that is by definition a legal target. And when Israel sends text messages sends knock bombs sends leaflets even releases map grids of where the targets are going to be and has lawyers in the room and by the way also clears it with the united states

their targets yeah that's that's not you you are you are selecting information what am i leaving out your argument. First of all, that's not how the Geneva Convention works. That's not how people are classified as combatants or not. All right. I've had interviews with two international legal experts. And I'm repeating to you. Who do you think I talked to?

One of them teaches at Columbia. And these are worldwide experts and none of them are saying have said what you said now I say one other thing that you believed just like you there was one thing can I ask her one question about the Geneva Convention yes please well okay according to the Geneva Convention as you read it uh if they had destroyed a percent of, made 100 percent of Gaza uninhabitable but killed no one, would that be, would that correspond to the definition of, what role does destroying the area you have equal numbers of casualties, but what it does mean is that you do not go in and with, you know, disregard for civilian life, bomb everything where you think there might be a Hamas. But you mentioned... There is an obligation to actually present evidence that that's what's happening. And there has not been a meaningful or convincing, you know, presentation of evidence by the Netanyahu government.

And by the way, this is not to the world community. But you mentioned the destruction of property as part of the definition of genocide. They said it's uninhabitable. I don't mean vandalism. I mean uninhabitable. No, I know, but if you render it it uninhabitable is that in and of itself genocide even i'm unclear about the definition of genocide regarding because it's multifactorial it's not just like is is the you know area inhabitable it's like is the area inhabitable was there an intention to make it uninhabitable is it rebuildable was there sufficient care and this is the important part

to avoid it okay okay so so as for the accusation about netanyahu government presenting evidence there has been there have been demands between the biden administration and netanyahu government for evidence and as of today the biden administration has has when when asked still maintained that they have not seen evidence of indiscriminate bombing. Biden did use that- The Biden administration is really pissed at them right now. That's not true.

They're pissed, but again, if you're empirical, you can believe that it's true, but you cannot point to any evidence. I don't believe it's true. That's fine. You cannot believe it's true. So you also- And on an empirical basis, I don't believe it's true.

You also tweeted out that you believe that, you retweeted somebody else, but I'm presuming that you believe that the Israeli military has now rescued a total of seven and killed 70 of their own hostages. I spent the day emailing with one of the world's experts. I don't want to give his name, but a frigging important expert.

And he said, that is absolutely ridiculous. All we know about is the, was it three that Israel killed in friendly fire? And perhaps some of them may have been killed in the bombing, we don't know. But that this is just, I mean, I could find the email to read it to what he said, but this is not empirical.

Okay, let's say. And you're spreading like real disinformation there, or probably not disinformation. Do you think in the overall number of people who have been killed that these bombs have somehow missed hostages? Is that your position? Is that what I said? Well, it is if you're suggesting that this seems to be plausible to you. Your position is that Israel killed 70 of its own

hostages. Do I need to put an RTs or not endorsements in my bio? No. Well, they are in your case because if you look at your Twitter feed, everything you retweet is of that same vein. There are no tweets of the opposite. No, there are tweets that I retweet because I think they make people think about an angle that they hadn't thought about. And one of them is that it's very convenient to argue that none of these bombs have killed hostages because they're so broad. They're not particularly- I haven't heard anybody argue none of the bombs have killed hostages. I think that what we know is that we presume that most of the hostages are kept close to the most sensitive targets, the leadership.

Why would you presume that? Because that's why they took the hostages, to protect themselves. It's a trade. That would presume that everybody knows where the leadership is. And then why are we even having this war? You send people in. No, we presume that. That doesn't even make sense.

And obviously we know that there is intelligence because not only did Israel save some hostages the other day, but other hostage missions have been called off for whatever reasons. But so that we can presume they had information about where other hostages are being kept. So you would imagine that they would have not bombed in those areas. Obviously, they shot three of their own hostages, so it stands to

would not shock anybody if some have been killed. But you're retweeting the people who say that every dead hostage was killed by the idf and that's first of all i don't think that's what the tweet is saying what they're saying i think the tweet is saying what the tweet is saying is that the the the ratio is such that this operation needs to be called into question no dan it's exactly what the tweet says it's talking about the but i'm saying she's implying that they've killed 70 and rescued 7,

therefore what they're doing is... I'm saying that there cannot be... That's 100% of the dead hostages we know about. ...is that all of this bombing is justified solely by the hostages. If you are bombing enough of Gaza to make 70% of it uninhabitable, it is, I mean, tactically impossible. You have not killed hostages. So just to be clear, you think Omar Badaj's tweet is wrong?

