Noam we know you will defend Israel no matter what but for the love of god let the man finish his sentences. It seems that you love ruining an argument being made against your case via interruption and changing of the topic.
Noam wants to be correct but he also wants to be liked. So he acts like he floats a middle ground of intellectual honesty but his own bias won’t allow him to take the facts as they are.
This seems like a trap interview with the sole purpose of lecturing Aaron and his fans, than actually understanding his point of view. You couldn't stop interupting the whole 2 hour interview, and I bet you spoke at least 95% of the time about your views. I think this had the opposite effect you hoped for.
I was on the fence about Aaron. His inability to get realistic about the sexual assault on October 7th and Hamas in general has led me to be unable to take him seriously. There is clearly other forces at work here on Aaron. This was disgusting.
@@comedycellarclips It doesn't happen. I haven't listened/read Aaron Mate's content but he must've said something along these lines because several people are commenting the same thing when it never actually happened.
Hi Noam Of the 15 people that Hamas held captive at Pesi Cohen's house in Kibbutz Be'eri, 13 were killed. Of the 13 killed, 12 were killed by Israel itself, the vast majority of which due to deliberate tank shelling of the house with the hostages still in and or in close proximity to the house. We know this because of the eye witness testimony of the two survivors. Look up the initial accounts of what happened there by the Israeli officers in charge and from most media. This, along with the countless other examples of Israel lying about what happened on Oct 7th is why one should vet Israel's claims of Hamas ordered mass rape with prodigious due diligence. Tragically, since many other massacre sites on Oct 7th had no survivors, and independent foreign investigations have been blocked, we may never know how many other Isrealis were likewise victims of the Hannibal directive. ruclips.net/video/r63nmfbIUBA/видео.htmlsi=eVXIEDxYJhT1w55t ruclips.net/video/SF52hZ8Dqfc/видео.htmlsi=IE5E93hlggdtuq9k
You cannot be serious that you actually can’t mentally untangle that situation, and really think Israelis were trying to kill their own people or are to blame in any legit way? They were put in that position by gazans, knowingly. These people were k**ling everyone. If Israel continued waiting and didn’t do anything, they would’ve k**led the hostages inside anyway. Do you really think they could’ve waited until hearing the shots inside and it being too late? Do you really not mentally understand how complex and how difficult of a hostage situation that is??? Like you cannot be that “unsmart” to morally put blame on Israel. I’m totally serious- who the heck teaches you to think that way? Are you mslm or from mid east? Not attacking I’m genuinely asking. If so, and if you genuinely believe that’s a normal way to see the situation, I have to think that you are mistakenly seeing the Israelis as the other side of the coin to your side. When not everyone is like your side. Not everyone thinks like hummus or even the Palestinians. Completely different cultures and beliefs. You’re basically trying to find scenarios that on the surface could mirror the claims that are made about hummus (like trying to convince yourself that the Israelis are exactly the same). Unfortunately the logic and psychology you are applying is not correct. I think you are taught to look for the same behaviors in Israelis that your side portrays, without actually unpacking the intention or complexity of the situation. I find this interesting as it’s something I’ve noticed with the other side. They seem to want to think that the Israelis are just the same version of them on the other side. That’s where they are hugely mistaken. You have to realize that different people and cultures may think completely differently than you on every level. You can’t project your own way of thinking into Israelis.
Bless you, Aaron. I can't watch though even on 1.5x because Noam is insufferable. I just watched part of him with Scott Horton too. Holy moly. Probably don't do this again, for your soul. 🙏🕊️🍉🤗💗
Avi Shlaim's statement about 1967 war being a defensive war on Israeli part - Noam rightly states that is a testimonial against evidence. Menachem Begin and Moshe Dayan;s statements supporting an argument about 1967 being an Isareli offensive war - Noam dismisses them as not knowing about them, and states in his feverish eager tone that he wants to talk about Ukraine. The testimonials against evidence by Israelis rarely interest Noam.
If Noam is confronted by arguments that are troubling to him, he does not try to get to the bottom of the argument by questioning it and prodding the guest for his sources and bases of the arguments- instead, he gets fidgety and changes topic. Watching him flail like this gives me second hand embarrassment.
@comedycellarclips The host makes several points, and is allowed to speak freely for minutes at a time. Aaron responds with half a sentence, and the host "doesn't want to argue about that", "I want to get to Ukraine", "I want to move on to the Newland thing". Aaron was respectful and let the host make arguments, and the moment Aaron starts responding, we need to move on to another topic so the host can talk unchallenged for 5 more minutes.
ICC arrest warrants for the top brass, and there are going to be more for the dual citizens that went over to fight and are returning home. Love to see it.
I feel bad for people like Aaron. They can’t see how affected they are by the historical trauma and abuse of being a J, and how it affects their thinking and perception of their people. And how their trauma gets used and exploited by the other side, by people who don’t understand that his viewpoints come from abuse by people like them, which gives him that self hate. It’s so twisted. They can’t see that the person they think is a hero for “calling out their own side” is really just damaged and full of self doubt - due to the same history of psychological abuse that they inflict on him now.
>"being provoked is a legal cause of war"- Noam Tell me you know nothing about international law without telling me you know nothing about international law.
"Aaron is one case where it’s not just about bigotry. He denies atrocities against Muslims, against Christians, against Jews, and against atheists. He simply just sides with evil at every turn and will ignore whatever evidence you present because the point isn’t the truth."
Why do I come back to this show - well - to see the guests - but the host is just the worse. "I had on this reporter who broke that story, I had on this other reporter who broke that other story. When Israel does anything bad..." he's just unberable.
Noam accuses Aaron of bias, then says that when there are so many conflicting narratives around, the best thing to do is to look for a witness against yourself: a man admitting that he cheated on his wife is probably telling the truth. Then, when Aaron quotes exactly such a man (Moshe Dayan admitting that they started most of the conflicts on the DMZ with Syria), he goes on to say that is just "quote mining". Who is actually biased then ?
Avi Shlaim goes into more depth on the entire quote: In retrospect, Dayan could not point to a clearly formulated strategic conception that governed Israel’s behavior in the DMZ between 1949 and 1967. All he suggested was that he and some of his fellow officers did not accept the 1949 armistice lines with Syria as final and hoped to change them by means that fell short of war, by “snatching bits of territory and holding on to it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.” This may have been naïve on their part, said Dayan, but at that time they did not have much experience in diplomacy among sovereign states.
