In 1950's South Africa the political opponents in the Afrikaner community were called the _Verligtes_ and _Verkramptes._ The Enlightend and Sclerotic, loosely translated. The first group wanted to create the bantustans and give blacks very limited self rule and eventually strip them of South African citizenship and declare them citizens of their respective ethnic states. They were the liberals and the architects of Apartheid. The second group thought this was way too generous and saw no need why blacks could not continue to live without the vote and under institutional segregation as it then existed. Visitors from Europe had difficulty discerning the difference. Listening to Lapid and Netanyahu, I do as well.
I'm not the original poster, but I think I understand part of his opinion. Yair doesn't say very much against Netanyahu, like where is Yair's leadership going to be different. Especially in the context of the current war, would he change any tactics or strategy of the fighting there now? It seems like he doesn't say what he'd change, and maybe he wouldn't change any direction in the war itself. After the war sure it seems there are differences.
@@jaialaiwarriorThis is a truely dumb comparison, Israel is advanced country with a democratic process and yet they still fall victim to religious and ethnic extremism. Why are Palestinians being held to a higher standard? Israel has two religious extremists in the government, are all Israelis to blame for this? Let the Palestinians have an actual state before making this stupid comparison.
@@bigtuna45to be fair, the Palestinians voted the Hamas government into power in a landslide, and they have been running Gaza for 18 years as a pseudo-state under seige. Lapid is right about one thing - the Palestinians have had multiple chances at statehood. There is a quip in diplomatic circles; "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Another witicism is similar, and equally true: "The Palestinians always hold out for the last deal they rejected." None of this excuses Israel's complete lack of rules of engagement in this conflict. It's a catastrophy, not just for the Palestinians, but for Israel. But Lapid, and some others in the opposition, realize the only way for Israel to be a democracy us for Palestinians to have a state. Show me a Hamas leader who will accept that in return for peace.
@@Agtsmirnoff Gaza has been a de facto part of Israel since Israel conquered it in 1956. The fact that Israel can and does remove governments it doesn't like only reinforces this obvious state of affairs. No one gets in or out of Gaza without passing through Israeli security clearances. Gaza and the West Bank are both run under Israeli military law.
30:10 I’m sorry Mr. Lapid, you might’ve been the victim during Oct 7 but your country has caused so much death and misery in these last 6 months that you can no longer be the victim in this situation, Israel is itself to blame for how poorly they have handled their response, to Biden’s credit he did try to warn them. This fact has to be acknowledged for Israel to be “understood” by the rest of the world.
“We never asked for this war”… but we ensured Hamas would be well funded, illegal settlements would keep growing and ensured that Palestinian state can never be achieved
Again this is another fact that must be acknowledged by Israeli society in order to the rest of the world to understand them. I really hate that line “we never asked for this war” it completely erases any conversation about propping up Hamas to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, it erases the occupation and military siege. It leaves out so much failure because it is incredibly uncomfortable to acknowledge these facts. You need to commit to peace, Likuds strategy for the last 15-20 years has been an abject failure for Israel and the Palestinians.
@user-sz1lz1zq8y no, it tells us how much kool‑aid you've drunk. You can carry all of the benefit-of-the-doubt about Israel's alleged ties to Hamas, but if you think October 7th was accidental, that Gazans are peace‑loving people who just tripped across the fence that morning trying to hug everyone, then it's time for you to put the bottle down.
I've been talking to a lot of Palestinians since this started, and this guy echoed what they've told me as well - currently, there's no real reasonable and credible counterpart on the Palestinian side that can take over from Hamas. The PA is despised by most Palestinians, while the other significant organisations are just as crazy as Hamas. Moderates just get eliminated as they're caught between Netanyahu and the existing Palestinian power structures none of which want a viable representative of the Palestinian people to exist. One solution that I've heard in some form or another is for an international coalition (Including US, China, Russia) backing such a moderate Palestinian faction should it form, but personally I'm skeptical these countries are willing to do such a thing, or if they even want peace in the region.
Some questions Ms Novarro could have asked, but didn’t: - In 2016 you were quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that you are guided by a principle of "maximum Jews on maximum land with maximum security and with minimum Palestinians." Do you continue being guided by that principle? -Israel prohibits unembedded foreign correspondents access to Gaza. Do you support this policy? -In the name of transparency, would you call on the government of Israel to release an unedited version of drone videos of the so-called “flour massacre” last month in which over 100 Palestinian died while trying to access aid trucks. -Are you familiar with the case of the 5 year-old Hind Rajab, who was killed along with two paramedics sent to save her? Israel denies it’s forces were in the area, but a Washington Post investigation shows tanks clearly nearby. -This month Dr Adnan Ahmad Albursh died in Israeli custody. Would you support an independent investigation into his death? (I could go on. This is just the tip of the iceberg of unasked questions.)
“But we are sorry.” Reminded me of reading Arendt’s dismissal of apologies which i thought similar to Ukrainians regard for indicators of remorse from individual Russian soldiers. I’m always compelled by folks regretting being part of an appallingly disproportionate action (gotta be, im amurican;) but Dr. Arendt made the haunting point that at some level apologies are irrelevant. If we kill enough people and decimate enough infrastructure then our intentions and/or regrets mean: less than nothing.
Why aren't the principles of Oslo never discussed where there was a vision of Israel/Palestine as a federation modeled on Switzerland and a member of the EU?
The arabs of "Palestine" aren't european. And further, it took about 2200 years for Europe to swear off fighting each other to get to this present time; for the time being.
Curious that this man claims to have a handle on history of his own country yet reduces the current crisis to October 7. Sort of like saying WWI was about Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
@@danielpincus221I'm an American, and don't have to live in any of those countries. I'd prefer to live in a democracy and not an apartheid state. I don't want to fund Israel's Apartheid or the Emirati kingdom.... That said, Dubai is a popular place to live for rich westerners so your point might end up backfiring 😅
@@danielpincus221Your logic is that it’s okay for Israel to commit genocide because they have a high standard of living (for Jewish citizens)? 😂 Incredible.
Israel has become crazy-town. Why does he ignore obvious facts -- e g, Israeli politicians use the "from the riv'er" chant today & earlier. (Israelis have used that chant since the 1970s, when it was the slogan for Bibi's current Likud party) Total hypocrisy to say "I can chant a slogan, but others can't." Then, he continued saying foolish things.
@keep-ukraine-free528, in fairness, "from the river to the sea" was coined by Palestinians in the 60s. It definitely predated the (stupid) descision of Likud to coopt it as a counterslogan. It means the same thing when said by either side - one state, with hegemony over the loser. What that slogan doesn't mean is peaceful coexistence in a single state.
