I doubt Maher would be a good choice. He gives them what, like 2 minutes to talk, and then its a big stupid back and forth bad faith debate interspersed with "jokes"...no one listens to that show to learn anything, its just so they can monologue. I'd rather hear Ben talk to Sam Harris for an hour and discuss their differences, because at least that would be more constructive and Sam still has a fairly large audience.
Its funny, even though I have no formal academic background in the history of this region and strictly learn about it from youtube, wikipedia, and some brief press reports, I feel like I could do a much better job at challenging Ben than the radio host did. I just despise this kind of monologue treatment, because it seems so pointless. If you never go more than an inch deep on what guests are proposing then none of the ideas are challenged and no one ever has any certainty whether their arguments are truly defensible or not. And the public on their own generally is not going to be able to deconstruct these ideas as well as someone more familiar with the subject can. For example, when Ben points out that the question of "how could Israel live peacefully with Hamas", could be reversed with equal force to question how Hamas could live peacefully with Israel, and looks at the number of Palestinians killed vs Israelis...first of all all of the data we're getting about the deaths in that area are coming from the Gazan health ministry which is run by Hamas, and its death tolls have been repeatedly questioned and openly corrected after it was found that their data doesn't even make mathematical sense. But putting that issue aside, as errors could be understandable during wartime, I still think its the wrong analysis. If you have a mugger who assaults you on the street, and you defend yourself, it is not reasonable to ask, well you punched the mugger, so why doesn't the mugger have a right to claim you attacked him? The key variable here is not whether one side injured another, but who initiated the use of force and whether it was justified. The use of retaliatory force of course is also subject to moral consideration, but we really have to have better data on the deaths here so I leave it aside for now. It is absolutely the case that Israel has done wrong in the region - the illegal expansion of settlements, for one, as well as the restriction of water and other goods to Gaza, should absolutely have been punishable by the ICC and international pressure. But it was not justified on those grounds alone, to massacre 1200 civilians, doubly so because many of the women and children that were killed were obviously completely innocent. And so, one really wonders what the motivations are here. Is Hamas truly abiding by its revised charter, which is supposedly open to dialogue and peace talks? Or is its attack more violence perpetuated by the idea that Israel should not have a right to exist? And all things considered it just seems like the latter is more likely. And in that case, engaging in peace talks may truly be fruitless...so Ben's entire solution would be untenable. Others like Finkelstein, think the former is more likely, based on the moral reasoning that you shouldn't blame people living in a concentration camp for murdering the guards on their way out. Personally, I just don't think this is in any way a valid moral defense. They were clearly not guards, they had nothing to do with Israeli policies, they were simply families at a music festival. Unless Hamas consists of people who are literally psychotically deranged, they should be able to distinguish between civilians and valid military targets.
I also think it's worth considering that Hamas moderated their stances for the 2006 elections in order to appeal to a broader base of moderate Muslims and non-Muslims. I presume (though, I could be wrong -- it's been 18 years) the leadership still holds extremist views, but I'd bet that a lot of Hamas rank-and-file are joining up for the reasons you mentioned, and not religious ideology. I think there's a question to how ideological the militant wing really is. An ideological leadership may direct people to fight for ideological ends, but if the soldiers are pragmatic or opportunistic ("to fight back against the oppressor"), that creates an opening for better political groups if Israel stops bolstering Hamas's credibility. But right now, Hamas is the group that's "fighting back" and Netanyahu, in particular, is one of the reasons they managed to gain enough credibility to win a plurality in the last elections.
A lot of what you are bringing up lacks a context in a Muslim majority nation that uses an Arabic dialect. For instance, the requirement for being a community leader is comprehension of Islamic jurisprudence and esoteric knowledge, such as why a person sleeping is considered 'unclean' yet if one naps one has retained cleanliness. [spoiler] in rapid eye movement sleep the body fidgets and moves autonomously yet naps do not enter rem sleep. If the body has moved itself to places unknown, this is considered defiling. So in the context of religious ideology for a people such as these, you are just asking who has passed the test on culture and law, which are all comprehended from literary conventions in how to understand the koran. Israel has locked in the status quo, where Hamas would need to be overthrown by a people suffering extreme starvation which has never happened. Israel blocks the initiation of elections because all polls are unfavorable. To imagine how offensive the framework is, take the instance of Hamas questioning whether the United States should exist because the freedom to bear arms is seen as extremist. People working for peace operate within a cultural dynamic, rather than absolutist standards.