@@comedycellarclips I don't know what point you are making. We are talking about a state that colluded with the former colonial powers (UK and France) and started a war in 1956. It caused a refugee crisis in 1948, and abolished Palestine by force. When this state "starts to chip away at territory", surely Syria would be suspicious of their intentions. They are expected to react in some way. And they did. You only have to understand this to know why Nasser reacted the way he did in 1967, and lost territory. Sometimes, showing strength works, sometimes it doesn't.
@@Yogesh-jq9jj "Abolished Palestine by force" is historically non-sensical. The principal reason a political entity called "Palestine" was created was as a vehicle for the formation of a Jewish state.
Noam’s argument that Aaron should denounce people is absurdly adolescent. Why does Noam coerce people he respects, to condemn those he condemns, as if it’s a high school clique.
Who/what does Aaron source as evidence that Izzzrael’s neighbors invaded in 1948 because of the displacement of the Pians? Not only had it not happened yet, there is no historical record of any A leaders being upset about the refugees, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary. November 29, 1947, Secretary General of the Arab League Pasha warned, “Arab men will not rally in great numbers if the Arabs are victorious from the start but if we suffer any defeats in the beginning then the Arabs will rally in huge numbers because it will be a question of racial pride." The term nakba was first used by Constantine Zureiq to refer to the war of independence, whereby “seven Arab states declare war on Zionism, stop impotent before it, and then turn on their heels.” His brief mention of the refugees was his concern that they might be “forced to return to their homes, there to live under the Zionist shadow”. At some point, we have to be honest about displacement and population transfers in the post-WWII period. They were both unremarkable.
@@billusher2265 I have no interest in litigating the numbers of those who fled vs those told to get out by the invading armies vs those expelled. That isn’t the point. I have never seen the refugees created by the civil w@£ cited as a pretense for the neighboring countries to invade in 1948. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but given A honor culture, it seems far more likely the refugees would be a source of embarrassment.
For some examples of scholarly discussion of this issue see chapter 5 of Jerome Slater's book Mythologies Without End (an overview of different scholars) or p. 165 of Anita Shapira's book Israel: A History (Shapira is not at all a New Historian).
I like how the host begun his argument accusing Aaron of ignoring contradictory information and then proceeded to undermine and ignore everting that wasn’t supportive of his views - you can’t trust what a guy puts down in his diary as his private thoughts. You have to judge him on what he said publicly as a politician.
It's strange that they didn't attack Egypt, only Israel Why is that? The Egyptian blockade was much harsher At least from Israel,they received goods, healthcare, food, electricity, and water. From Egypt they got nothing So why didn't they attack Egypt?
@@comedycellarclips I’m confused by this. The blockade was implemented as a non-violent response to rocket-fire as per the UN’s requirement that such things be tried prior to aggression. How can it be casus belli under such circumstances?
One of my many issues with this way of thinking is that a lot of the people who aren't Russian who are around Russia see themselves as deterrents to Russian hegemony. That's a thousand-year-old historic fact
In the discussions of 1967 (not just here, but in many places) there seems to be some conflation between general public sentiment regarding the threat from Egypt and other Arab states vs. the knowledge of intelligence officials and politicians familiar with intelligence. Even in some historical writing it seems like the general public mood is sometimes cited as a reason for calling the war "defensive," but this risible in the same way as calling the 2003 Invasion of Iraq "defensive" (though maybe to a lesser degree, I admit). Regarding Shalim, even his claim on p. 242 of Iron Wall falls into an odd understanding of "defensive" - he calls it a "defensive war," but not in response to attack - in order to "safeguard its security." This is after pages of discussion of intelligence showing Egypt wasn't going to attack, showing that Israeli policymakers were concerned to "restore the deterrence power of the IDF" (p. 240), and concerns like that. Perhaps most perplexing of all, it is after Shlaim's own claim on p. 235 that "Israel's strategy of escalation on the Syrian front was probably the single most important factor in dragging the Middle East to war in June 1967." For some sources to read up on I'd recommend the overview of (liberal) scholarship by Jerome Slater beginning on p. 129 of his Mythologies Without End.
As we know, intelligence is a best guess and very very often wrong. Countless examples come to mind, you know them as well as I. But. 1. You don't blockade a nation, throw out UN Peacekeepers, mass 100,000 troops on a border, while spewing violent rhetoric, and THEN complain that you were taken seriously. I mean, c'mon. That is just obviously BS. 2. No matter what happened in Egypt, Jordan attacked. That was a decision that King Hussein later admitted it was a mistake. When you stage an attack under the banner of "driving the Jews into the sea," and you then lose, and your border territory is occupied, and you then refuse to negotiate, or to make peace, you don't have much right to complain.
You should read “Six Days of War” by Michael Oren, which presents a play-by-play of the weeks and days up to the 6DW. It’s pretty darn obvious that Izzzraeli leaders were torn among themselves about whether Egypt (with Syria) was planning to attack. They clearly didn’t want to start something unnecessarily, but were haunted by earlier surprises.
@@joge2468 What you just said comes from the sort of confusion I was talking about, which is probably exacerbated by Oren's very popular book. It's true that the *political speeches* and *pretenses* leading up to the war were fevered in their fear of an impending Arab attack, but that comes largely from speeches and memoirs and the like - I don't think there's really a lot of scholarly controversy over the fact that the intelligence estimates were in massive tension with public statements and postures (and confirmed by Israel's decisive victory and subsequent statements by even Israeli officials like Begin and Rabin). Also, Oren has been shown to almost comically manipulate some sources - for example brazenly removing the phrase "that was started by Israel" in a quote by al-Rifai that Oren uses to argue that Jordan was afraid of an *Egyptian* first strike (p. 128)! 😂 Literally an inversion of the reality of the quote. (Note: this is discussed in Norman Finkelstein's review of Oren printed in his very meticulous book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.)