@@nwrob1 I'm happy to see you understand that a phrase can have more than 1 meaning. You already see this phrase has 2 meanings. Let's look further, and see it has 4 meanings -- 2 that are pro-Palestinian & 2 that are pro-Israeli. Here are the 4 possible *_common_* meanings of the phrase (though I've *_never_* seen the 4th meaning used by zionist-Israelis--which is very telling of that group's dehuma'nization of others): 1. the land should be settled & controlled by only Palestinians. 2. the land should be settled & controlled by only Israelis. 3. the land should be settled by both Palestinians & Israelis but controlled by only Israelis. 4. the land should be settled by both Palestinians & Israelis & controlled by both. The phrase has these meanings used most often (and other meanings exist too, but those are very rare). Palestinians use only the 1st & 4th. But Israelis use it to mean only the 2nd & 3rd. As you know, the 1st & 2nd uses are morally repulsive. The 4th is the one that good people seek.
@keep-ukraine-free528 you'll have to excuse my cynicism on this one. To coopt a slogan that has meant "division and subjugation" by both sides for 60 years and expect anyone to believe you mean the exact opposite is poor strategy to put it kindly. It has "dogwhistle" written all over it. I'm sure there are a lot of well-meaning young people at Columbia, UCLA and elsewhere who believe this is a clever slogan and the goal they say it represents is the best chance for peace and justice in Palestine. I know some of them. But it isn't. I'm happy to agree that #4 "should" happen. Its a fact the entire world since the Mandate started in 1920 thinks that "should" happen. That is to say the entire world except the Israelis and Arabs. (And I say Arabs quite deliberately, it's never just been about the Palestinians). It's also a fact that since the Peel Commission in 1937, those in the West who study this closely have realized that that particular political resolution isn't going to happen. Neither side wants it, and never has. A few Palestinians, a few Israelis, sure, but a tiny minority. Now less than ever. Politics (and that's what this is) is the art of the possible. To spend resources and political capital on impossible things reinforces the status quo. I'm strongly against the status quo.
This is never brought up in the interview. There is a large disparity in power between Gazans and Israelis. Israel has a more powerful military and is backed by the US. When there is a power disparity like this, the more powerful group has more control over how much damage is inflicted on the other party. Even if you take everything Lapid says as fact, there comes a point where observers will start to recoil from the violence against the other side. There's this attitude among Israelis that Hamas picked a fight so Israel will take this opportunity to beat all Gazans to a bloody pulp. I've seen a complete lack of empathy for civilian deaths on the Israeli side. With respect to how Hamas uses civilians as shields, there is only so many times you can use that excuse before it rings hollow. Yes, it's difficult to fight when the enemy conducts itself that way, but when you shoot through civilians to kill the enemy it's going to make you look bad eventually. Especially with images of dead kids. In almost no other aspect of life would it be acceptable for someone who calls themselves the victim to shoot through a civilian to kill a bad guy. We are at the point where people debate whether it's a genocide. Winning that debate isn't a win. The fact that it's even a discussion shows you've lost the debate. I live in the US, so I couldn't imagine what it's like to have enemies on our borders, but from a practical standpoint I think Israel needs international friends. If the international community starts to perceive Israel as a bully Israel may look up in 10 to 20 years and be alone. Then it does become an existential problem, and ironically give Hamas the result they wanted.
"I've seen a complete lack of empathy for civilian deaths on the Israeli side." I saw empathy for civilian deaths in this very video. By contrast, when was the last time you saw Palestinians show empathy for Israeli deaths?
@@dwaynepeters4520 I think this goes back to the power disparity. When I see images of Gaza I see people literally struggling to stay alive. If you are struggling for life day to day you don't have much room for empathy. Israel is wealthier and better armed, and they are supposed to represent western values, so I think they have a higher bar when it comes to acting with restraint. I understand some think that's unfair or disagree, but I think a lot of people have that intuitive feeling that it's not right for a stronger group to totally decimate a weaker group even when that weaker group is in the wrong.
Thank you for giving air space to someone who is attempting to find a way forward for both sides. it gives me hope... unlike most of the comments under the article. Not sure if anyone from the NYT reads the comments, but if you do... I think the piece was mistitled. It paints Israel as the victim.. which is the very thing Mr. Lapid says he/Israel refuses to be. I suggest Victimhood is not the answer. which I saw as a central thread in his message. Victimhood is not the answer for the Israeli's nor the Palestinians.
I love you, ignorant people, you don’t listen, we’ve said since day, one that no other Israeli Prime Minister would conduct this war any different than the current one, yet you all seem to be fixated on Bibi. The ignorance of the pro Hamas side is just so deep that it is laughable.
He is not. He’s a clear supporter of an eventual 2 state solution. He wants to engage the PA. He wants more aid to Gaza. He wants better diplomatic relations.
@@Aan_allein First of all, I can say or post as I please and no one will tell me not to talk. Second, Lapid has a nuanced position on settlements, favoring maintenance of settlement blocs but is open to removing settlers outside the blocs for a comprehensive peace settlement.
Why you continue to use the number of casualties of the hamas government? Every civilian dead is a tragedy but you cant use numbers provided by a terrorist organisation, we expect better from the NYT
Youre being hysterical. Every other comment is concerned with the disproportionate amount of civilians being murdered, or annoyed at how uncritical our governments our when spending tax dollars on israel.
If thousands of dead civilians is what "existing" means in Israel, then no. Netanyahu and everyone carrying out his orders is a shame to Jews everywhere and we must stand up to him if he thinks he does atrocities in our name
@@kahlilbt There's still a baby who is a hostage. For six months. That is, if he's still alive. Yeah, in order to exist, you need to be able to defend yourself, even if Hamas hides among civilians (who overwhelmingly support Hamas and Oct 7). If Netanyahu is a shame to Jews everywhere, do you also think that it's justified for Islamists to attack synagogues as a protest against Netanyahu?
@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590 "do you also think that it is justified for Islamists to attack synagogues as a protest to Netanyahu?" What the hell kind of hysterical question is that? Why would i believe that is justified? Why do you want to construe me as a monster with non sequitur raving like this instead of recognizing Netanyahu's monstrosity? Why do you believe that if I am against Netanyahu's disgraceful leadership, I am pro violence AGAINST MY OWN PEOPLE???? If that is how you think, your mind is sick
I’m generally supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself but it feels like Netanyahu is trying to draw the war out as long as possible and it’s producing an unacceptable civilian death toll. I understand there are protests calling for his resignation, but I don’t understand Israeli politics or why there isn’t a way to impeach Netanyahu or withdraw confidence from his government.
@@direwolf6234 It doesn't need to be fought any longer. Hamas is facing years of trying to raise funds to get Gazans housing. Who wants to pay for that?
