I'm a bit confused by how puzzled SH and MD are over Israel's reluctance to agree to a ceasefire. If the war ends with Hamas still in power, won't Hamas declare victory? And also declare October 7 a success, as an operation that changed the world's view of their cause? And won't Hamas stay in power as Gaza is rebuilt? I mean, love Israel or hate it, it isn't hard to see how that is not an appealing long-term prospect from the Israeli POV!
People seem comfortable talking about 'victory' when discussing the other war--one often hears "We can't let Russia win." Of course that's silly, we can absolutely let Russia 'win', as DM points out.
In short, if it's easy to see why Ukrainians don't want to lose land to Russia, shouldn't it also be easy to see why Israel doesn't want to leave Hamas in control of Gaza?
I expected Damir to make that simple common sense point. He was really off his game this episode. Shadi and Matt just made the moralistic arguments you'd expect from them.
Why did you bring this person just so that he and Shadi would spend all the time agreeing with each other, talking over Damir? Where is substantive the disagreement that I expect from Wisdom of Crowds. If I wanted hear consistent BS about racism, I would look at Coates or the Washington Post.
Regarding Shadi's question to Matt on why Harris campaign does not give more concessions to the pro-Palestinian democrats, I agree with Matt's response that Harris has decided on how much support she needs to give to the Gaza issue and has accepted the consequent loss if votes. But I also think her campaign has made a determination that a little bit more will not help as the pro-Palestinian supporters are very passionate about the cause. Moreover, there is a real downside from Jewish voters voting for Trump. After all, American Jews have lower downside from Trump presidency than Arab-Americans.
Progressives like Matt Duss lose a lot of credibility when they are unable to differentiate between MBS, a psychopathic Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who has credibly known to have Khashoggi murdered, and Narender Modi, a democratically elected Prime Minister of India. I am no fan of Modi's right-wing, Hindu revanchist policies of him and his government, which are being addressed democratically when Modi's party lost majority in the recent elections.
Also, with the Russians changing their nuclear posture, a Ukrainian incursion into canonical Russian territory, and large Ukrainian losses in the East - why is the focus on the Middle East and not Ukraine - where are the more nukes, what can lead to a worse scenario?
This was such a good podcast as always. I was wondering what does a 'free Palestine' really entail? Given the state of the region democracy wise it strikes me a new Palestinian state would struggle to maintain procedural democracy. This is especially so given the infrastructure has been significantly degraded and with years of oppression democracy strikes me as a longshot? Would Palestinians merely be swapping an Israeli brutaliser for one of their own?
I agree on the argument against realpolitik. The true realpolitik would likely be supporting democracy in the area given long term the trajectory would work in the US's favour I would guess. Currently the policies just alienate everyone involved leaving America at risk of criticism from both flanks as it were.
I was also thinking if I wanted to steelman Israel you'd make an argument that involved their perpetual security in the long run and increasing the chances of peace by eliminating bad actors such as the heads of Hamas and Hezbollah. You could also make a case that although Arab states are now guaranteeing Israeli security this wasn't the case all that long ago. Indeed, relatively recent surveys by Arab Barometer highlight the lack of support for normalisation of relations. Of course you could do some counterfactuals but I think this would be a set up for steelmanning Israel's position
Fascinating discussion. This is more of a musing, but I found the discussion about racism interesting, and I kind of agree with both sides. I don't think racism is the sole reason behind US foreign policy, but I'm wondering if dismissing Arabs / Muslims enables such policy, or whether the attitude arises in order to justify that policy? It's murky, but I suspect we can't enact these policies without having these beliefs about the people they're affecting and, conversely, we can't quite enact such policies on other "white" populations without some similar racist / dismissive framework (e.g. "other"-ing Ukranians as Slavs). I'm not even sure this is some sinister conspiracy at the top: I suppose even politicians need to find some way to justify their actions to themselves in order to sleep at night.
This is a naive and possibly ignorant question, but how much does instability in the Middle East cost the US, really? So long as there are autocrats allied with the US and ensuring a steady influx of oil, does violence in that region (even towards Israel) cost the US that much?