@@comedycellarclips 0. I'm not sure I know of comparable cases to this... especially where the intelligence was shared and subsequently admitted by Israeli officials. But I'm not an expert in comparing different examples of intelligence about potential armed conflict. In any case, here we'd be here comparing well-informed intelligence-agreed to in private-to fearful public sentiment and political speeches. 1. I wasn't talking about Arab states "complaining." But part of my point was that their rhetoric and troop deployments *weren't* taken very seriously *in private,* at least in terms of posing a serious threat to Israel militarily, though the IDF was keen to establish deterrence etc. according to Shlaim (who somehow thinks that justifies calling it a "defensive war"). 2. Again I'm not talking about - or even interested in - what political leaders "complain" about etc. According to Shlaim, Israel's provocations were a significant cause of the 1967 war. Suppose Arab states had attacked Israel and taken land... would the provocations mean Israel couldn't "complain"? I guess they could or couldn't.... I don't really care, I'm interested in the historical events here and the causes. Ultimately, even though Aaron conceded the point about Shlaim, I think he shouldn't have. Aaron seems very smart and friendly, but he thinks in the quote-mining style - so you finding Shlaim calling the war defensive defeated him. But if you look at Shlaim's overall analysis you can see that what he thinks counts as making the war "defensive" isn't at all what most people mean by "defensive war."
@ I don’t trust anyone unequivocally, and it doesn’t surprise me that Oren selectively quoted someone! Still, this book aligns with everything else I have read on the 6DW in terms of the judgements of the stakeholders and the information at hand. I have not seen any evidence that the intelligence indicated anything other than Egypt (and Syria) preparing for w@£. I think you are engaging in the fallacy of hindsight. Yes, we can say now, “That didn’t indicate an imminent attack,” because we know it didn’t. I believe you are allowing that knowledge to infect your judgement about what was reasonable to assume at the time. AS I recall, the stakeholders were all in agreement (save perhaps Ben Gurion) that each subsequent move by Egypt only confirmed their fears. Egypt systematically moved into positions described in w@£plans Izzzraeli intelligence had for a decade. Neighboring states - particularly Syria and Iraq - were likewise deploying troops. Egypt closed the Straits, knowing it would be viewed as a provocation (and reason enough for Izzzrael to have casus belli). And dismissed peacekeeping forces, which can really only be viewed one way, can it not?
I’m only about 35 min in right now but I have to say I truly don’t understand why Noam believes Mate debates in good faith. He repeatedly cherry-picks quotes, deliberately obfuscating the context and dodges direct questions. It is obvious that he doesn’t actually seek to learn anything or examine his beliefs - he is heavily invested in this worldview and will say just about anything to make it appear true, including things he must know to be half-truths or outright lies.
I don't think Noam has ever given a satisfactory answer to where he draws his lines. In other contexts, he talks as if he has clear ideas of what constitutes principled and moral behavior, but when it comes to engaging with people like Mate, his rationalizations make him seem like complete relativist (e.g., "well, you just can't expect Brianna Joy Gray to be honest...").
I never said that about BGJ. The line is obvious. It's whether I think the conversation is worthwhile. If you're listening to it, you must be getting something out of it, no?
@@comedycellarclips yeah personally I get a lot out of these podcasts and I think they do a lot to expose the nonsense that’s out there. I just don’t understand why you consider Mate, Finkelstein etc. as being good faith actors. Doesn’t mean they aren’t worth talking to.
First...i love this show. Just picked up over the last six months and it is a lock in the pod rotation. 2nd...Noam needs to let the co hosts eat at the table. I m good if he wants to run his own show, but if its a 3 person show, he needs to give them some more runway when they do decide to chime in. They could be more succinct, but i feel like they're on the clock when they speak and that doesnt serve the pod well. Overall, i love the thoughtful discussions on this pod, and the guests have been awesome.
Agree with part 1, Hard disagree with part 2. Consider Dan and Periel to be comic relief, not co-hosts. Noam is the one who does the work to prepare for these conversations.
Aaron as never made any terrorist speech. Most of you supporting evil will realise in few years down that you are the worst of all human, and you'll live your live knowing people like Netanyahu.
Good episode! The key point on October 7th crimes is not whether there’s enough evidence to convict Hamas soldiers but that even if they _are_ guilty of every allegation, it doesn’t justify the war crime of collective punishment or the ethnic cleansing/genocide (crimes against humanity).
I think the Zaka thing is very misrepresented. Yes, it's true that Zaka ppl said things that ended up not being true - but that sort of thing always happens in the early moments following a chaotic event. It's not deliberate and it's not malicious. I remember hearing all types of things on 9/11 that ended up being untrue or exaggerrated. Little details get misheard and misunderatood, and then repeated, and it snowballs... and then things clear up in the following days. Give Zaka a break they do very important work.
I know, it was probably severely traumatic and they didn’t know what they were seeing. But I’m sure whatever they said they saw probably was reality, it’s a matter of how it’s interpreted in the moment. I actually don’t know what they are referring to that wasn’t true but if it was the SA, I’m sure they saw things that were undeniable sings of it.
If it’s not deliberate why were the claims repeated over and over and by the highest levels of government? And how do you accidentally think you saw 40 beheaded babies?
19 дней назад
@@billusher2265 They were "repeated over and over again" within the same 48-hour period after the attacks. Government officials were repeating what they had heard in the media. As for the 40 babies, this was a case of broken telephone. One person said that 40 children were killed, including babies (which is true). There were also reports of beheadings (which was also true - there is even footage). These two facts ended up getting merged incorrectly by the media into one claim.
@@stargazerh112 I heard the statement differently, but I see where it was ambiguous. I think Noam was countering the refugee status of those As in the WB and Azag, ie they’re internally displaced at best. He was also making the point that a right of return is not applicable since they are still in the same vicinity as where they started. The right of return does not guarantee a return to your original home or village.
@ they are not internally displaced at best. If the partition was 55% of the territory, and Israel ended up with 78% those people in the 23% that was taken beyond what the partition recommended are not internally displaced. And that is granting the authority and/or Legitimacy of the partition in the first place and doesn’t even address settlements. Also the patrician did not call for the displacement of the people in the “55%”
@ Listen closely… If a country was x + y, but is now just y, and the inhabitants of y ended up in x, they are internally displaced if they’re anything. Given their current proximity to y, they’re not even that.
Have you ever had Michael Oren on? He’s the guy to talk to about the 6DW. His book is a play by play of the years/months/days leading up to it. Zero talk about seizing land.
who is the prime minister right now? lol, cant answer, what a disingenous clown mate is why does aaron NOT mention that when yatesnyuk became prime minister, he was voted into office by the ukrainian rada with near unanimous support, including 94 out of 95 members of yanukovych's own party?