Israeli here, I'll try to explain. What Netanyahu is doing basically is using the war to silence any calls for immediate elections (or even elections right after the war) as "weakening Israel" during war time. He even paints the protesters in this light (through loyalists in his party and mouthpieces in the media). As long as the war officially continues, many fractions in the parliament will be hesitant to vote for elections. All they do for now is call to set an agreeable election date, something Netanyahu will never do because he has no intention to voluntarily go for early election, his situation in the polls is really bad. As for impeachment, it's a far more radical step here in Israel that involves the judicial branch that I don't think there's enough evidence for. Furthermore, an attempt at such a move will give Netanyahu a big boost because he thrives of claims of persecution by the "evil leftist judicial system". It's kind of similar to Trump in this regard. Feel free to ask more questions.
To say Israel is in the right to make war with Hamas because of what happened on October 7 I think is a completely fair point. The US was not wrong when it invaded Afghanistan after Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 innocent Americans. Where things go off the rails has to do with Lapid defending how the war has been conducted. In order to defeat Hamas, it is not necessary for Israel to destroy most of Gaza’s infrastructure and kill tens of thousands of people. The way the war has been conducted has led to many unnecessary innocents dying, which helps Hamas more than hurts it. Also, I haven’t seen anything being done by Israel to try and gain the support of the Gazan population. One may say that’s impossible in a country that chants “death to Israel” but it was something the US tried to do in Afghanistan, even though many of their people chanted “death to America.”
When you a militant organization like Hamas, who has built tunnels throughout the strip, and who has openly said that every building is potentially booby trapped then yes it is fully explainable why there is so much destruction in Gaza. Your last paragraph may somewhat have a point, however, a population most of which have lived the majority of their lives under a radical jihadist regime are unlikely to be persuaded by sort of outreach.
Really got a sense of both interviewer and subject. Lots of empathy in both voices. Props for the credibly challenging questions. I was left disappointed tho. If one of Israel's leading political voices can't say (in English, as he reminded us) what he really thinks, then who's going to?
I find it very interesting that Lapid kept referring to them being invaded by Hamas. I mean, I'm not going to negate the existence of Israel (in the way that some commentators have negated the existence of there ever being a Palestine). But given the historical context of settlers, I find the term invasion by Lapid to be astonishing.
I don't know enough about internal Israeli politics to comment on that subject. Here's what I *do* know: that Hamas wanted exactly these results: Palestinian and Israeli citizens being killed, the Gaza strip being destroyed, and Israel thrown into crisis. They never had any military or strategic objective; they never hoped to bring Israel to a negotiating table to improve conditions in the Strip. What they care about is chaos and destruction--which seems to be a feeling that is rampant throughout the world right now, including among MAGA Republicans in the U.S. Despite the brutal nature of the initial attack on Israel by Hamas, somehow Israel has managed to become viewed as the bully and the "bad guy." A certain amount of that is due to successful propaganda by Arab sympathizers, but it seems to me that Israel can't pretend tha they were innocent and just minding their own business. Conditions in Gaza were brutal BEFORE the war started. Additionally, Israel is to blame for blocking humanitarian aid to ordinary Gaza citizens. I also think that Israel could be doing a better job of communicating. I grant that it's not easy to keep a cool head during a crisis like this, especially while actively fighting, but it would vastly help for Israel to announce its goals, which ought to include rebuilding the Gaza Strip and improving conditions there. As Lapid himself says, Israel MUST be better than Hamas, no matter the temptation to stoop to retribution. My view is that Israel certainly has the right and responsibility to defend itself against terrorist attacks, which October 7 most certainly was. And we wouldn't be much of an ally if we didn't stand with Israel in its time of need. At the same time, we are in a better position than Israel to see that the attack was brought on by refusing to ever solve the basic problem, which is the displacement, decades ago now, of Palestinians from their own country. Lasting peace will never have a chance so long as there is no Palestinian homeland.
On the other hand, YOU and people like you would have been happy to allow the Palestinians to go on forever with an Israeli boot on their neck, never paying an ounce of attention to the apartheid, yes? Apparently the only way to resist brutality that is approved by American liberals is with Martin Luther King, never by force, yes?
As I listen to this carefully, it becomes more and more clear to me why this is such a poor interview. Lulu Garcia-Navaro is so deeply committed to her world view she cannot begin to comprehend the ongoing existential crises of the state of Israel. She has Zero empathy for the situation of these Jews because she does not see their vulnerability. See doesn't see their suffering, She doesn't see their predicament. She doesn't see them. She has come to this conversation steeped in preconceived opinions. It is an echo chamber of revisionist history steeped in the half-thuths of Edward Said, perhaps one of the 20th century's most successful propagandists since Heinrich Goebbels. Of course, she will never admit to this. How could she? The echo chamber of the "bien pensees" has conditioned her moral "clarity" to deflect any original thinking. It would require such a profound upturning of nearly everything she's ever been taught and everything she values about herself. So what you get is moral ineptitude. I realize this sounds like an ad hominem attack and I guess it is because the faults in this interview isn't that she asked the wrong questions; it's that she didn't ask the right ones.
This was a bad interview. There are so many good questions to ask about Israel’s conduct of the war, it’s vision for peace with the Palestinians and Arab world. This was just a fail. The last ten mins were actually the best. And Lapid expresses this. He’s frustrated and exasperated. And she’s like yeah but while you’re huddling with your daughters in your bomb shelter, thinking how it’s good your Warsaw ghetto survivor father didn’t live see the biggest slaughter of Jews since the holocaust, what about the occupation? Pathetic.
I aree. This is why I've cancelled my written subscription to the NYT. And I told them so. For years and years my Republican friends, (I have some) have criticised me saying "how can you support such an anti-israel paper"? Taking any self-criticism in stride, both of myself and Israel. But this last conflict has put me over the top. Israel is fighting for it's life and all you get from the liberal intelligentsia are platitudes about "proportionality". Read Clausewitz about proportionality.
Israel and its supporters must acknowledge and understand the extremism, the brutality, the politics, the claims of victimhood not only from Palestinians but perhaps more importantly, from Israelis themselves. Without acknowledging its role in this conflict, Israel will not have peace.
I don’t like that he is talking about things from October 7th. Sure, October 7th is the main reason for this campaign. However, there were many precursors before October 7th. How did Hamas have such a hold on Gaza? Why were they able to build the tunnels that they did if they weren’t preparing for war? Why wasn’t there more security near Gaza? What does the end of this campaign look like? How do you expect Palestinians to avoid warmongering if this war doesn’t end?
