Such a good episode. Even better knowing that this wasn't part of the series and was made right after 9/11. Kids today should watch this episode imo. It touches on so many relevant things that are still part of our society today.
Don't be too quick to thank them. These little nuggets are an attempt to generate new interest in the series and get people to buy a season, or the entire run.
Exactly, thank you for that reminder. I was not a fan of the West Wing, but did catch that episode. The short version for others that are unfamiliar with this story, it’s from the Book of Genesis. Abraham (Abram) was childless. His wife Sarah (Sara) was around 77 years old, in the words of Scripture, “well past childbearing age”. Sarah felt that God prevented her from bearing children to her beloved husband. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar. Sarah told Abraham to “visit” Hagar after which Hagar bore Abraham a male child who was named Ishmael. Ishmael was the apple of his father’s eye (American slang) and Abraham doted on the young boy. Because of this favoritism, Hagar became more bold with Abraham’s attention. When Abraham was 99 years old God sent and Angel to tell Abraham that he will bear the progenitor of a chosen people, however, that will not be the descendants of Ishmael. The Angel told him that child will be borne of Sarah who was already 90. Abraham didn’t believe that, neither did Sarah who overheard what was said. Sarah laughed at the notion, hence the name Isaac. Sarah grew jealous of Hagar and Ishmael within their household and demanded that Abraham send Ishmael and Hagar away. This trouble Abraham because he loved his son. God reassured Abraham that Ishmael would also be the progenitor of a great people of great numbers. So Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael into the desert with only a few containers of water. When the water was gone, Hagar pleaded with God to save Ishmael. God reassured Hagar and opened a huge well and oasis for them. Ishmael married an Egyptian woman when he became of age and his descendants went on to become the Semitic people of the MidEast (other than the Jews). Abbey Bartlett, the First Lady, explained this story to the young interns (much shorter version). She concluded by telling them the fractious relationship between the Muslims and the Jews boils down to basically a family feud. Both great people (the Christians being the “wild branch” of Judaism - Romans 11) have Abraham as the original Father of their Faith. That, my Friends, explains the great hostility and might give those that NEVER went to Sunday School the historical context of today’s events.
Ireland would argue with the "terrorism has a 100% failure rate" remark. As would Irish immigrants who came to the US and fought for labor rights in the mines. The idea that political violence is always ineffective and only non-violent protest is effective is a lie perpetrated by those in power who don't want you to know the options available to you. Because when you know your options they get a choice: Deal with the reasonable, non-violent people, or deal with the unreasonable ones. And THAT works every time. For better or much, much worse.
"Not only do terrorists always fail at what they are after, they pretty much always succeed in strengthening whatever it is they're against." Interesting. I wonder if it's true. I hope so.
One thing that’s always kind of bugged me about the West Wing is the characters inconsistent intellect. On the one hand, they know the etymology of the word, assassin, but on the other hand, they have no idea what a Lynx is.
Less inconsistent than one might think. I’ve come to know several people with doctorates with notable blind spots like that. It comes with specialization sometimes.
Intellect does not equate to knowledge. They are knowledgeable in that which they have studied and lived: they did not study fauna nor, afaik, live near them.
@ I know that intellect and knowledge are not interchangeable. My issue is how they chose to flex their “intellect“ by memorizing historical minutia. Yet they don’t have basic knowledge of the existence of a common North American/Eurasian animal.
Oh Toby...your naivete shows. We recognized Stalin in the 1940's because we needed an ally against the Nazis. We supported many a dictator--we even recognized the Taliban prior to 9/11 for their anti drug efforts, trying to hand over $43 million dollars to grease a Unical pipe deal. We shouldn't deal with rogue nations? Imagine one that waged nuclear war on another nation, has a long history of slavery, forments coups d'etat amongst its neighbors...should anyone deal with that nation? The Hashissians were also hired out by the Crusaders when they couldn't reach the Muslim neighbors. First terrorist act could be the tarring and feathering of tax officials working for the crown, but someone can likely add in something even early depending on how we define terrorism. Sam isn't entirely wrong about terrorism's failure rate.