@@johnybalohny no, you either didnt understand or dont want to understand what I wrote. everyone can have an opinion on anything, no matter how un/misinformed, as you are so amply demonstrating and i never claimed otherwise
Maybe the idea is that Oslo was in part an attempt to legitimize the west bank settlements? I mean, it's pretty silly, but I try to find the most sensible core of their claims 🤷♂️
It is a travesty that we dont have access to credible journalism which presents the facts and data so that we the people can make informed decisions. Hard to feel a part of a democracy without a strong healthy journalism institution.
Eh, not entirely. I hate when people both sides it, because sometimes that means they don’t understand both sides properly. Sometimes things are not 50/50. Sometimes they are 70/30, 90/10. 100/0. You have to get to know the people on both sides over a long period of time to understand that, and truly understand the different psyches on each. I believe the Arabs probably had perceptions of Jews immigrating back then that were very wrong but understandable according to their knowledge. But I feel like they were never remotely willing to talk to the other side and explore the idea that they may be wrong.
Having debated the Israeli-Palestian Arab conflict I have not heard Walter Lowdermilk, Martin Gilbert or Efraim Karsh name come up in these discussions. To have a podcast journalist on does not always lend itself to knowledge of the topic.
I guarantee you none of them will follow-up on the "sensitive issue" at the end. I'd like to see that debate, but I just know it won't happen. And if it does, please don't bring Eylon Levy as your expert nor that woman Fleur... lol.
Did you guys talk before and decide to not go through with the plan to rehash that list and topics from last time, having beforehand agreed on a set of facts? I thought that was a good idea. Did you forget about that? Either way, great interview.
Israeli diplomatic efforts to prevent violent confrontation was substantial. Egyptian forces were massing on the border for weeks while Israelis begged the US to prevent conflict. Israel was asking Jordan and Egypt to not start a war. Egypt refused to let peace keeping forces return to the Sinai, and refused to stop threatening Israel. I would love to see that kinda effort from Gaza before they start wars.
20 дней назад+1
Israel's blockade of Gaza was meant to prevent weapons from reaching a group that was openly hostile and agressive towards Israel (Hamas). It was for defensive purposes. Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression. It meant to strangle Israel, as part of their plan to attack and destroy it. Not the same.
Nope, wikileaks leaked messages from Israeli officials saying the goal was to keep Gaza’s economy on the brink of collapse.
19 дней назад
@@billusher2265 A few random comments are not definitive, and dont represent what Israel's strategy was throughout all 18 years of the blockade. But either way, the question is why? It's not bc Israelis just dont like Gazans. It's bc Hamas presented an agressive and hostile threat to Israel, and Israel's objective was to protect itself - either by restricting access to weapons etc, or by weakening Gaza economically in order to induce an internal revolt.
- that’s not different from Egypt’s reason for blockading, they received intel from the Soviet Union on security - when they won the election they offered a long term peace treaty in exchange for a state, instead Israel attempted a coup then strengthened the blockade - long before this Israel was doing raids in Gaza to stop Palestinians trying to return to their home they were expelled from, like Khan Yunis 1956 - your final statement agrees with what I said, it was collective punishment to get a response, it came and now they have an excuse to cleanse - given that the PA a in the West Bank has been collaborating for years and the response has just been to expand settlements and treat them even worse it’s clear it’s not just security
Thank you for platforming people like this. When you let them talk it's the best way to discredit them. It's a clear giveaway of bias (for lack of a stronger word), whenever someone uses quotes instead of facts. He even at one point said someone should've used a quote of Biden, rather than that the person was wrong. Quotes mean literally nothing. Human beings are infinite word generators. You can put together quotes from any time period to fit any narrative. I wish people wouldn't even engage with them. If you ask a Donald Trump fan how his presidency was in 2016, they'd just quote him and his people and it would sound perfect. Same for Biden (Or anyone from any time period ever), Quotes are useless. Whenever someone goes to quotes in a debate I always wish the host would stop them and point out how their quotes are not evidence and please use evidence if you're going to require evidence.
They use quotes and then create their own narrative around them, and decide what the person meant and why. Only the person who said it knows what they meant.
On the other hand, sometimes you can take what people say and use it to judge their motives and feelings. Like when so many people of a collective continually say J’s are demons, deserve to be unalived just for existing, and are dehumanized, you can draw conclusions.
@@RachelJ-ki6nt exactly, but even if the person MEANT IT, it still doesn't matter. All that matters is what HAPPENED. You can find someone from any group in the wrong state of mind, at war, grieving etc that could say something they would never really do.
I highly recommend this 16 minute report by Double Down News, "What Really Happened on October 7," which reviews what evidence does and/or does not reveal about what happened on Oct 7, including allegations of sexual assault. ruclips.net/video/-mxfnya3ZRc/видео.html
I listened to it. Imo, its excellent and consistent with other credible reporting.Thanks again. May I ask you a question, whats your opinion of Live From The Table with regards to its impact on how people respond to whats happened to Palestinians since and including Oct 7th ?
It seems Aaron’s template for thinking about conflicts is “the Original sin”. He decides who have sined in Israel it was “the Zionists” and in “Ukraine” it was the US and since Ukraine is an extension of the US (or something close) in his eyes Ukrainians need to pay. Such a simplistic way to look at the world! That said, the fact that he can see you as a friend although those fundamental disagreements gave him a lot of points in my view (and I’m saying it as an Israeli who knows he hates me and for whole he cares me and my kids deserve to die).
He’s damaged, someone to be ignored. Doesn’t it make you furious to listen to foreigners like him think they know what’s what in Israel, when they have zero authority or basis to know anything about the reality on the ground? I’m American and I can’t imagine how an Israeli could listen to the people like him, who speak as if they know something that the people living there don’t. So obnoxious.
@ Oh I gotten used to it…:) I don’t pay attention to what people like him say, it has no substance in my eyes. He is saying in the begging: “Yes I have a bias but it’s supported by facts”😂 How can someone take him seriously!? The way I see it, he lives in lalaland and at best he and the likes of him are projecting their bs on us and the Palestinians.
He doesn’t hate you; I’ve no doubt he’s a nice genuine fellow. He simply cannot for one reason or another unspool the logic of his arguments to the regressive hellscape where they lead.
@yaniv - I can imagine. But it’s worse when it’s his type of “Jew” (I hesitate to call him a Jew), the people who don’t realize they let the hate and psychological abuse against Jews and israel get to them, manifesting as shame and self hate. People think they can read a book that goes over the history from one persons perspective and suddenly they know everything. And what he thinks are facts are really subjective opinions. Yeah it’s funny, because he shows he knows neither population, not Palestinians or Israelis. How are things holding up in Israel? It’s painful the way they are being treated. I wish I could visit and help.