How do they have such a hold on Gazza? They were elected into power and then coup’d and murdered Fatah and other members of the government. They built tunnels over nearly 2 decades by smuggling in equipment, engineers, and supplies. Israeli hubris made them believe they had an impenetrable barrier around Gaza with state of the Art technology, and thus cheapened out in terms of putting manpower on the border. They tried to defend the border on the cheap using technology and it was a gamble that didn’t pay off. Your last question is legitimate question, I will give you that .
Genocide was the defining experience of the Jewish people in the 20th century, their biggest trauma. It is also the stated policy platform of Hamas according to their founding charter. To them flip the script and accuse us of genocide, when Hamas is the one that entered civilian areas in Israel and shooting civilians point blank is reprehensible and unfounded. Not to mention antisemitic. It is also dangerous. Calling a war “genocide” when it is clearly not cheapens the word and weakens the charge.
I’m wery of hearing Israelis repeating, “how we are the victims” and thus “we are justified in our continuing subjugation -apartheid and victimization -killing of Palestinians.
What I find completely strange is that he doesn't to seem to understand or it does not even compute that the Israelis have over reacted by mega tons and in their overreaction they are killing people who had nothing to do with it.... I have heard many Jewish people in this country articulate this....I really wonder what is blocking his capacity to see beyond his own experience...empathize. Politicians that cannot see or relate to the other side are dangerous.
He is. And he discusses how Israel needs a policy of separation from the Palestinians (ie 2 state solution) and must engage with the PA. That’s a world of daylight between Netanyahu‘s current policy
"They hate us for who we are, not for anything we did". You seriously think there's nothing in Israel's history to cause this? Honestly, I support the right of the state of Israel to exist, from where we stand its clearly necessary. BUT there is this weird denial of what the founding of the state, put aside everything since, did to the Palestinian people. Unless Israeli society en masse can gain empathy for the suffering and dislocation they caused in order to establish their own safety, can understand the anger that process caused as legitimate, the two sides will keep talking past each other and there will not be peace.
Right off the bat when she says over 30000 thousand Palesrinians killed, the majority, civilians, according to the local authorities, but gives no such caveat when she said over 1000 Israelis killed on Oct 7th, she shows her bias. By this point, the IDF and Israeli officials have a much worst track record of lying than Palistinian local officials do. I do give her credit by not saying 1200 Israelis killed, though. On the otherr hand she should say how many were killed by Israel through the hannibal directive and also how many non civilians were killed.
Lapid sounds like someone sane who we can work with. One thing missing from this conversation, though, is an acknowledgement of the vast difference in strength between Israel and Hamas - even if the war feels existential for Israel, the fact is that Israel’s military is the strongest in that area, that only one of Iran’s dozens of drones or missiles really did any harm to Israel. This is why they’re held to a higher standard regarding civilian deaths, even as Israel is the victim of Oct 7. It’s why people were upset at the U.S. for civilian deaths in Afghanistan too, even if we were the ostensible victims of 9/11 - as the technologically more advanced, democracy-professing side, it was on us to watch out for civilians.
Where and when did anyone ever say anything about Afghan deaths? Americans are supremely cavalier about enemy casualties. There is no reason I can think of that Israel should be held to a "higher standard". And why should you hold Israel responsible as a fault that Iran's attack was unsuccessful? What if it wasn't? The fact that they launched such a massive attack in a short period time shows me they went for the jugular, but failed.
Its nice for New York times to give this guy such a platform but I'm sorry he is talking down to American audiences He assumes American students are ignorant of the facts and we are not This is extraordinarily insulting and we are fighting for human dignity and human rights the world over and we understand what's going on in Palestine and has been going on since 1947 It's time to Israel is aware that the world knows now what's going on and their propaganda doesn't work anymore apparently it's still works on this moderate quote unquote politician in Israel This is disgusting at least there should be a lot more pushback.
Ummm....Israel is committing a genocide...that kinda automatically makes them the "bad guys"...you don't get to use past oppression as an excuse to commit current oppression...they need to realize sympathy has become anger...
@@darksideatheist6299 So if one side, in the name of radical Islam, commits terrorists attacks, and is then subsequently SUPRESSED (not oppressed) to protect people from their jihadist actions, you would stand with the jihadists?
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
In 1950's South Africa the political opponents in the Afrikaner community were called the _Verligtes_ and _Verkramptes._ The Enlightend and Sclerotic, loosely translated. The first group wanted to create the bantustans and give blacks very limited self rule and eventually strip them of South African citizenship and declare them citizens of their respective ethnic states. They were the liberals and the architects of Apartheid.
The second group thought this was way too generous and saw no need why blacks could not continue to live without the vote and under institutional segregation as it then existed.
Visitors from Europe had difficulty discerning the difference. Listening to Lapid and Netanyahu, I do as well.
This was a very strange listen, I don't think Yair lends himself or Israel any sympathy from what he's said.
If you find it strange I’m not sure you really listened. It supposed to challenge your views if you’re brave enough to interact with it.
He's not looking for sympathy, he's looking to clarify. Your generation is very emotionally unstable and easily manipulated.
What do you find strange about it?
I'm not the original poster, but I think I understand part of his opinion. Yair doesn't say very much against Netanyahu, like where is Yair's leadership going to be different. Especially in the context of the current war, would he change any tactics or strategy of the fighting there now? It seems like he doesn't say what he'd change, and maybe he wouldn't change any direction in the war itself. After the war sure it seems there are differences.
@@iditbes6962 He's spewing the same propaganda that no one believes in anymore,
remember he is what passes as a moderate in Israel
Tell everyone what he said that was immoderate or what counts as a moderate opinion among Palestinians - 80% of whom support Hamas.
@@jaialaiwarriorThis is a truely dumb comparison, Israel is advanced country with a democratic process and yet they still fall victim to religious and ethnic extremism. Why are Palestinians being held to a higher standard? Israel has two religious extremists in the government, are all Israelis to blame for this? Let the Palestinians have an actual state before making this stupid comparison.
@@bigtuna45to be fair, the Palestinians voted the Hamas government into power in a landslide, and they have been running Gaza for 18 years as a pseudo-state under seige. Lapid is right about one thing - the Palestinians have had multiple chances at statehood. There is a quip in diplomatic circles; "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Another witicism is similar, and equally true: "The Palestinians always hold out for the last deal they rejected." None of this excuses Israel's complete lack of rules of engagement in this conflict. It's a catastrophy, not just for the Palestinians, but for Israel. But Lapid, and some others in the opposition, realize the only way for Israel to be a democracy us for Palestinians to have a state. Show me a Hamas leader who will accept that in return for peace.
@@bigtuna45 they had a de facto state and an election, Hamas was the result
@@Agtsmirnoff Gaza has been a de facto part of Israel since Israel conquered it in 1956. The fact that Israel can and does remove governments it doesn't like only reinforces this obvious state of affairs. No one gets in or out of Gaza without passing through Israeli security clearances. Gaza and the West Bank are both run under Israeli military law.