No, I think it's a red herring when the Netanyahu, which is a right-wing, in my opinion, extremist government. I'm just asking what you meant by the tweet. I'm telling you, right-wing extremist government uses hostages as an excuse to go in and do the kind of damage he's doing to Gaza. I think it's a red herring. And so I, and if it were really about the hostages, and that was the first concern, the only concern, this kind of destruction would not happen because the hostages would be

de facto casualties of it. What about the hostages and dismantling Hamas so that they cannot do another October 7th? Yes, and here's the thing... So it's about both of those objectives. Yes, but here's the thing. If you have perfect intelligence, you know where the hostages are, why is this insane bombing required? So you can't have it both ways. You can either argue that Israel has perfect intelligence, they know where the hostages are. You're putting words in my mouth. I was saying, I listed a bunch of things, including the fact that they have, obviously, have some intelligence.

I also said, I also said they obviously didn't, but I asked, I also said they obviously don't have perfect intelligence because they shot three of their own hostages. So come on now, be fair. But this is why, this is why there are protests they're protesting you know is that enough some intelligence is that enough to justify bombing a refugee's camp or a hospital like that's what people are upset about it's not you know people want to sort of take it back and litigate issues that have to do with the history of the conflict but you talk to college. That is what they're upset about. It has nothing to do with things that happened 30 years ago. So this is what I want to ask you.

Do you think that college students... But let me read the email. I said, is it true? I gave him the Omar Bedar. He said, hell no, not true. The IDF accidentally killed three. This is not a Jewish person, by the way. 105 were released in the prisoner exchange deal.

Four released by Hamas in a deal with Thailand, I think, and seven rescued by the IDF. This clown is saying every hostage dead body recovered was killed by the IDF, which is insane. Most were killed on October 7th and since found by the IDF. He is even counting number of hostages believed to be dead, but those that have not been confirmed. So that's who you're retweeting. And then the people are also tweeting this stuff about the genocide along the lines of what I'm going to tell you is not accurate what you're saying in terms of the law. And this trickles down to the college students. And this is why they don't really know what they're talking about. I just hear you. And I would just say to you, like, if you want to defend the college students, you, we're the adults, you should not tweet something about

Israel killing all 70 of its hostages and then take refuge behind the fact that's not an endorsement. I just say, because you think a college student reads your tweet and doesn't say to their friend, Israel killed 70 of their own hostages. No, not my students. I don't think they understand social media

way better than older generations do. Well, I'm hearing your explanation. I don't know what you meant. So what do I think the Geneva Convention says? The Geneva Convention says you have to have the special intent based on an animus towards a people. Is the animus toward the people in the law? Yes. And it's not just

intent. It's a special intent. I forgot the Latin phrase for it. And it even says in the description, it's very, very hard to find because regular atrocities, regular war crimes, regular prosecutable offenses do not count as genocide. I don't think you understand what that means, though. You're expecting a videotape of Netanyahu saying, I want to kill all palestinians like a special intent the way that that is the most obvious indication of

the intent would be considering the fact that gazans are are basically sitting ducks there the civilians and israel has the most powerful army in the world would be if they intended to kill them all what's stopping them yeah that's that's not a good i mean go to go to the war crime tribunals in in bosnia that's not a good defense that's kind of the defense they made which they were like well we could have wiped all of them out uh but what i don't know the details of bosnia but i'm saying if you believe it's genocide why why do these casualty numbers creep up so slowly? Because it doesn't, it's about, you know, basically genocide is about pushing an ethnicity completely out of a region and trying to attenuate their numbers. And so it's not, again, a black and white line. There isn't a litmus test where you say, okay, I took a blood test, it's genocide.

You think Israel's just trying to remove the number of Palestinians in the world? I mean, have you- There's 70 million Palestinians, right? You think they think that 30,000 fewer moves the needle in any way in terms of their problem with Palestinians? Do you really think- They don't want- And for the benefit of those 30,000 fewer Palestinians in the world, they're dealing with the entire hatred of the world and the American government threatening to withhold arms

and arrest warrants and everything that's being thrown at Israel, all because they are so bloodthirsty. They want those 25,000, 30,000 dead Palestinians. Because that's genocide. Right when he screams, he said that. So you believe that's genocide. Right wing extremists have said that. They've compared Palestinians to insects. Do you believe that? Yeah, I believe there is some intention to.