they teach their children in school that being a martyr against Israel is the highest calling in life. They haven’t moderated their stances at all and anyone who is fucking claiming they do is either a masochistic lunatic or doesn’t live with their own women and children in Israel.
why did no Japanese join terrorist groups after we dropped two atomic bombs on them? Oh, could it be perhaps because the global left didn’t make them into a fetish at the time encouraging them to fight relentlessly in the pursuit of ‘absolute justice’ all the while ignoring repeated attempts by Arab countries and the long-standing avowal of Hamas and by extension Palestinians of their intention to destroy Israel. Ben, when are you going to bring a semblance of logic to your analysis of this conflict?
Hamas don’t want a permanent ceasefire. Nearly every point Ben is making here is wrong, which is extremely alarming given he’s typically one of the most intelligent voices on the left.
@@bigmadbad Alright people, lets get one thing straight: We're talking about real, delicious salads here. And clearly the best salad is a caesar salad with ranch dressing
One hears of a one state or two state solution as if it is only the presence of a 'state' which can resolve the problem. I wonder however if it is not the very existence of states which is the source of the problem. Was it not the fact that Germany was a state which made it possible for it to intervene against its own domestic populations in such a monstrous and barbarous way in the 1930s ? Was it not this barbarous treatment which compelled its victims to carve out a state of their own at the expense of the indigenous populations ? I ask in all seriousness how and why a stateless solution would have not been much to be preferred over the formation of a state, a state which critics describe as just another European settler colonial state with considerable justification.
Something I'm been working on and suggest for you Ben: Say "you know...' alot less; you use it way too often and uhhh. Its not easy. but YOUR the public speaker and if your going to represent leftwing views please be tighter. because, you know...its tedious to listen to.
I thought Ben handled that really well and it made me wish Bill Maher had the courage or intelligence to invite Ben to Real Time
Maher is awful on this issue. So shortsighted and bad faith in his critique of the protestors too.
I doubt Maher would be a good choice. He gives them what, like 2 minutes to talk, and then its a big stupid back and forth bad faith debate interspersed with "jokes"...no one listens to that show to learn anything, its just so they can monologue.
I'd rather hear Ben talk to Sam Harris for an hour and discuss their differences, because at least that would be more constructive and Sam still has a fairly large audience.
youre good at normie ben!
you do a good job breaking sht down peanut butter and jelly style
Its funny, even though I have no formal academic background in the history of this region and strictly learn about it from youtube, wikipedia, and some brief press reports, I feel like I could do a much better job at challenging Ben than the radio host did. I just despise this kind of monologue treatment, because it seems so pointless. If you never go more than an inch deep on what guests are proposing then none of the ideas are challenged and no one ever has any certainty whether their arguments are truly defensible or not. And the public on their own generally is not going to be able to deconstruct these ideas as well as someone more familiar with the subject can.
For example, when Ben points out that the question of "how could Israel live peacefully with Hamas", could be reversed with equal force to question how Hamas could live peacefully with Israel, and looks at the number of Palestinians killed vs Israelis...first of all all of the data we're getting about the deaths in that area are coming from the Gazan health ministry which is run by Hamas, and its death tolls have been repeatedly questioned and openly corrected after it was found that their data doesn't even make mathematical sense.
But putting that issue aside, as errors could be understandable during wartime, I still think its the wrong analysis. If you have a mugger who assaults you on the street, and you defend yourself, it is not reasonable to ask, well you punched the mugger, so why doesn't the mugger have a right to claim you attacked him? The key variable here is not whether one side injured another, but who initiated the use of force and whether it was justified. The use of retaliatory force of course is also subject to moral consideration, but we really have to have better data on the deaths here so I leave it aside for now.
It is absolutely the case that Israel has done wrong in the region - the illegal expansion of settlements, for one, as well as the restriction of water and other goods to Gaza, should absolutely have been punishable by the ICC and international pressure. But it was not justified on those grounds alone, to massacre 1200 civilians, doubly so because many of the women and children that were killed were obviously completely innocent.