The Crusaders could hire the Assassins because they needed money to defend their Shiite sect (the Nizari Isma’ili) from the main Shiite sect(s). They still exist. They are now notorious for running hospitals in the Islamic world and their previous leader/Iman marrying Rita Hayworth.
This episode doesn't age well, in part because of the problems others have noted, and partly because it was slapped together so fast: Aaron Sorkin didn't want the intended season 3 opener, "Manchester," to air as scheduled on September 26, just over two weeks after the 9/11 attacks. So they delayed "Manchester," and put this together, more an intellectual exercise than an episode of drama. I skip this one when I rewatch the series: the oversimplified and sometimes off-base historical commentary, Presidential Classroom students as a device allowing the regular characters to deliver monologues in turn, Josh's teasing/bullying of Billy in front of the other students (but it's "okay," because he encourages him later in private -- sheesh) -- pass. But it's always good to take a few minutes enjoying Richard Schiff as Toby Ziegler.
the secondary story is even worse, showing Leo being prejudicial against and arab man who works in the white house and just happens to have the same name as a person of interest.
@@potterpotty01 And as with Josh's single final comment to Billy that's supposed to excuse his earlier bad behavior, Leo's line "Way to be back at your desk" is supposed to make up for his (out of character) racism and xenophobia. If Sorkin's point was that, under the circumstances, people react irrationally, I don't think it worked particularly well.
They are students selected to meet the president and the Whitehouse is on lockdown for some reason concerning terrorism. So they are just learning different perspectives on terrorism while they wait for the lockdown to lift and meet the president.
If you do not learn from History, you are doomed to relive it. In September 11, 2001, Muslem extremists highjacked four passenger jets. Flighing them into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. In 2024 after an attack by hamas at peace loving Jewish residents, Americans are protesting in favour of hamas. I respect Muslems, most are regular humans just wanting to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families. But to support Iranian backed terrorists is suicide, doesn't the USA know that after taking out Israel and Europe, Extremists want to take out America?
"... Americans are protesting in favour of Hamas" - the fact that you don't even have the balls to accurately describe what it is they're *actually* protesting is proof in and of itself that you're absolutely full of it. Israel is murdering foreign aid workers, denying food and medicine to woman and children and bombing civilian infrastructure and you wanna call them "peace loving" lmao. Legit clown-tier take.
it's quite possible to be anti war, anti netenyahu, anti kidnapping people but still believe the Plalestinian people do not deserve what is happening to them. tere are just as many anti hamas Palestinians as there are anti war Isrealies. your statement of saying america is protesting in favour of Hamas is false and inflamatory. the one thing Sam says is right, the more they try and eliminate Hamas, the more civilians killed by Isreal, the more they will embolden support against Isreal.
Bizarre non-history. Sicarii were somewhat successful terrorists in Roman Israel (they precipitated their desired revolt, albeit unsuccessful in the end), the Hashisheen (not "the first terrorists" by any definition) wielded enormous influence for over a century until erased by the Mongols, and Ireland attributes the success of its republican project to the armed struggle of the IRA and IRB which in turn inspired the Hagenah and other groups in successfully establishing Israel despite UK opposition using terrorism. As mentioned below the Taliban has outlasted the US using terror, despite being BTFO militarily.
I am not that knowledgeable about ancient sicariis but it modern history terrorism itself has 100 failure rate. In your reply u somewhat miss the point that thing 1 happening after thing 2 doesn't mean it happened because of it. Al qaeda and its subsidiaries terrorized pretty much every part of the globe and achieved nothing. Isis did the same thing and achieved nothing. But those who transform themselves from the ways of harm and become politicians instead of murderers can than build more or less functioning society. Like they did it in Afghanistan. Ireland btw is not good example imo. To much fringe groups battling not outsiders but themselves inside the country.
This whole scene is utterly preposterous and ahistorical. He says terrorists ALWAYS fail and in the next sentence says Israel is a nation that has to live in constant fear of terrorism. Israel WAS LITERALLY FOUNDED BY UNDERGROUND TERRORISTS. The King David hotel didn’t just go boom for no reason, and innocent Palestinian villagers didn’t get mutilated and shot by non-existent phantoms at Deir Yassin and other massacres.