So you believe, so behind, the war cabinet meets. And by the way, I don't conflate Netanyahu with Israelis. I don't conflate Netanyahu. But the war cabinet, until it just disbanded, the war cabinet was a mixture of various factions disband because Benny Gantz quit because of he's frustrated the Netanyahu is not announcing plans for after the the war ends yeah because he doesn't have a plan but he didn't quit because he said we're committing

genocide no but he thinks that Dan who's overstepped he thinks that not a lot of people he does not think Netanyahu was overstepped. He thinks that there are a lot of people who... He does not think Netanyahu is overstepped in terms of targets, in terms of bombing, in terms of military strategy. Every one of those people signed off on all these things. And there's many people in the room. There are lawyers in the room. There are people who signed off on Afghanistan after 9-11

and did not like where it went later. But it wasn't genocide. But I'm asking you this question because if you're alone with the Nazis, they would talk about wanting to get rid of this question because if you're alone with the Nazis, they would talk about wanting to get rid of the Jews. If you're alone with the Houthis... That's not necessarily true. Oh, no. No, there were plenty of Germans

who were good Germans who went along with it, and they did not talk openly about... But people building the concentration camps were talking about getting rid of the Jews, Hitler and his circle. Yes, and you should know better than anyone that this happens incrementally. I'm trying to ask you a simple question here. getting rid of the Jews, Hitler and his circle. Yes, and you should know better than anyone. What are you talking about here? I'm trying to ask you a simple question here.

Do you think there are conversations in small groups where they say to themselves, let's just murder them all? Yes, yes, I do. We don't need targets. Yes, I do. So why did you say before you weren't sure how you felt about the genocide charge?

Because I don't think, I think under Geneva Convention rules, it's like we're talking about who's getting it. Oh, that would be it. If you believe that, there's no gray area. Now, here's what, there's a difference between what do I think is happening, what do I think would hold up in the Hague. I didn't ask you about what would hold up in the Hague. Well, I think about that because, first of all, when I was in college, I wanted to work in foreign policy. I wanted to work specifically on the issue of terrorism. I worked on, for an agency, some stuff that had to do with chemical weapons.

I had to read all this stuff. And it does matter the distinction between whether people on a sort of popular basis believe something is happening and whether it fits the letter of the law according to international law I make that distinction even if you don't and I care about it I think it's meaningful all right I think that I'm gonna tell you that I don't know that every Israeli target is proportionate and I don't know that when this is over that a fact I not only do I not know, but I worry deeply that the benefit to Israel will not look of value when compared to the number of innocent people that have died. Well, can I make a suggestion wait wait but the notion that what's going on here is the intentional

attempt to eradicate women and children for the sake because they live because they are palestinians like they did to the jews like to do the tutsis like uh like um you know like like the turks did to the armenians where they want to rid the world of a particular ethnicity, as opposed to a nation that was attacked with one of the most horrifying attacks in the history of the world. We've not seen anything like it in our lifetimes. I saw the Hamas footage. I mean,

fighters gleefully throwing hand grenades into rooms of children and cheering about it with rapture. You think there are no videos like that? I haven't seen one. If there are, the difference is if there are,

I will make no excuses for them. As people make excuses for him, even to say that, why are you both sides in that? I'm saying that Israel is fighting. Israel is. This was a war. And the people in charge of that well-planned decision. The man who says, 100,000, a million people,

we don't care how many we lose. The Wall Street Journal has, you know, a sin war saying, every Gazan can be sacrificed. Does that mean it's okay to sacrifice? No, it doesn't mean it's okay. I'm saying that the people making decisions... It's okay to kill them? The decisions,

the people making decisions to undertake that military action in israel are undertaking it in a highly deliberated way that includes the american government and they've had some disagreements with the american government not an accusation of genocide and i will predict and then ask you i'll predict that you'll have no answer and then ask you, how would you have fought that war against Hamas? And I know you can't answer because there is no answer other than with many civilians dying. This is why you complain that liberals don't come on the show. This is why you don't have any interest in having people make a case. You already know what you think