And so, one really wonders what the motivations are here. Is Hamas truly abiding by its revised charter, which is supposedly open to dialogue and peace talks? Or is its attack more violence perpetuated by the idea that Israel should not have a right to exist? And all things considered it just seems like the latter is more likely. And in that case, engaging in peace talks may truly be fruitless...so Ben's entire solution would be untenable.
Others like Finkelstein, think the former is more likely, based on the moral reasoning that you shouldn't blame people living in a concentration camp for murdering the guards on their way out. Personally, I just don't think this is in any way a valid moral defense. They were clearly not guards, they had nothing to do with Israeli policies, they were simply families at a music festival. Unless Hamas consists of people who are literally psychotically deranged, they should be able to distinguish between civilians and valid military targets.
I also think it's worth considering that Hamas moderated their stances for the 2006 elections in order to appeal to a broader base of moderate Muslims and non-Muslims. I presume (though, I could be wrong -- it's been 18 years) the leadership still holds extremist views, but I'd bet that a lot of Hamas rank-and-file are joining up for the reasons you mentioned, and not religious ideology. I think there's a question to how ideological the militant wing really is. An ideological leadership may direct people to fight for ideological ends, but if the soldiers are pragmatic or opportunistic ("to fight back against the oppressor"), that creates an opening for better political groups if Israel stops bolstering Hamas's credibility. But right now, Hamas is the group that's "fighting back" and Netanyahu, in particular, is one of the reasons they managed to gain enough credibility to win a plurality in the last elections.
A lot of what you are bringing up lacks a context in a Muslim majority nation that uses an Arabic dialect. For instance, the requirement for being a community leader is comprehension of Islamic jurisprudence and esoteric knowledge, such as why a person sleeping is considered 'unclean' yet if one naps one has retained cleanliness. [spoiler] in rapid eye movement sleep the body fidgets and moves autonomously yet naps do not enter rem sleep. If the body has moved itself to places unknown, this is considered defiling.
So in the context of religious ideology for a people such as these, you are just asking who has passed the test on culture and law, which are all comprehended from literary conventions in how to understand the koran.
Israel has locked in the status quo, where Hamas would need to be overthrown by a people suffering extreme starvation which has never happened. Israel blocks the initiation of elections because all polls are unfavorable.
To imagine how offensive the framework is, take the instance of Hamas questioning whether the United States should exist because the freedom to bear arms is seen as extremist. People working for peace operate within a cultural dynamic, rather than absolutist standards.
they teach their children in school that being a martyr against Israel is the highest calling in life. They haven’t moderated their stances at all and anyone who is fucking claiming they do is either a masochistic lunatic or doesn’t live with their own women and children in Israel.
why did no Japanese join terrorist groups after we dropped two atomic bombs on them? Oh, could it be perhaps because the global left didn’t make them into a fetish at the time encouraging them to fight relentlessly in the pursuit of ‘absolute justice’ all the while ignoring repeated attempts by Arab countries and the long-standing avowal of Hamas and by extension Palestinians of their intention to destroy Israel.
Ben, when are you going to bring a semblance of logic to your analysis of this conflict?
Hamas don’t want a permanent ceasefire. Nearly every point Ben is making here is wrong, which is extremely alarming given he’s typically one of the most intelligent voices on the left.
Ben, your salad needs to be tossed.
Which dressing should he go for?
@@bigmadbad Alright people, lets get one thing straight: We're talking about real, delicious salads here. And clearly the best salad is a caesar salad with ranch dressing
One hears of a one state or two state solution as if it is only the presence of a 'state' which can resolve the problem. I wonder however if it is not the very existence of states which is the source of the problem. Was it not the fact that Germany was a state which made it possible for it to intervene against its own domestic populations in such a monstrous and barbarous way in the 1930s ? Was it not this barbarous treatment which compelled its victims to carve out a state of their own at the expense of the indigenous populations ? I ask in all seriousness how and why a stateless solution would have not been much to be preferred over the formation of a state, a state which critics describe as just another European settler colonial state with considerable justification.
Something I'm been working on and suggest for you Ben: Say "you know...' alot less; you use it way too often and uhhh. Its not easy. but YOUR the public speaker and if your going to represent leftwing views please be tighter. because, you know...its tedious to listen to.