30:10 I’m sorry Mr. Lapid, you might’ve been the victim during Oct 7 but your country has caused so much death and misery in these last 6 months that you can no longer be the victim in this situation, Israel is itself to blame for how poorly they have handled their response, to Biden’s credit he did try to warn them. This fact has to be acknowledged for Israel to be “understood” by the rest of the world.
What should iarael have done?
“We never asked for this war”…
but we ensured Hamas would be well funded, illegal settlements would keep growing and ensured that Palestinian state can never be achieved
That is an argument I expected Lapid to make against Netanyahu but ya, he didn’t say that.
@@ohmss069 it might be too sensitive a subject to say out loud to foreign press, but everyone knows it now.
So it's ok to commit mass murder?
Again this is another fact that must be acknowledged by Israeli society in order to the rest of the world to understand them. I really hate that line “we never asked for this war” it completely erases any conversation about propping up Hamas to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, it erases the occupation and military siege. It leaves out so much failure because it is incredibly uncomfortable to acknowledge these facts. You need to commit to peace, Likuds strategy for the last 15-20 years has been an abject failure for Israel and the Palestinians.
@user-sz1lz1zq8y no, it tells us how much kool‑aid you've drunk.
You can carry all of the benefit-of-the-doubt about Israel's alleged ties to Hamas, but if you think October 7th was accidental, that Gazans are peace‑loving people who just tripped across the fence that morning trying to hug everyone, then it's time for you to put the bottle down.
Such an unbearable interview.
Sickening
I have compassion for the tramua of October 7 the barbarity of what happened - but over 30,000 People in Gaza dead its outrageous !
how accurate is that number and how many were fighters ??
I've been talking to a lot of Palestinians since this started, and this guy echoed what they've told me as well - currently, there's no real reasonable and credible counterpart on the Palestinian side that can take over from Hamas. The PA is despised by most Palestinians, while the other significant organisations are just as crazy as Hamas. Moderates just get eliminated as they're caught between Netanyahu and the existing Palestinian power structures none of which want a viable representative of the Palestinian people to exist. One solution that I've heard in some form or another is for an international coalition (Including US, China, Russia) backing such a moderate Palestinian faction should it form, but personally I'm skeptical these countries are willing to do such a thing, or if they even want peace in the region.
Interesting comments. According to Thomas Friedman, the countries backing the PA in Gaza could be UAE, Jordan, Egypt, and USA.
Some questions Ms Novarro could have asked, but didn’t:
- In 2016 you were quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that you are guided by a principle of "maximum Jews on maximum land with maximum security and with minimum Palestinians." Do you continue being guided by that principle?
-Israel prohibits unembedded foreign correspondents access to Gaza. Do you support this policy?
-In the name of transparency, would you call on the government of Israel to release an unedited version of drone videos of the so-called “flour massacre” last month in which over 100 Palestinian died while trying to access aid trucks.
-Are you familiar with the case of the 5 year-old Hind Rajab, who was killed along with two paramedics sent to save her? Israel denies it’s forces were in the area, but a Washington Post investigation shows tanks clearly nearby.
-This month Dr Adnan Ahmad Albursh died in Israeli custody. Would you support an independent investigation into his death?
(I could go on. This is just the tip of the iceberg of unasked questions.)
“But we are sorry.” Reminded me of reading Arendt’s dismissal of apologies which i thought similar to Ukrainians regard for indicators of remorse from individual Russian soldiers. I’m always compelled by folks regretting being part of an appallingly disproportionate action (gotta be, im amurican;) but Dr. Arendt made the haunting point that at some level apologies are irrelevant. If we kill enough people and decimate enough infrastructure then our intentions and/or regrets mean: less than nothing.
Did think comments would be up, not a great fan of Times but hats off to keeping comments open!
💙 love you Lapid. I hope you come back to being prime minister, as you were in 2022.
"misunderstood"? "opposition"? hardly
Why aren't the principles of Oslo never discussed where there was a vision of Israel/Palestine as a federation modeled on Switzerland and a member of the EU?
Palestine turned it down. Every offer since 1947 they turned down. Every one worse.
Interesting
The arabs of "Palestine" aren't european. And further, it took about 2200 years for Europe to swear off fighting each other to get to this present time; for the time being.
Curious that this man claims to have a handle on history of his own country yet reduces the current crisis to October 7. Sort of like saying WWI was about Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Ok, so what's your theory. Oh, Nevermind. I'm going the the Archduke theory.
This was painful to listen to.... This is what we can expect after Netanyahu is gone.
I wonder if you'd prefer to live in Israel, with all its faults, or in Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, etc.
Omg.... It just kept getting worse 😂
@@danielpincus221I'm an American, and don't have to live in any of those countries. I'd prefer to live in a democracy and not an apartheid state. I don't want to fund Israel's Apartheid or the Emirati kingdom.... That said, Dubai is a popular place to live for rich westerners so your point might end up backfiring 😅
@@danielpincus221Your logic is that it’s okay for Israel to commit genocide because they have a high standard of living (for Jewish citizens)? 😂 Incredible.
@@calj2090Dubai? So you don’t really want to live in a democracy then??
Israel has become crazy-town. Why does he ignore obvious facts -- e g, Israeli politicians use the "from the riv'er" chant today & earlier.
(Israelis have used that chant since the 1970s, when it was the slogan for Bibi's current Likud party)
Total hypocrisy to say "I can chant a slogan, but others can't." Then, he continued saying foolish things.
@keep-ukraine-free528, in fairness, "from the river to the sea" was coined by Palestinians in the 60s. It definitely predated the (stupid) descision of Likud to coopt it as a counterslogan. It means the same thing when said by either side - one state, with hegemony over the loser. What that slogan doesn't mean is peaceful coexistence in a single state.
@@nwrob1 I'm happy to see you understand that a phrase can have more than 1 meaning. You already see this phrase has 2 meanings. Let's look further, and see it has 4 meanings -- 2 that are pro-Palestinian & 2 that are pro-Israeli. Here are the 4 possible *_common_* meanings of the phrase (though I've *_never_* seen the 4th meaning used by zionist-Israelis--which is very telling of that group's dehuma'nization of others):
1. the land should be settled & controlled by only Palestinians.
2. the land should be settled & controlled by only Israelis.
3. the land should be settled by both Palestinians & Israelis but controlled by only Israelis.
4. the land should be settled by both Palestinians & Israelis & controlled by both.
The phrase has these meanings used most often (and other meanings exist too, but those are very rare). Palestinians use only the 1st & 4th. But Israelis use it to mean only the 2nd & 3rd. As you know, the 1st & 2nd uses are morally repulsive. The 4th is the one that good people seek.