No, the state of Israel was founded by Jews from Israel and many other countries fleeing persecution. The British were warned about the bomb in the King David and chose to ignore it. And YAWN... always the historically incorrect Dir Yassin citation. The only thing that is "utterly preposterous" is your flawed statement.
Yes. How dare a show about national and international politics notice bombings, hijackings, beheading and systematic oppression of women, gays, minorities and ESPECIALLY Jews sponsored by particular overtly religious affiliated nations and their catspaws. You'd think there was a pattern or something.
This was a great episode and a great moment.But philosophically it's fundamentally wrong. Islamic Terrorism is actually deeply rooted in the Quran and has widespread support among is llamists around the world. By The KKK was a social / political organization that actually had very little to do with Christianity. It never had widespread support even in the south where it was most active. And while it is true the KKK used terror tactics Those tactics were never used against entire populations But we're instead targeting small groups and individuals. To compare the KKK to modern islamic terrorism Is is a tragic philosophical in intellectual error. The only thing they truly had in common is that both were fundamentally bad.
If the KKK had the means to terrorize larger groups of black people, I'm sure they'd relish the opportunity. It certainly helps that there weren't enough black people to fight back. Islamic Terrorism is rooted in an interpretation of the Quran the same way Christian terrorism is rooted in a different interpretation of the Bible. The historical context of both are too entirely different to talk about in a meaningful way. But just because the KKK was "targeting small groups and individuals" doesn't mean they weren't using the Bible as justification.
Not even close, and this clip (like this show) have aged very well. They weren't bashing islam, just pointing out that ANY religion (when radicalized) can be dangerous and destructive. Look what's being done in India and the radicalization of hindu, or America with the radical Christian right. Justifying violence in the name of god, is timeless.
you are so wrong, and you can see by the first example they mention the KKK. They talk about how muslims are good people but the radicals are the ones doing these acts.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm leaving an Apple for The Teacher who picked this particular clip to share with The West Wing Classroom In RUclips!......Thank You! 🍎
Isaac and Ishmael, a special episode following 9/11, not part of the series.
I'd like to think it is.
Yet another example of why this show was, in many many ways, the pinnacle of TV as an art form.
surely you mean pinochle
@@mjak993 No I don't. This show was as about as good as episodic TV ever got.
Such a good episode. Even better knowing that this wasn't part of the series and was made right after 9/11. Kids today should watch this episode imo. It touches on so many relevant things that are still part of our society today.
I love this show. Thank you for uploading these clips.
Don't be too quick to thank them. These little nuggets are an attempt to generate new interest in the series and get people to buy a season, or the entire run.
@@tomscott4438 ok
This is such a good episode
The section at 1:40, accurate in the early 2000s, accurate in 2021. Time is a flat circle.
Did you get that time right? Because it's a horrible analogy. The Taliban didn't try to exterminate the citizens of Afghanistan.
@@Stolpmeister The part with "terrorism always fails" also looks dumb as hell after afghanistan
@@Stolpmeistertake a closer look at the superpower who created the Taliban in the first place
@@johnbowden4761 Even then it was dumb as hell. The Good Friday agreement was 3 years old.
@@omnibeet true! very good point
Imagine this were true, and you were in the room. You would never, ever, forget.
One of my favorite episodes. The First Lady explaining Isaac and Ishmael's story is perfect.