and you're just here to tell people tell me how Israel would fight the war then how they would fight the war and not commit genocide and when there is no static answer to that the only question is what do they do now it's no good to go back and say

what should they have done 10 years ago no what should they have done after October 7th it's what they should do now there No good to go back and say, what should they have done 10 years ago? No, what should they have done after October 7th? It's what they should do now. What should they have, what would it have been? There are ways to go after Kamas without bombing and, you know. What are they? Without regard to civilians. What are they? We do this all the time with special forces. How do we, you know, do we? Wait a second, though. Wait a second, though. I don't, I don't think that it's true that it's without regard for civilians. I think that there has been ample evidence, and I'll say this even though populations, it becomes nearly impossible to do this in a way that doesn't have horrible tragedy attached to it.

That's not why people are upset. People understand that some civilians are going to die because they are in proximity to Hamas. Wait, wait, but do we agree that they're not in proximity to Hamas, that Hamas intentionally puts well, they're not. Wait, wait. But do we agree that they're not in proximity to Hamas, that Hamas intentionally put civilians at risk? I mean, Sinoir has said that over and over again, right? Yes and no. OK, they if you're going to make an argument that Hamas has infiltrated every aspect of Palestinian life, I'm not making that argument. I think that that is that that's the argument the state is making, though. Anytime they bomb something, you know, that looks like a school, a hospital,

a refugee camp, there's a Hamas person there. But I think, OK, by the way, I invite you to read. We don't have the time to read the article in The Wall Street Journal. It's in Gaza chief's brutal calculation. Civilian bloodshed will help Hamas. Yaha Senwar's correspondence with compatriots and media shows he is confident that Hamas can outlast Israel. And in it, he talks about, he says, we have Israel, we have the Israelis right where we want them. Meaning that, and you can read all his communication.

Oh, yeah, I've read it. So what you have, Israel is up against an enemy, who I think you'll agree, whether Israel should be doing this or not, they are falling into the enemy's trap. What is happening in Gaza in terms of the people dying, this is what the leader of Gaza wants. They've purposely induced this, and they are happy it's happening. When he says we have Israelis right where we want them, meaning they're killing all our people, the world is turning against Israelis. We're winning.

So you're saying now that... Don't conflate Hamas with Palestinians. That's not... I'm not conflating Hamas with Palestinians, but Hamas is the government elected of Gaza. 90%. The people who are in Gaza right now, most of them were not born when that happened. It's utterly irrelevant to the situation right now.

That's not the way the world works. Yes, it is. I never heard anybody say, to be so careful, when you say we're fighting the Nazis, don't conflate the German people. Of course, there's innocent Germans, but born when Hitler took office,

before or after, the world... Germans born in 1980 are not responsible for Hitler's rise in Germany. I'm talking about while the war was going on. Hitler was in power for a long time. They are responsible for the popularity of Falco. That is true. The war, the world divides itself into political entities. And every citizen, tragically, in most cases in the world,

is a hostage to the leadership of the entity with which it lives. It is a citizen. You're assuming a democratic kind of system the way that we have here, and it's just not. Well, but Noam's not, I think, saying that Hamas is, he's not saying we can blame Palestinians for Hamas. No, that's why I'm saying, my heart is fucking breaking for the Palestinians. But I understand enough about world history to know that the kind of arguments that you're tossing out here have never been applied ever. I've never heard them. I never heard anybody say it about any any group of people. We're not saying it about the people who is Ukrainians are dying now. That's Zelensky's choice. That's Putin's choice. They are the leaders of those countries. The Ukrainians are fighting the Russians. I'm not blaming

the Russians. I'm not blaming Ukrainian citizens. That's the way it works. So, Noam, you're saying if Hamas is purposely causing in whole or in part the death of the Palestinian people, then it's Hamas who's committing genocide what i'm saying well i have said that i know you've said that i'm just repeating and

trying to take credit for the point i think i think you can make a much stronger argument that hamas is the one with intention to destroy it to destroy people even though it's his own look even if you know i and i hamas is bad i think most palestinians don't want them in charge how do you get rid of them? Let me finish. Sorry. You know, you're also dealing with right-wing government in Israel who propped up Hamas because they wanted separate government. They wanted to basically split up the Palestinian Authority. What does that mean, propped up Hamas? They allowed the Qataris to come in with funds to fund Hamas.