32:19 this was a missed point. Noam is saying that a black person 500 years from now would be indigenous AND wouldn't have rights to return. Yet Ashkenazi Jews do after 3500 years?
NO. I only was making clear that they are two separate points. In fact, Jews were a majority in Jerusalem, and there was no legal or moral reason in the late 1800s or early 1900s that they couldn't join and expand their existing and ancient community. Also, read up on Liberia.
This obsession with Ashkenazim as "white Jews" is ridiculous diaspora shaming with petty logic. Why does a Persian Jew have inherent right to expel a Palestinian from their home because Persia is considered also part of the Islamic ummah? Sure, bro.
@comedycellarclips No one doubts that there were Jews in Palestine in the last century. The question which you answered for yourself without knowing it is that Ashkenazi Jews, Jews from India and Jews from other parts of the world don't have a right to settle in the country and have this right imposed on others by force and deception. You'll have to be more specific in your recommendation to "read about Liberia" and how this connects to your point that US blacks 300 years from now have no right to return to the parts of Africa that they were enslaved from.
Wow, what an amazing episode. My respect you to you Noam; I normally don’t agree with your takes but I immensely appreciate the method you use to get to them. Happy you had Maté on and just yeah keep doing what you’re doing great video😊
Mate is the worst kind of dishonest actor. Hamas atrocity needs the most rigorous evidence to be believed. Israel atrocity doesnt need any evidence to be believed. He's actually worse than Tucker Carlson cos he at least has the good sense to leave his clown nose and clown car out of plain sight.
Perhaps no other journalism has been more essential to my understanding of what happened on Oct 7th: ruclips.net/video/SF52hZ8Dqfc/видео.htmlsi=62WYGl4TtqTNv80a
The only people who say "alleged Russian atrocities in Bucha" are ones who are wilfully ignorant to the facts, or who can't admit them, because it destroys their argument. Aaron consistently tailors his facts to his ideology, regardless of how many times the truth is pointed out to him.
I wish Noam would break out a whiteboard, list Aaron’s ‘evidence’ for a given position, and then cross off each piece as it’s proven incorrect. A visual like this might help to illustrate exactly how flimsy his argument is.
@@joge2468The dude has been corrected so many times on his misrepresentations of facts by so many people that have manifestly greater expertise than him, yet continues to peddle literally the exact same misinformation, no matter how many times he's corrected. He's a bad faith actor.
The SHEER FACT that Mate said that the original sin is the formation of the state of Israel is extremely telling. It's either 1. He does not know the history in the early 1900s, way before any clear borders who the home of the jews were created. 2. He knows the history, but his bias does not allow him to accept the fact that it's not as simple as "original sin was the creation of the state of Israel" and the Arabs around that area had no agency and ZERO responsibility in the events that took place. He has also never provide reasons why the land is the historic homeland of the Palestinian and not the Jews, and simply assumes that is the case.
Aaron sounds way less unhinged on your podcast than his panels on Pierce Morgan - It's nice to see he is just dug into his position - and not the crazy unhinged nutjob he sounds like in shouting debates!
How would they like if people analyzed their lives and their intentions from the outside and went around the world saying it. Wouldn’t be fun to hear random people claim to know your truth. He’s just unwise.
I read Avi Schlaim’s book and learned so much. I love Aaron’s resolve. His viewpoint is based on his extensive research. Noam just can’t accept that an intelligent person won’t be persuaded to his point of view.
Dude, you have like 5 separate comments on this video spamming anti-Israel crap. Did you forget to switch to your alt accounts when your spam? Jesus...
Should’ve caught Aron with the hudnah that’s unfortunately what Tzvi yehezkeli has been yapping about for years , not understanding Arab mentality in this case is detrimental to solving this for all sides and he just causally got away with one of the key parts of it. Regardless - The right in Israel would live for Gaza to be free and I’m talking about the actual revisionist right not Ben gvir imported kahanist wakos. The real frightening factor for them is the security breach that giving a land connection between WB and Gaza would create. Should’ve put him in the point with this since it’s just wrong how people can BS without accountability. Appreciate you Noam
Noam: 500 years from now a black guy will be able to say he’s indigenous to Africa”. Not if he’s a white man and has a separate culture 500 years from now.
When does a black man become “white”? What percentage? According to the US in the 1930s, any perceptible trace of black blood, meant the person was black. According to the knotsies, 25% (one Jish grandparent) meant you were Jish. All Ashkenazi are 30-50% Levantine. Mizrahi are at least 50% mixed with some other MENA heritage, and a small amount of Spanish from the Sephardi who mixed after Spanish expulsion. It’s very convenient for the racists to now claim you must be overwhelmingly Levantine to count as Jish. Additionally, Jish culture/religion/language is thoroughly Levantine unlike Islaaam & Arabic.
@@joge2468 They are not Levantine, they are converts of Irano-Turkic origin. And it is 40% - 20% Middle Eastern. Ashkenazi are genetically distant to other Levantine groups.
So now are you saying Jews are white? Interesting. What did you consider them 100 years ago? What about 60 years ago in the US? What else are Jews that they don’t even know they are according to you? Does that mean my dark skinned sister is now not Jewish because she’s brown, but I am because I am light?
@@based4573 The Khazarian theory has been utterly debunked by DNA studies (and history and archeology). Read Josephus - at least 100,000 Jews were sent by the Roman colonial power as slaves to Europe. That's the origin of Ashkenazi Jews - over the centuries they were expelled around the continent and most ended up in central and eastern Europe.
It seems like Aaron is unable to see the situation emotionally through the Jewish lense. Only the other side. It seems that people who can’t see the suffering of Israel and the Jews are the American Jews who have now been living in safety and comfort for a while, and project their experience into a Jews, including the ones who came to Israel and currently live in Israel. So they only see the other side through who they perceive as the victim, and think all Jews always lived like he is now. Which is a shame, because it’s the first time Jews have been equal and not mistreated or k**led (although it’s come back obviously…). Also I don’t know background but usually children of h-caust survivors have his mentally due to psychological trauma that they don’t even realize they have (centuries of shame, fear, hate, psychological abuse, gaslighting, framing, blaming and the h-caust etc etc). They are particularly sensitive to seeing others as being treated how J’s were during the h-cause, and tend to see it everywhere even when the situation is totally different. They also have this engrained self-blame, shame, all of it from how J’s have always been treated and all the abuse. It’s like “abused wife syndrome”. Maybe his grand parents were survivors (though usually this is more common with direct children of survivors), but he has that mentality. And it’s sad because people from the other side take advantage of those deep psychological issues that stem from the h-caust and the whole J history.