Exactly, thank you for that reminder. I was not a fan of the West Wing, but did catch that episode. The short version for others that are unfamiliar with this story, it’s from the Book of Genesis. Abraham (Abram) was childless. His wife Sarah (Sara) was around 77 years old, in the words of Scripture, “well past childbearing age”. Sarah felt that God prevented her from bearing children to her beloved husband. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar. Sarah told Abraham to “visit” Hagar after which Hagar bore Abraham a male child who was named Ishmael. Ishmael was the apple of his father’s eye (American slang) and Abraham doted on the young boy. Because of this favoritism, Hagar became more bold with Abraham’s attention. When Abraham was 99 years old God sent and Angel to tell Abraham that he will bear the progenitor of a chosen people, however, that will not be the descendants of Ishmael. The Angel told him that child will be borne of Sarah who was already 90. Abraham didn’t believe that, neither did Sarah who overheard what was said. Sarah laughed at the notion, hence the name Isaac. Sarah grew jealous of Hagar and Ishmael within their household and demanded that Abraham send Ishmael and Hagar away. This trouble Abraham because he loved his son. God reassured Abraham that Ishmael would also be the progenitor of a great people of great numbers. So Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael into the desert with only a few containers of water. When the water was gone, Hagar pleaded with God to save Ishmael. God reassured Hagar and opened a huge well and oasis for them. Ishmael married an Egyptian woman when he became of age and his descendants went on to become the Semitic people of the MidEast (other than the Jews).
Abbey Bartlett, the First Lady, explained this story to the young interns (much shorter version). She concluded by telling them the fractious relationship between the Muslims and the Jews boils down to basically a family feud. Both great people (the Christians being the “wild branch” of Judaism - Romans 11) have Abraham as the original Father of their Faith.
That, my Friends, explains the great hostility and might give those that NEVER went to Sunday School the historical context of today’s events.
4:00 - poor Sam has significant difficulty opening that bag of corn chips.
Haha! I've watched this many times and never caught that. It's the little things that really make this show.
The months and years after 911 were a very weird time, kids.
"And so it began: The Jews the sons of Isaac, the Arabs the sons of Ishmael." The sad tone of Abby's voice when she says this.
Toby and Josh and Sam as high school teachers is the reboot we need
Ireland would argue with the "terrorism has a 100% failure rate" remark. As would Irish immigrants who came to the US and fought for labor rights in the mines. The idea that political violence is always ineffective and only non-violent protest is effective is a lie perpetrated by those in power who don't want you to know the options available to you. Because when you know your options they get a choice: Deal with the reasonable, non-violent people, or deal with the unreasonable ones. And THAT works every time. For better or much, much worse.
JFK said it as "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
That was also true of the Algerian Muslims who didn’t want to be French like the Irish didn’t want to be English. And the (future)North Vietnamese.
1:43 Toby here means YET…
Toby is channeling his inner Monty Python, what have the roman's ever done for us?
The aqueduct's pretty nice
"Not only do terrorists always fail at what they are after, they pretty much always succeed in strengthening whatever it is they're against." Interesting. I wonder if it's true. I hope so.
It’s getting harder and harder to see it that way.
It is not.
What is hashish?
It's a drug made from the Cannabis plant.
"recognized" government
That last line by Sam is horribly incorrect.
It's not believable that a room full of educated people wouldn't know Sam was asking for the word "assassin".
One thing that’s always kind of bugged me about the West Wing is the characters inconsistent intellect. On the one hand, they know the etymology of the word, assassin, but on the other hand, they have no idea what a Lynx is.
Less inconsistent than one might think. I’ve come to know several people with doctorates with notable blind spots like that. It comes with specialization sometimes.
Absolutely agree
Intellect does not equate to knowledge. They are knowledgeable in that which they have studied and lived: they did not study fauna nor, afaik, live near them.
@ I know that intellect and knowledge are not interchangeable. My issue is how they chose to flex their “intellect“ by memorizing historical minutia. Yet they don’t have basic knowledge of the existence of a common North American/Eurasian animal.
@@Super_Middlemannot that common it’s endangered. Most people haven’t met one. We all have knowledge gaps.
"What do you call a society that has to worry that at any moment, the pizza place they're at is going to blow up?"
"Israel."
There'd be a lot less risk if the ?pizza place" wasn't built on land taken from others by force.
@@ZekeUlreykind of an interesting perspective, commenting on a video about terrorism …
@@hexistenz what is colonialism if not terrorism carried out by a state?
@@ZekeUlrey
Which would be exactly where?
Name me the land that wasn't "taken by force".
Like by the Ottoman Empire, for example.
I remember this clip most for the Grammer mistake in it Islamic extremists are to Islamic to...... When it should extremists are to islam
OK smart guy. how do you do all that and keep open air to the sky? I do that and get bombed by bat-things at night.