@keep-ukraine-free528 you'll have to excuse my cynicism on this one. To coopt a slogan that has meant "division and subjugation" by both sides for 60 years and expect anyone to believe you mean the exact opposite is poor strategy to put it kindly. It has "dogwhistle" written all over it. I'm sure there are a lot of well-meaning young people at Columbia, UCLA and elsewhere who believe this is a clever slogan and the goal they say it represents is the best chance for peace and justice in Palestine. I know some of them. But it isn't. I'm happy to agree that #4 "should" happen. Its a fact the entire world since the Mandate started in 1920 thinks that "should" happen. That is to say the entire world except the Israelis and Arabs. (And I say Arabs quite deliberately, it's never just been about the Palestinians). It's also a fact that since the Peel Commission in 1937, those in the West who study this closely have realized that that particular political resolution isn't going to happen. Neither side wants it, and never has. A few Palestinians, a few Israelis, sure, but a tiny minority. Now less than ever. Politics (and that's what this is) is the art of the possible. To spend resources and political capital on impossible things reinforces the status quo. I'm strongly against the status quo.
This is never brought up in the interview. There is a large disparity in power between Gazans and Israelis. Israel has a more powerful military and is backed by the US. When there is a power disparity like this, the more powerful group has more control over how much damage is inflicted on the other party.
Even if you take everything Lapid says as fact, there comes a point where observers will start to recoil from the violence against the other side. There's this attitude among Israelis that Hamas picked a fight so Israel will take this opportunity to beat all Gazans to a bloody pulp. I've seen a complete lack of empathy for civilian deaths on the Israeli side.
With respect to how Hamas uses civilians as shields, there is only so many times you can use that excuse before it rings hollow. Yes, it's difficult to fight when the enemy conducts itself that way, but when you shoot through civilians to kill the enemy it's going to make you look bad eventually. Especially with images of dead kids. In almost no other aspect of life would it be acceptable for someone who calls themselves the victim to shoot through a civilian to kill a bad guy. We are at the point where people debate whether it's a genocide. Winning that debate isn't a win. The fact that it's even a discussion shows you've lost the debate.
I live in the US, so I couldn't imagine what it's like to have enemies on our borders, but from a practical standpoint I think Israel needs international friends. If the international community starts to perceive Israel as a bully Israel may look up in 10 to 20 years and be alone. Then it does become an existential problem, and ironically give Hamas the result they wanted.
Call this comment, Israel misunderstands the world they live in.
"I've seen a complete lack of empathy for civilian deaths on the Israeli side."
I saw empathy for civilian deaths in this very video. By contrast, when was the last time you saw Palestinians show empathy for Israeli deaths?
The disparity is between those who want to take responsibility for their fate and moral agency and those who don't.
@@dwaynepeters4520 I think this goes back to the power disparity. When I see images of Gaza I see people literally struggling to stay alive. If you are struggling for life day to day you don't have much room for empathy.
Israel is wealthier and better armed, and they are supposed to represent western values, so I think they have a higher bar when it comes to acting with restraint. I understand some think that's unfair or disagree, but I think a lot of people have that intuitive feeling that it's not right for a stronger group to totally decimate a weaker group even when that weaker group is in the wrong.
Hamas doesn’t do that Israel does and has put out that hamas does they dont
Thank you for giving air space to someone who is attempting to find a way forward for both sides. it gives me hope... unlike most of the comments under the article. Not sure if anyone from the NYT reads the comments, but if you do... I think the piece was mistitled. It paints Israel as the victim.. which is the very thing Mr. Lapid says he/Israel refuses to be. I suggest Victimhood is not the answer. which I saw as a central thread in his message. Victimhood is not the answer for the Israeli's nor the Palestinians.
The New York Times hosts all perspectives, but gives special and extravagant space to one of them.
Ezra Kline has had a lot of Palestinians on. Worth a listen.
@@nwrob1Ezra Klein is fair and compassionate.
This is nauseating to listen to .he is just like Bibi.
I love you, ignorant people, you don’t listen, we’ve said since day, one that no other Israeli Prime Minister would conduct this war any different than the current one, yet you all seem to be fixated on Bibi. The ignorance of the pro Hamas side is just so deep that it is laughable.
He is not.
He’s a clear supporter of an eventual 2 state solution. He wants to engage the PA. He wants more aid to Gaza. He wants better diplomatic relations.
@@brianross9753 Good points.
@@brianross9753 Does he want to remove the settlements in the west bank? If not, dont talk
@@Aan_allein First of all, I can say or post as I please and no one will tell me not to talk.
Second, Lapid has a nuanced position on settlements, favoring maintenance of settlement blocs but is open to removing settlers outside the blocs for a comprehensive peace settlement.
The hypocrisy and willful ignorance of these comments, it’s overwhelming.
i cannot go on iv had enough
Than you NYTimes for your unwavering support for Israel.
Judge by the deeds you do, not by the words you say.
Why you continue to use the number of casualties of the hamas government? Every civilian dead is a tragedy but you cant use numbers provided by a terrorist organisation, we expect better from the NYT
This was as satisfying an interview I’ve heard so far but still incredibly frustrating.
Judging by the comments, it seems that people are not anti-Netanyahu as they always say, they just want Israel not to exist.
Youre being hysterical. Every other comment is concerned with the disproportionate amount of civilians being murdered, or annoyed at how uncritical our governments our when spending tax dollars on israel.
@@Isaaxz123 4 comments above you:
@crhu319
42 minutes ago "There is no need to "understand" a thing that is going away. Israel is going away."
If thousands of dead civilians is what "existing" means in Israel, then no. Netanyahu and everyone carrying out his orders is a shame to Jews everywhere and we must stand up to him if he thinks he does atrocities in our name
@@kahlilbt There's still a baby who is a hostage. For six months. That is, if he's still alive. Yeah, in order to exist, you need to be able to defend yourself, even if Hamas hides among civilians (who overwhelmingly support Hamas and Oct 7).
If Netanyahu is a shame to Jews everywhere, do you also think that it's justified for Islamists to attack synagogues as a protest against Netanyahu?
@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590
"do you also think that it is justified for Islamists to attack synagogues as a protest to Netanyahu?"
What the hell kind of hysterical question is that? Why would i believe that is justified? Why do you want to construe me as a monster with non sequitur raving like this instead of recognizing Netanyahu's monstrosity? Why do you believe that if I am against Netanyahu's disgraceful leadership, I am pro violence AGAINST MY OWN PEOPLE???? If that is how you think, your mind is sick
I’m generally supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself but it feels like Netanyahu is trying to draw the war out as long as possible and it’s producing an unacceptable civilian death toll. I understand there are protests calling for his resignation, but I don’t understand Israeli politics or why there isn’t a way to impeach Netanyahu or withdraw confidence from his government.
well then how should the war be fought ?? and it's being drawn out because of restrictions on tactics .. you need to make up your mind ....