And by the way I’m an American J born in the good times, but see it so clearly. Many typos in my statement! I meant he projects how he lives now onto all* jews, including the ones that fled the h-caust to Israel. No ability to see things through the Jewish lense that’s not his own Jewish experience. And I don’t know *his background.
I’m watching because Aaron Mate is on. Aaron is always respectful so please allow him to communicate, uninterrupted. I do respect Norman Finkelstein, also, and am not persuaded by Noam’s opinions of him as I am not persuaded by Douglas Murray’s extreme, crazy assessment of Norman Finkelstein.
I also do t understand why people debate what people’s intentions were when they should just ask them- ask the people who were around in ‘67 or fought in the wars what their intentions were. What they felt during the time. What was going on. That’s the reality that history books are supposed to be written on- not someone’s perception from afar. Just ask the people who were there!! They were the ones in the history, making the history. The later and later history books are written from a certain time period, the further from reality they get. They interpret things through a current lense and not the lense of the time, with all the complicating factors that only the people living it could know.
I'm of the same mind as Mate when it comes to Isreal , however, he really undermines his own integrity, when he editorializes and cherry picks , and blindly denies literally every single piece of evidence contrary to his views. Reporters have done themselves no favors, by being so blatantly opinionated on their own reporting, tweeting anything that supports their view, and ignoring anything that contradicts it. This is what perpetuates the news echo chambers. I fear that the press have dug themselves a huge hole when it comes to public trust. Social media is amazing at deceminating information, but i fear the draw backs are beginning to erode objectivity in reporting.
When I say that, I mean his general view of Isreals actions in the current conflict, slaughtering Gazans and reducing their homes to rubble, plenty of evidence for that , independant if mr. Mate@@joge2468
We get it, both the US and Russia want to have influence in Ukraine’s politics. But according to Aaron, the Ukrainian people do not have any agency whatsoever. Sometimes it feels this guy does not live in the real world.
The amount of interrupting on the part of the interviewer makes this difficult to watch.
Noam we know you will defend Israel no matter what but for the love of god let the man finish his sentences. It seems that you love ruining an argument being made against your case via interruption and changing of the topic.
Noam wants to be correct but he also wants to be liked. So he acts like he floats a middle ground of intellectual honesty but his own bias won’t allow him to take the facts as they are.
Pretty spot on
The arrogance and fake intellectual humility of those who know nothing - better name for this podcast :)
Noam demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Bravo, Aaron Mate.
This seems like a trap interview with the sole purpose of lecturing Aaron and his fans, than actually understanding his point of view. You couldn't stop interupting the whole 2 hour interview, and I bet you spoke at least 95% of the time about your views. I think this had the opposite effect you hoped for.
I was on the fence about Aaron. His inability to get realistic about the sexual assault on October 7th and Hamas in general has led me to be unable to take him seriously. There is clearly other forces at work here on Aaron. This was disgusting.
@@Krestshinableit’s hard to take you seriously when you believe claims that have zero evidence of happening.
All of the sexual nonsense has been debunked. I don't know why the z's are so focused on violent sex. Maybe it's the big porn industry over there.
@@Krestshinableyeah. Come and complain over the sx violence and actual grape performed by the idf if you actually claim to care.
Host asks a question and then says, he doesn't care, and then goes on a ... monolog!
When?
@@comedycellarclipsStart the video in any random spot, watch about 10 minutes, and you'll see it happen 4-5 different times.
@@comedycellarclips It doesn't happen. I haven't listened/read Aaron Mate's content but he must've said something along these lines because several people are commenting the same thing when it never actually happened.
Aaron has patience of an angel
For real. Bless him 🙏🕊️🍉
Hi Noam
Of the 15 people that Hamas held captive at Pesi Cohen's house in Kibbutz Be'eri, 13 were killed. Of the 13 killed, 12 were killed by Israel itself, the vast majority of which due to deliberate tank shelling of the house with the hostages still in and or in close proximity to the house. We know this because of the eye witness testimony of the two survivors.
Look up the initial accounts of what happened there by the Israeli officers in charge and from most media.
This, along with the countless other examples of Israel lying about what happened on Oct 7th is why one should vet Israel's claims of Hamas ordered mass rape with prodigious due diligence.
Tragically, since many other massacre sites on Oct 7th had no survivors, and independent foreign investigations have been blocked, we may never know how many other Isrealis were likewise victims of the Hannibal directive.
ruclips.net/video/r63nmfbIUBA/видео.htmlsi=eVXIEDxYJhT1w55t
ruclips.net/video/SF52hZ8Dqfc/видео.htmlsi=IE5E93hlggdtuq9k
A recent investigation in israel found that the hostages were first shot dead by hamas. Most of them were already dead when the idf bombed the house.
You cannot be serious that you actually can’t mentally untangle that situation, and really think Israelis were trying to kill their own people or are to blame in any legit way? They were put in that position by gazans, knowingly. These people were k**ling everyone. If Israel continued waiting and didn’t do anything, they would’ve k**led the hostages inside anyway. Do you really think they could’ve waited until hearing the shots inside and it being too late? Do you really not mentally understand how complex and how difficult of a hostage situation that is??? Like you cannot be that “unsmart” to morally put blame on Israel. I’m totally serious- who the heck teaches you to think that way? Are you mslm or from mid east? Not attacking I’m genuinely asking. If so, and if you genuinely believe that’s a normal way to see the situation, I have to think that you are mistakenly seeing the Israelis as the other side of the coin to your side. When not everyone is like your side. Not everyone thinks like hummus or even the Palestinians. Completely different cultures and beliefs. You’re basically trying to find scenarios that on the surface could mirror the claims that are made about hummus (like trying to convince yourself that the Israelis are exactly the same). Unfortunately the logic and psychology you are applying is not correct. I think you are taught to look for the same behaviors in Israelis that your side portrays, without actually unpacking the intention or complexity of the situation. I find this interesting as it’s something I’ve noticed with the other side. They seem to want to think that the Israelis are just the same version of them on the other side. That’s where they are hugely mistaken. You have to realize that different people and cultures may think completely differently than you on every level. You can’t project your own way of thinking into Israelis.