And what would have happened if they hadn't done that? Well, first of all, Hamas would not be the powerful force that it is right now. Really? Really? Yes. You know that? Because money is a big... And by the way, this has been well covered,

including in the Wall Street Journal and the Times. No, no, we know that... If we're going to go back and say who's responsible, it's like, well, you know, that's another question too. Are you under the impression that the Yair Lapid, the left-wing prime minister of Israel, didn't have the same policy to allow the monies to get into Gaza? Yeah, who started it? Well, who started it? Who cares who started it? It continued.

Well, you're literally saying, like, all these things that happened years ago matter, and then whenever it doesn't work out for your argument, you're like... Israel had a continuous policy of looking the other way as money came into Gaza because they felt it would buy off Hamas. And they felt that they had come to a modus vivendi with Hamas. They allowed more work visas, whatever. There's a quote from an actual – Yes, Netanyahu said – He said, you know, the PA is a burden and Hamas is an asset. Yeah, it's not a quote, but it's an alleged quote. Yeah.

I mean, it's pretty well documented on the record to journalists. No, that's the thing. It wasn't. Well, maybe it's a different quote. I thought referring to Netanyahu quote, he denied saying it. I don't say that he didn't say it. I just don't want to say it. Wasn't it on video?

No, he didn't say it. It wasn't. But it was, you know, it was part of his. But as we know, this is kind of a, there's something just a little bit too clever about this argument, because if seven or eight years ago, Israel had a firm policy of making sure that Hamas stayed poor and making sure that no work visas were granted to the people of Gaza who were, you know, already without also without the money while Hamas is sneaking all the is smuggling all their arms in. People like represent your kind of worldview would say israel is unbelievably harsh to hamas how dare israel not allow how dare israel not allow work visas no that's absurd you would have backed israel in its in its attempt to keep hamas or talk about two different things there there is a no that's the flip side of propping up hamas is to to take tough action against Hamas.

Which when you allow them to be funded by the Qataris, it's not exactly tough action. That's sort of allowing them and trying to play the PA and Hamas off of each other. And that is a dangerous game that's now biting everybody's ass. This is another reason I find that argument unconvincing, is that Israel can't even prevent rockets and parts for rockets and weapons and construction of tunnels and all that heavy machinery from being smuggled into Gaza. I find it very hard to believe they could have kept cash out. I find it very hard to believe that the one item Israel would have had the ability to keep out is cash. I think that's a very wishful...

You don't have to believe that. You'd have to ask, are they allowing obvious transfers that they know about? Yes, but they allowed the transfers. As I said, listen, we allowed transfers to Iran in our policy to try to buy off... You could hear it. I mean, I would agree.

I have all day to talk about that stuff but i just don't think that it's relevant to you it's well i'm making an analogy i'm saying that the the it's an appeasement of sorts yeah that you hope by making the other side's life less miserable that you can induce them to be gentler in their position towards you let me ask you would you can characterize that as propping up hamas but if if you think that propping up tends to imply that Hamas would have fallen otherwise. It would have been much weaker without that. And given how stubbornly Hamas is able to stay in power,

even as Palestinians are dropping dead around them, I don't know that by closing off the spigot of money to whatever extent it was possible, that would have brought down Hamas. What I think it would have done was just made the Palestinians' lives in Gaza, which was already miserable, even more miserable. And the world, people of your general position on Israel,

would have criticized Israel for that kind of harsh measure rather than saying, good, I'm happy Israel is finally going after Hamas. Hopefully they'll starve them out of there. I don't believe that. Part of Netanyahu's agenda at the time was that he was trying to prevent a Palestinian state. And part of the strategy there was to – Does Hamas want a Palestinian state? No, but it doesn't matter. This is a strategic value for Netanyahu. In your opinion, why does Netanyahu want to prevent a Palestinian state? Why do so many

Israelis, not the... Leave the religious right out of it for a second, but the non-religious, the non-crazy Israelis, why do you think they're so wary of a Palestinian state where not that long ago, a huge majority of them were in favor of it? What do you think changed? Because of the ongoing conflicts and the politics of it, that's pretty normal. Okay. But there's one obvious answer. It starts with what? Trust. I mean, I think... No, it starts with the second intifada. No, I mean, I don't think that's true. I think what happens is you see public opinion very much

step in lockstep to the level of safety people feel. And that's a huge factor. And what caused the lack of safety? Well. The second intifada. No, no, no, no. We're talking about October 7th and going forward. No, no. What I'm saying going forward I don't know how much you know about Israelis almost every Israeli that I knew was moved and thought a two state solution was almost in place

and there was Clinton and all that stuff and then as they were trying to hone the final details for peace the Palestinians unleashed an attack just as bloody and as awful as October 7th, except it was spread out over much more time. Children were blowing up at bar mitzvahs. Children were blowing up on bus stops. Children blowing up in cafes.