I'm a bit confused by how puzzled SH and MD are over Israel's reluctance to agree to a ceasefire. If the war ends with Hamas still in power, won't Hamas declare victory? And also declare October 7 a success, as an operation that changed the world's view of their cause? And won't Hamas stay in power as Gaza is rebuilt? I mean, love Israel or hate it, it isn't hard to see how that is not an appealing long-term prospect from the Israeli POV!
People seem comfortable talking about 'victory' when discussing the other war--one often hears "We can't let Russia win." Of course that's silly, we can absolutely let Russia 'win', as DM points out.
In short, if it's easy to see why Ukrainians don't want to lose land to Russia, shouldn't it also be easy to see why Israel doesn't want to leave Hamas in control of Gaza?
I expected Damir to make that simple common sense point. He was really off his game this episode. Shadi and Matt just made the moralistic arguments you'd expect from them.
In my sort-of defense, I felt like we had trod that ground enough previously. Was trying to fight from different territory.
Why did you bring this person just so that he and Shadi would spend all the time agreeing with each other, talking over Damir? Where is substantive the disagreement that I expect from Wisdom of Crowds. If I wanted hear consistent BS about racism, I would look at Coates or the Washington Post.
Regarding Shadi's question to Matt on why Harris campaign does not give more concessions to the pro-Palestinian democrats, I agree with Matt's response that Harris has decided on how much support she needs to give to the Gaza issue and has accepted the consequent loss if votes. But I also think her campaign has made a determination that a little bit more will not help as the pro-Palestinian supporters are very passionate about the cause. Moreover, there is a real downside from Jewish voters voting for Trump. After all, American Jews have lower downside from Trump presidency than Arab-Americans.
Progressives like Matt Duss lose a lot of credibility when they are unable to differentiate between MBS, a psychopathic Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who has credibly known to have Khashoggi murdered, and Narender Modi, a democratically elected Prime Minister of India. I am no fan of Modi's right-wing, Hindu revanchist policies of him and his government, which are being addressed democratically when Modi's party lost majority in the recent elections.
Between modern autocrats or “democratically” elected Islamic regimes, the world is a lot safer with a bunch of MBSs running the region
Also, with the Russians changing their nuclear posture, a Ukrainian incursion into canonical Russian territory, and large Ukrainian losses in the East - why is the focus on the Middle East and not Ukraine - where are the more nukes, what can lead to a worse scenario?
This was such a good podcast as always. I was wondering what does a 'free Palestine' really entail? Given the state of the region democracy wise it strikes me a new Palestinian state would struggle to maintain procedural democracy. This is especially so given the infrastructure has been significantly degraded and with years of oppression democracy strikes me as a longshot? Would Palestinians merely be swapping an Israeli brutaliser for one of their own?
I agree on the argument against realpolitik. The true realpolitik would likely be supporting democracy in the area given long term the trajectory would work in the US's favour I would guess. Currently the policies just alienate everyone involved leaving America at risk of criticism from both flanks as it were.
I was also thinking if I wanted to steelman Israel you'd make an argument that involved their perpetual security in the long run and increasing the chances of peace by eliminating bad actors such as the heads of Hamas and Hezbollah. You could also make a case that although Arab states are now guaranteeing Israeli security this wasn't the case all that long ago. Indeed, relatively recent surveys by Arab Barometer highlight the lack of support for normalisation of relations. Of course you could do some counterfactuals but I think this would be a set up for steelmanning Israel's position
Fascinating discussion. This is more of a musing, but I found the discussion about racism interesting, and I kind of agree with both sides. I don't think racism is the sole reason behind US foreign policy, but I'm wondering if dismissing Arabs / Muslims enables such policy, or whether the attitude arises in order to justify that policy? It's murky, but I suspect we can't enact these policies without having these beliefs about the people they're affecting and, conversely, we can't quite enact such policies on other "white" populations without some similar racist / dismissive framework (e.g. "other"-ing Ukranians as Slavs). I'm not even sure this is some sinister conspiracy at the top: I suppose even politicians need to find some way to justify their actions to themselves in order to sleep at night.
This is a naive and possibly ignorant question, but how much does instability in the Middle East cost the US, really? So long as there are autocrats allied with the US and ensuring a steady influx of oil, does violence in that region (even towards Israel) cost the US that much?