@@sh25098because the Israelis would never shoot their own dead bodies and then claim Hamas did it, right? Jews never ever lie, right?
Bless you, Aaron. I can't watch though even on 1.5x because Noam is insufferable. I just watched part of him with Scott Horton too. Holy moly. Probably don't do this again, for your soul. 🙏🕊️🍉🤗💗
One of the worst right wing (not just Zionist but right wing overall) propagandists ever.
Avi Shlaim's statement about 1967 war being a defensive war on Israeli part - Noam rightly states that is a testimonial against evidence.
Menachem Begin and Moshe Dayan;s statements supporting an argument about 1967 being an Isareli offensive war - Noam dismisses them as not knowing about them, and states in his feverish eager tone that he wants to talk about Ukraine. The testimonials against evidence by Israelis rarely interest Noam.
Read Begin's speech and read Shlaim on the Dayan admission.
I might have put it in the notes, I can't remember.
@@comedycellarclips But they don't like reading.
If Noam is confronted by arguments that are troubling to him, he does not try to get to the bottom of the argument by questioning it and prodding the guest for his sources and bases of the arguments- instead, he gets fidgety and changes topic. Watching him flail like this gives me second hand embarrassment.
Example?
@comedycellarclips The host makes several points, and is allowed to speak freely for minutes at a time. Aaron responds with half a sentence, and the host "doesn't want to argue about that", "I want to get to Ukraine", "I want to move on to the Newland thing". Aaron was respectful and let the host make arguments, and the moment Aaron starts responding, we need to move on to another topic so the host can talk unchallenged for 5 more minutes.
Exactly!
@@indus7744
Keen/perceptive observation.
@@comedycellarclipswhere does Noam apologize to Norm Finkelstein for being right that Israel is starving Palestinians?
the host is absolutely unbearable
In love with the sound of his own voice
Didn’t this guy embarrass himself sufficiently last time with the Gaza interview glutton for punishment?
Which interview was that with?
ICC arrest warrants for the top brass, and there are going to be more for the dual citizens that went over to fight and are returning home. Love to see it.
Ugh. Why do you have to platform this guy?
Aaron Mate the GOAT 🥳
people need to hear the truth once in a while
Aaron is the best!
I was suspecting you are Jewish, and then I saw your nose ... 🤭
I feel bad for people like Aaron. They can’t see how affected they are by the historical trauma and abuse of being a J, and how it affects their thinking and perception of their people. And how their trauma gets used and exploited by the other side, by people who don’t understand that his viewpoints come from abuse by people like them, which gives him that self hate. It’s so twisted. They can’t see that the person they think is a hero for “calling out their own side” is really just damaged and full of self doubt - due to the same history of psychological abuse that they inflict on him now.
>"being provoked is a legal cause of war"- Noam
Tell me you know nothing about international law without telling me you know nothing about international law.
"Aaron is one case where it’s not just about bigotry. He denies atrocities against Muslims, against Christians, against Jews, and against atheists. He simply just sides with evil at every turn and will ignore whatever evidence you present because the point isn’t the truth."
@JLP4444 yes but he's also very specifically anti the USA & Israel
@@JLP4444 and he's Jewish
@@Dmoney177 he’s actually proper brainwashed. The way he talks is so scripted with all the “buzz words”. Very insincere.
@@raeli731irony, anyone? Bueller, Bueller...
@raeli731 ya. whatever makes the relevant. CLOUT chasers
Why do I come back to this show - well - to see the guests - but the host is just the worse. "I had on this reporter who broke that story, I had on this other reporter who broke that other story. When Israel does anything bad..." he's just unberable.
15:46 Let the guest talk dude !
He never does. The whole interview is like this.
This kook Aaron lives in a fantasy world. He's crazier than Agent Krotov.
The irony is: you don't know you're describing youself.
Noam accuses Aaron of bias, then says that when there are so many conflicting narratives around, the best thing to do is to look for a witness against yourself: a man admitting that he cheated on his wife is probably telling the truth. Then, when Aaron quotes exactly such a man (Moshe Dayan admitting that they started most of the conflicts on the DMZ with Syria), he goes on to say that is just "quote mining". Who is actually biased then ?
Avi Shlaim goes into more depth on the entire quote:
In retrospect, Dayan could not point to a clearly formulated strategic conception that governed Israel’s behavior in the DMZ between 1949 and 1967. All he suggested was that he and some of his fellow officers did not accept the 1949 armistice lines with Syria as final and hoped to change them by means that fell short of war, by “snatching bits of territory and holding on to it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.” This may have been naïve on their part, said Dayan, but at that time they did not have much experience in diplomacy among sovereign states.
@@comedycellarclips I don't know what point you are making. We are talking about a state that colluded with the former colonial powers (UK and France) and started a war in 1956. It caused a refugee crisis in 1948, and abolished Palestine by force. When this state "starts to chip away at territory", surely Syria would be suspicious of their intentions. They are expected to react in some way. And they did. You only have to understand this to know why Nasser reacted the way he did in 1967, and lost territory. Sometimes, showing strength works, sometimes it doesn't.
@@Yogesh-jq9jj "Abolished Palestine by force" is historically non-sensical. The principal reason a political entity called "Palestine" was created was as a vehicle for the formation of a Jewish state.
@@Yogesh-jq9jj
Noam can’t handle the truth!
Noam’s argument that Aaron should denounce people is absurdly adolescent. Why does Noam coerce people he respects, to condemn those he condemns, as if it’s a high school clique.
Who/what does Aaron source as evidence that Izzzrael’s neighbors invaded in 1948 because of the displacement of the Pians? Not only had it not happened yet, there is no historical record of any A leaders being upset about the refugees, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary.
November 29, 1947, Secretary General of the Arab League Pasha warned, “Arab men will not rally in great numbers if the Arabs are victorious from the start but if we suffer any defeats in the beginning then the Arabs will rally in huge numbers because it will be a question of racial pride."
The term nakba was first used by Constantine Zureiq to refer to the war of independence, whereby “seven Arab states declare war on Zionism, stop impotent before it, and then turn on their heels.” His brief mention of the refugees was his concern that they might be “forced to return to their homes, there to live under the Zionist shadow”.
At some point, we have to be honest about displacement and population transfers in the post-WWII period. They were both unremarkable.