Oh Toby...your naivete shows. We recognized Stalin in the 1940's because we needed an ally against the Nazis. We supported many a dictator--we even recognized the Taliban prior to 9/11 for their anti drug efforts, trying to hand over $43 million dollars to grease a Unical pipe deal. We shouldn't deal with rogue nations? Imagine one that waged nuclear war on another nation, has a long history of slavery, forments coups d'etat amongst its neighbors...should anyone deal with that nation? The Hashissians were also hired out by the Crusaders when they couldn't reach the Muslim neighbors. First terrorist act could be the tarring and feathering of tax officials working for the crown, but someone can likely add in something even early depending on how we define terrorism. Sam isn't entirely wrong about terrorism's failure rate.
The Crusaders could hire the Assassins because they needed money to defend their Shiite sect (the Nizari Isma’ili) from the main Shiite sect(s). They still exist. They are now notorious for running hospitals in the Islamic world and their previous leader/Iman marrying Rita Hayworth.
The Zealots were an anti-Roman terrorist organization that preceded the Assassins.
Skip this episode if watching for 1st time
Toby is a Knicks fan; no wonder he's always so sad.
This episode doesn't age well, in part because of the problems others have noted, and partly because it was slapped together so fast: Aaron Sorkin didn't want the intended season 3 opener, "Manchester," to air as scheduled on September 26, just over two weeks after the 9/11 attacks. So they delayed "Manchester," and put this together, more an intellectual exercise than an episode of drama. I skip this one when I rewatch the series: the oversimplified and sometimes off-base historical commentary, Presidential Classroom students as a device allowing the regular characters to deliver monologues in turn, Josh's teasing/bullying of Billy in front of the other students (but it's "okay," because he encourages him later in private -- sheesh) -- pass. But it's always good to take a few minutes enjoying Richard Schiff as Toby Ziegler.
the secondary story is even worse, showing Leo being prejudicial against and arab man who works in the white house and just happens to have the same name as a person of interest.
@@potterpotty01 And as with Josh's single final comment to Billy that's supposed to excuse his earlier bad behavior, Leo's line "Way to be back at your desk" is supposed to make up for his (out of character) racism and xenophobia. If Sorkin's point was that, under the circumstances, people react irrationally, I don't think it worked particularly well.
Why is everyone hanging on Toby's and Sam's every word? Do the people in the room understand that they're the main characters of the show?
They are students selected to meet the president and the Whitehouse is on lockdown for some reason concerning terrorism. So they are just learning different perspectives on terrorism while they wait for the lockdown to lift and meet the president.
Hahahaha that's true
If you do not learn from History, you are doomed to relive it. In September 11, 2001, Muslem extremists highjacked four passenger jets. Flighing them into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. In 2024 after an attack by hamas at peace loving Jewish residents, Americans are protesting in favour of hamas. I respect Muslems, most are regular humans just wanting to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families. But to support Iranian backed terrorists is suicide, doesn't the USA know that after taking out Israel and Europe, Extremists want to take out America?
Not all Palestinians are Hamas, Palestine is more than Hamas.
"... Americans are protesting in favour of Hamas" - the fact that you don't even have the balls to accurately describe what it is they're *actually* protesting is proof in and of itself that you're absolutely full of it. Israel is murdering foreign aid workers, denying food and medicine to woman and children and bombing civilian infrastructure and you wanna call them "peace loving" lmao. Legit clown-tier take.
it's quite possible to be anti war, anti netenyahu, anti kidnapping people but still believe the Plalestinian people do not deserve what is happening to them. tere are just as many anti hamas Palestinians as there are anti war Isrealies. your statement of saying america is protesting in favour of Hamas is false and inflamatory.
the one thing Sam says is right, the more they try and eliminate Hamas, the more civilians killed by Isreal, the more they will embolden support against Isreal.
@@ohpurpled Palestinians in Gaza are Hamas. they voted for them. Teachers, doctors and UN staff -they hide hostages in their homes. HAMAS.