And then Arafat walked out. And this turned the Israeli people from seeing the two-state solution as this, and I'm not saying they're right, but this is what they- Rabat made progress in Netanyahu's whole cohort. And then in 2007, 2006 or 2007- Sorry, Rabin made progress. A boss was offered an even sweeter deal, and he walked out and didn't have a counteroffer.

Then under Barack Obama, Kerry offered Abbas a deal, and Abbas wouldn't even talk about it. And the Israelis have come to believe that both sides are going to be a threat. And the doomsday scenario, and again, it's fine for you to talk about it over here, but imagine it's happening in Queens, is we make a deal with the Palestinian Authority, and then Hamas takes over. Just like they took over in Gaza, they have a coup d'etat,

and they take over in the West Bank, and then what do we have immediately? Rockets and hand gliders and missiles coming in from the West Bank, where the country is only seven miles wide. And until such time that you can point to me, to a Palestinian leader who says, I want peace with Israel. This has been done. This is what Sadat did.

This is what King Hussein did. I do have a response to this. What's the response? So first of all, the Hammas structure right now the leadership was not democratically elected by palestinians and the reality is gaza has been so devastated that you know just even even let's say we had a cease fire tomorrow gazans by themselves could not rebuild gaza and they could not by themselves construct a leadership structure this is the response response to their coup d'etat? Let me finish.

Also, Israelis have lost faith in Netanyahu, except for people who are very right-wing. And the reality is, you need leadership changes on both sides before you can even approach, not even a full solution where you fix the problem, which I don't think is maybe even going to happen in my lifetime, but I think even some semblance of progress. You would have to have allies that are close to, that, you know, are helpful. Israel's a democracy. Israel's a democracy. It's not a democracy. That's, no, it's not. Well, how is Netanyahu in office? Is he a king? He's elected.

No, I thought you were talking about Hamas. Like, no, that's not- I said Israel is a democracy. Abbas is on like the 18th year of, Abbas is on the 18th year of his four-year term. Yes, and look at the- So here's the problem. Look at Netanyahu's approval ratings.

Like, he is not popular internally. You know, there are plenty of, you know, respected- Well, okay, think about that for a second. And this, we can end with this. Think about that. People think he's doing this to stay out of jail. Think about this from a psychological point of view. He's not popular, and he's not trusted.

You agree with that? Yeah. Nevertheless, Israeli parents are sending their children to die. Do they have a choice? They're fully behind the war. I mean, polling says they're not. No, polling does not say they're not. I looked at it this morning. And what did it say? They're against the war?

No. Over 40% are on the fence, and the percentages of people they're prone against are pretty much identical. So the idea that there is some majority coalition who think that Netanyahu is doing a good job. I didn't say Netanyahu is doing a good job. I'm saying that despite the fact they don't trust him and they think he's a criminal, everything you said,

they believe the cause of destroying Hamas is necessary and they're ready to let their children and their loved ones die. They're not, though. There's been a lot of protests around- There's protests about the hostages. Because they're in IDF. No, no, no. There's protests around public service. There's not a lot. They're exhausted. The IDF is getting- That's also another matter. What I'm saying is that they might feel that they're losing and think that's a reason to stop.

But what I'm saying is that despite the fact they don't trust Netanyahu and they don't like him and they like him out of office, Israelis feel that living with Hamas sending rockets in the south and Hezbollah in the north is intolerable and they are ready to die to turn it around.

You think that's genocide. I think he's complaining three different issues that are not the same thing. No, it's all the same. No, no, I disagree. Okay, well, we're going to have to end. Well, you know, I would just say that Noah made some excellent points, but at the same time, Dave Smith has a lot of followers and he agrees with Elizabeth,

so I guess he must be right. Podcast at ComedySeller.com for comments, questions, and suggestions. That is all. Bye-bye. It's getting hot in here.