@@direwolf6234 It doesn't need to be fought any longer. Hamas is facing years of trying to raise funds to get Gazans housing. Who wants to pay for that?
Israeli here, I'll try to explain. What Netanyahu is doing basically is using the war to silence any calls for immediate elections (or even elections right after the war) as "weakening Israel" during war time. He even paints the protesters in this light (through loyalists in his party and mouthpieces in the media). As long as the war officially continues, many fractions in the parliament will be hesitant to vote for elections. All they do for now is call to set an agreeable election date, something Netanyahu will never do because he has no intention to voluntarily go for early election, his situation in the polls is really bad.
As for impeachment, it's a far more radical step here in Israel that involves the judicial branch that I don't think there's enough evidence for. Furthermore, an attempt at such a move will give Netanyahu a big boost because he thrives of claims of persecution by the "evil leftist judicial system". It's kind of similar to Trump in this regard.
Feel free to ask more questions.
@@AddieP91 there's an old joke .. 'what do you get from 2 jews ? .. 3 opinions ..
To say Israel is in the right to make war with Hamas because of what happened on October 7 I think is a completely fair point. The US was not wrong when it invaded Afghanistan after Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 innocent Americans.
Where things go off the rails has to do with Lapid defending how the war has been conducted. In order to defeat Hamas, it is not necessary for Israel to destroy most of Gaza’s infrastructure and kill tens of thousands of people. The way the war has been conducted has led to many unnecessary innocents dying, which helps Hamas more than hurts it.
Also, I haven’t seen anything being done by Israel to try and gain the support of the Gazan population. One may say that’s impossible in a country that chants “death to Israel” but it was something the US tried to do in Afghanistan, even though many of their people chanted “death to America.”
When you a militant organization like Hamas, who has built tunnels throughout the strip, and who has openly said that every building is potentially booby trapped then yes it is fully explainable why there is so much destruction in Gaza. Your last paragraph may somewhat have a point, however, a population most of which have lived the majority of their lives under a radical jihadist regime are unlikely to be persuaded by sort of outreach.
Really got a sense of both interviewer and subject. Lots of empathy in both voices. Props for the credibly challenging questions. I was left disappointed tho. If one of Israel's leading political voices can't say (in English, as he reminded us) what he really thinks, then who's going to?
I find it very interesting that Lapid kept referring to them being invaded by Hamas. I mean, I'm not going to negate the existence of Israel (in the way that some commentators have negated the existence of there ever being a Palestine). But given the historical context of settlers, I find the term invasion by Lapid to be astonishing.
5 mins in and already lies....no chance. I'll listen right through
I don't know enough about internal Israeli politics to comment on that subject.
Here's what I *do* know: that Hamas wanted exactly these results: Palestinian and Israeli citizens being killed, the Gaza strip being destroyed, and Israel thrown into crisis. They never had any military or strategic objective; they never hoped to bring Israel to a negotiating table to improve conditions in the Strip. What they care about is chaos and destruction--which seems to be a feeling that is rampant throughout the world right now, including among MAGA Republicans in the U.S.
Despite the brutal nature of the initial attack on Israel by Hamas, somehow Israel has managed to become viewed as the bully and the "bad guy." A certain amount of that is due to successful propaganda by Arab sympathizers, but it seems to me that Israel can't pretend tha they were innocent and just minding their own business. Conditions in Gaza were brutal BEFORE the war started. Additionally, Israel is to blame for blocking humanitarian aid to ordinary Gaza citizens. I also think that Israel could be doing a better job of communicating. I grant that it's not easy to keep a cool head during a crisis like this, especially while actively fighting, but it would vastly help for Israel to announce its goals, which ought to include rebuilding the Gaza Strip and improving conditions there. As Lapid himself says, Israel MUST be better than Hamas, no matter the temptation to stoop to retribution.
My view is that Israel certainly has the right and responsibility to defend itself against terrorist attacks, which October 7 most certainly was. And we wouldn't be much of an ally if we didn't stand with Israel in its time of need. At the same time, we are in a better position than Israel to see that the attack was brought on by refusing to ever solve the basic problem, which is the displacement, decades ago now, of Palestinians from their own country. Lasting peace will never have a chance so long as there is no Palestinian homeland.
On the other hand, YOU and people like you would have been happy to allow the Palestinians to go on forever with an Israeli boot on their neck, never paying an ounce of attention to the apartheid, yes? Apparently the only way to resist brutality that is approved by American liberals is with Martin Luther King, never by force, yes?
As I listen to this carefully, it becomes more and more clear to me why this is such a poor interview.
Lulu Garcia-Navaro is so deeply committed to her world view she cannot begin to comprehend the ongoing existential crises of the state of Israel. She has Zero empathy for the situation of these Jews because she does not see their vulnerability. See doesn't see their suffering, She doesn't see their predicament. She doesn't see them.
She has come to this conversation steeped in preconceived opinions. It is an echo chamber of revisionist history steeped in the half-thuths of Edward Said, perhaps one of the 20th century's most successful propagandists since Heinrich Goebbels. Of course, she will never admit to this. How could she? The echo chamber of the "bien pensees" has conditioned her moral "clarity" to deflect any original thinking. It would require such a profound upturning of nearly everything she's ever been taught and everything she values about herself. So what you get is moral ineptitude.
I realize this sounds like an ad hominem attack and I guess it is because the faults in this interview isn't that she asked the wrong questions; it's that she didn't ask the right ones.
Turn off the distracting music!
This was a bad interview. There are so many good questions to ask about Israel’s conduct of the war, it’s vision for peace with the Palestinians and Arab world. This was just a fail. The last ten mins were actually the best. And Lapid expresses this. He’s frustrated and exasperated. And she’s like yeah but while you’re huddling with your daughters in your bomb shelter, thinking how it’s good your Warsaw ghetto survivor father didn’t live see the biggest slaughter of Jews since the holocaust, what about the occupation? Pathetic.
I aree. This is why I've cancelled my written subscription to the NYT. And I told them so. For years and years my Republican friends, (I have some) have criticised me saying "how can you support such an anti-israel paper"? Taking any self-criticism in stride, both of myself and Israel.
But this last conflict has put me over the top. Israel is fighting for it's life and all you get from the liberal intelligentsia are platitudes about "proportionality". Read Clausewitz about proportionality.
NYT should interview Norman Finkelshtein
Why, he literally knows nothing and has proven so multiple times. He’s a pop historian, nothing more.