Bizarre non-history. Sicarii were somewhat successful terrorists in Roman Israel (they precipitated their desired revolt, albeit unsuccessful in the end), the Hashisheen (not "the first terrorists" by any definition) wielded enormous influence for over a century until erased by the Mongols, and Ireland attributes the success of its republican project to the armed struggle of the IRA and IRB which in turn inspired the Hagenah and other groups in successfully establishing Israel despite UK opposition using terrorism. As mentioned below the Taliban has outlasted the US using terror, despite being BTFO militarily.
I am not that knowledgeable about ancient sicariis but it modern history terrorism itself has 100 failure rate.
In your reply u somewhat miss the point that thing 1 happening after thing 2 doesn't mean it happened because of it.
Al qaeda and its subsidiaries terrorized pretty much every part of the globe and achieved nothing. Isis did the same thing and achieved nothing. But those who transform themselves from the ways of harm and become politicians instead of murderers can than build more or less functioning society. Like they did it in Afghanistan.
Ireland btw is not good example imo. To much fringe groups battling not outsiders but themselves inside the country.
This whole scene is utterly preposterous and ahistorical. He says terrorists ALWAYS fail and in the next sentence says Israel is a nation that has to live in constant fear of terrorism. Israel WAS LITERALLY FOUNDED BY UNDERGROUND TERRORISTS. The King David hotel didn’t just go boom for no reason, and innocent Palestinian villagers didn’t get mutilated and shot by non-existent phantoms at Deir Yassin and other massacres.
No, the state of Israel was founded by Jews from Israel and many other countries fleeing persecution. The British were warned about the bomb in the King David and chose to ignore it. And YAWN... always the historically incorrect Dir Yassin citation. The only thing that is "utterly preposterous" is your flawed statement.
Any MAGA supporters watching this?
Doubtful.
Probably more than Antifa and BLM members, since they'd dismiss it as "Phoney Ally White Zionist Supremacy".
Yes, we are. Their words go both ways.
@ how exactly?
@@cameljaque no response, not unusual
Sorkin's track record for depicting Muslims in The West Wing is pretty awful. Was there ever anyone who wasn't a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer?
Yes, there was, and in this very episode. That was the whole point of Leo's scenes.
Yes.
How dare a show about national and international politics notice bombings, hijackings, beheading and systematic oppression of women, gays, minorities and ESPECIALLY Jews sponsored by particular overtly religious affiliated nations and their catspaws.
You'd think there was a pattern or something.
This was a great episode and a great moment.But philosophically it's fundamentally wrong. Islamic Terrorism is actually deeply rooted in the Quran and has widespread support among is llamists around the world.
By The KKK was a social / political organization that actually had very little to do with Christianity. It never had widespread support even in the south where it was most active. And while it is true the KKK used terror tactics Those tactics were never used against entire populations But we're instead targeting small groups and individuals.
To compare the KKK to modern islamic terrorism Is is a tragic philosophical in intellectual error. The only thing they truly had in common is that both were fundamentally bad.
If the KKK had the means to terrorize larger groups of black people, I'm sure they'd relish the opportunity. It certainly helps that there weren't enough black people to fight back.
Islamic Terrorism is rooted in an interpretation of the Quran the same way Christian terrorism is rooted in a different interpretation of the Bible.
The historical context of both are too entirely different to talk about in a meaningful way. But just because the KKK was "targeting small groups and individuals" doesn't mean they weren't using the Bible as justification.
"Never used against entire populations"? You've clearly never heard of the Tulsa Massacre.
Lets maybe not glorify this episode with clips. It was heat of the moment angry islam bashing that has aged HORRIBLY.
Exactly the opposite of what this episode was
Not even close, and this clip (like this show) have aged very well. They weren't bashing islam, just pointing out that ANY religion (when radicalized) can be dangerous and destructive. Look what's being done in India and the radicalization of hindu, or America with the radical Christian right. Justifying violence in the name of god, is timeless.
you are so wrong, and you can see by the first example they mention the KKK.
They talk about how muslims are good people but the radicals are the ones doing these acts.
Clearly never seen the episode lmao
watch the episode again. you've forgotten it.