Great interview
Israel and its supporters must acknowledge and understand the extremism, the brutality, the politics, the claims of victimhood not only from Palestinians but perhaps more importantly, from Israelis themselves. Without acknowledging its role in this conflict, Israel will not have peace.
gosh i wish id of said that
And the Palestinians? What is their responsibility?
I don’t like that he is talking about things from October 7th.
Sure, October 7th is the main reason for this campaign.
However, there were many precursors before October 7th.
How did Hamas have such a hold on Gaza?
Why were they able to build the tunnels that they did if they weren’t preparing for war?
Why wasn’t there more security near Gaza?
What does the end of this campaign look like?
How do you expect Palestinians to avoid warmongering if this war doesn’t end?
How do they have such a hold on Gazza?
They were elected into power and then coup’d and murdered Fatah and other members of the government. They built tunnels over nearly 2 decades by smuggling in equipment, engineers, and supplies.
Israeli hubris made them believe they had an impenetrable barrier around Gaza with state of the Art technology, and thus cheapened out in terms of putting manpower on the border. They tried to defend the border on the cheap using technology and it was a gamble that didn’t pay off.
Your last question is legitimate question, I will give you that .
@@Agtsmirnoff your answers were what I expected. But I want someone from the Knesset to admit this.
Where are the educated Palestinian people commenting on Hamas? Don't they have a tongue?
Where are the non racist non genocidal peaceful israleis?
@@kilkongarllayou would not be asking this question if you listened to the podcast.
@@kilkongarlla Do you hate all the Jews living there
Why does he keep calling genocide war?
Why do you keep calling a legitimate war genocide?
It isn't a genocide. You don't know what you are talking about.
¿How do you define genocide or how would this fail to meet the metric?
Unlike you he's not a rank propagandist demagogue
Genocide was the defining experience of the Jewish people in the 20th century, their biggest trauma. It is also the stated policy platform of Hamas according to their founding charter.
To them flip the script and accuse us of genocide, when Hamas is the one that entered civilian areas in Israel and shooting civilians point blank is reprehensible and unfounded. Not to mention antisemitic.
It is also dangerous. Calling a war “genocide” when it is clearly not cheapens the word and weakens the charge.
I’m wery of hearing Israelis repeating, “how we are the victims” and thus “we are justified in our continuing subjugation -apartheid and victimization -killing of Palestinians.
There is no need to "understand" a thing that is going away. Israel is going away.
And how do you suppose that’s going to happen?
This interviewer just lets him spout ridiculous comments without pushback. NYT is becoming more of a joke every day.
What I find completely strange is that he doesn't to seem to understand or it does not even compute that the Israelis have over reacted by mega tons and in their overreaction they are killing people who had nothing to do with it.... I have heard many Jewish people in this country articulate this....I really wonder what is blocking his capacity to see beyond his own experience...empathize. Politicians that cannot see or relate to the other side are dangerous.
Selective history, and renaming genocide.
FREE ISRAEL!!!! 🇮🇱 🙏🏿
From who, itself?
Somehow this guy is a “critic”.
He is. And he discusses how Israel needs a policy of separation from the Palestinians (ie 2 state solution) and must engage with the PA. That’s a world of daylight between Netanyahu‘s current policy
"They hate us for who we are, not for anything we did".
You seriously think there's nothing in Israel's history to cause this? Honestly, I support the right of the state of Israel to exist, from where we stand its clearly necessary. BUT there is this weird denial of what the founding of the state, put aside everything since, did to the Palestinian people. Unless Israeli society en masse can gain empathy for the suffering and dislocation they caused in order to establish their own safety, can understand the anger that process caused as legitimate, the two sides will keep talking past each other and there will not be peace.
Right off the bat when she says over 30000 thousand Palesrinians killed, the majority, civilians, according to the local authorities, but gives no such caveat when she said over 1000 Israelis killed on Oct 7th, she shows her bias.
By this point, the IDF and Israeli officials have a much worst track record of lying than Palistinian local officials do.
I do give her credit by not saying 1200 Israelis killed, though. On the otherr hand she should say how many were killed by Israel through the hannibal directive and also how many non civilians were killed.
Lapid sounds like someone sane who we can work with. One thing missing from this conversation, though, is an acknowledgement of the vast difference in strength between Israel and Hamas - even if the war feels existential for Israel, the fact is that Israel’s military is the strongest in that area, that only one of Iran’s dozens of drones or missiles really did any harm to Israel. This is why they’re held to a higher standard regarding civilian deaths, even as Israel is the victim of Oct 7.
It’s why people were upset at the U.S. for civilian deaths in Afghanistan too, even if we were the ostensible victims of 9/11 - as the technologically more advanced, democracy-professing side, it was on us to watch out for civilians.
Where and when did anyone ever say anything about Afghan deaths? Americans are supremely cavalier about enemy casualties.
There is no reason I can think of that Israel should be held to a "higher standard". And why should you hold Israel responsible as a fault that Iran's attack was unsuccessful? What if it wasn't? The fact that they launched such a massive attack in a short period time shows me they went for the jugular, but failed.
So much BS to unpack...
Bye
Its nice for New York times to give this guy such a platform but I'm sorry he is talking down to American audiences He assumes American students are ignorant of the facts and we are not This is extraordinarily insulting and we are fighting for human dignity and human rights the world over and we understand what's going on in Palestine and has been going on since 1947 It's time to Israel is aware that the world knows now what's going on and their propaganda doesn't work anymore apparently it's still works on this moderate quote unquote politician in Israel This is disgusting at least there should be a lot more pushback.
You, you are right. American students are not ignorant. They are anti-semitic. And btw, everything is propaganda, even you.
Are you lefty’s?
Both sides in this fight suck as much as the NYT YT viewership numbers.
Clearly this didn't go your way. You should learn to be unbiased, if you want to honor your profession
You mean a politician?
Sounds like an insane country
Ummm....Israel is committing a genocide...that kinda automatically makes them the "bad guys"...you don't get to use past oppression as an excuse to commit current oppression...they need to realize sympathy has become anger...
The irony of somebody who calls himself an atheist siding with a radical Islamist cult in this conflict is just so rich and hilarious
@@Agtsmirnoff The fact that you assume thats the side I took...I will always stand with the oppressed.
@@darksideatheist6299 So if one side, in the name of radical Islam, commits terrorists attacks, and is then subsequently SUPRESSED (not oppressed) to protect people from their jihadist actions, you would stand with the jihadists?
@@darksideatheist6299 You're right. Until you are able to more clearly express your opinion I suggest you stop posting.
go against the people will?????? דיקטטור
Even the rocks remember your sins
This is one canned talking point after another after another
LOL can't get biden LOLOLOLOLOL
Get mental health help.
@@thaphreak why, its funny