Palestinians were expelled prior to the 1948 invasion, an example being deir yassin
@@billusher2265 I have no interest in litigating the numbers of those who fled vs those told to get out by the invading armies vs those expelled. That isn’t the point. I have never seen the refugees created by the civil w@£ cited as a pretense for the neighboring countries to invade in 1948. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but given A honor culture, it seems far more likely the refugees would be a source of embarrassment.
The word " Nakba" was used by George Antonius on page 312 in his book Arab Awakening 1938 writing about greater Syria.
@@Kfarsaba56 Re-read my post.
For some examples of scholarly discussion of this issue see chapter 5 of Jerome Slater's book Mythologies Without End (an overview of different scholars) or p. 165 of Anita Shapira's book Israel: A History (Shapira is not at all a New Historian).
This guys the worst. He looks unwell when you just look at his eyes. Unhinged.
Ya you're right, the host was something else.
I like how the host begun his argument accusing Aaron of ignoring contradictory information and then proceeded to undermine and ignore everting that wasn’t supportive of his views - you can’t trust what a guy puts down in his diary as his private thoughts. You have to judge him on what he said publicly as a politician.
Aaron is one of the rare journalists who has genuine integrity. Aaron will not “guess” … as a journalists, he requires evidence/facts.
🤡
I hope for your sake you didnt actually watch this
@@OptimusPowellI agree, I'm not sure we got to hear Aaron finish an idea once.
@@johnybalohny I don't think you get the nature of my comment. thanks though
Glenn Greenwald is 100% accurate . Let’s make thinking critical again
22:41 but if imposing an economic blockade is a legal cause for war doesn’t that also apply to Gaza which was under blockade?
You mean against Egypt??? But seriously, yes it is a legal cause for war, as are rockets fired regularly at civilians.
It's strange that they didn't attack Egypt, only Israel Why is that? The Egyptian blockade was much harsher At least from Israel,they received goods, healthcare, food, electricity, and water. From Egypt they got nothing So why didn't they attack Egypt?
@@BariNapach Is this a rhetorical question?
@@comedycellarclips I’m confused by this. The blockade was implemented as a non-violent response to rocket-fire as per the UN’s requirement that such things be tried prior to aggression. How can it be casus belli under such circumstances?
@@comedycellarclipsAre you agreeing Gaza has a legal cause for war because Gaza is blockaided, and has rockets fired at Gazan civilians regularly?
Christ why invite anyone on when it's afkn MONOLOGUE
Because that was the ulterior motive: to lecture and monologue. The host never cared to understand Aaron.
Ziobro egomaniacs will do that.
One of my many issues with this way of thinking is that a lot of the people who aren't Russian who are around Russia see themselves as deterrents to Russian hegemony. That's a thousand-year-old historic fact
In the discussions of 1967 (not just here, but in many places) there seems to be some conflation between general public sentiment regarding the threat from Egypt and other Arab states vs. the knowledge of intelligence officials and politicians familiar with intelligence. Even in some historical writing it seems like the general public mood is sometimes cited as a reason for calling the war "defensive," but this risible in the same way as calling the 2003 Invasion of Iraq "defensive" (though maybe to a lesser degree, I admit). Regarding Shalim, even his claim on p. 242 of Iron Wall falls into an odd understanding of "defensive" - he calls it a "defensive war," but not in response to attack - in order to "safeguard its security." This is after pages of discussion of intelligence showing Egypt wasn't going to attack, showing that Israeli policymakers were concerned to "restore the deterrence power of the IDF" (p. 240), and concerns like that. Perhaps most perplexing of all, it is after Shlaim's own claim on p. 235 that "Israel's strategy of escalation on the Syrian front was probably the single most important factor in dragging the Middle East to war in June 1967." For some sources to read up on I'd recommend the overview of (liberal) scholarship by Jerome Slater beginning on p. 129 of his Mythologies Without End.
As we know, intelligence is a best guess and very very often wrong. Countless examples come to mind, you know them as well as I.
But.
1. You don't blockade a nation, throw out UN Peacekeepers, mass 100,000 troops on a border, while spewing violent rhetoric, and THEN complain that you were taken seriously. I mean, c'mon. That is just obviously BS.
2. No matter what happened in Egypt, Jordan attacked. That was a decision that King Hussein later admitted it was a mistake. When you stage an attack under the banner of "driving the Jews into the sea," and you then lose, and your border territory is occupied, and you then refuse to negotiate, or to make peace, you don't have much right to complain.
You should read “Six Days of War” by Michael Oren, which presents a play-by-play of the weeks and days up to the 6DW. It’s pretty darn obvious that Izzzraeli leaders were torn among themselves about whether Egypt (with Syria) was planning to attack. They clearly didn’t want to start something unnecessarily, but were haunted by earlier surprises.
@@joge2468 What you just said comes from the sort of confusion I was talking about, which is probably exacerbated by Oren's very popular book. It's true that the *political speeches* and *pretenses* leading up to the war were fevered in their fear of an impending Arab attack, but that comes largely from speeches and memoirs and the like - I don't think there's really a lot of scholarly controversy over the fact that the intelligence estimates were in massive tension with public statements and postures (and confirmed by Israel's decisive victory and subsequent statements by even Israeli officials like Begin and Rabin). Also, Oren has been shown to almost comically manipulate some sources - for example brazenly removing the phrase "that was started by Israel" in a quote by al-Rifai that Oren uses to argue that Jordan was afraid of an *Egyptian* first strike (p. 128)! 😂 Literally an inversion of the reality of the quote. (Note: this is discussed in Norman Finkelstein's review of Oren printed in his very meticulous book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.)
@@comedycellarclips 0. I'm not sure I know of comparable cases to this... especially where the intelligence was shared and subsequently admitted by Israeli officials. But I'm not an expert in comparing different examples of intelligence about potential armed conflict. In any case, here we'd be here comparing well-informed intelligence-agreed to in private-to fearful public sentiment and political speeches.
1. I wasn't talking about Arab states "complaining." But part of my point was that their rhetoric and troop deployments *weren't* taken very seriously *in private,* at least in terms of posing a serious threat to Israel militarily, though the IDF was keen to establish deterrence etc. according to Shlaim (who somehow thinks that justifies calling it a "defensive war").
2. Again I'm not talking about - or even interested in - what political leaders "complain" about etc. According to Shlaim, Israel's provocations were a significant cause of the 1967 war. Suppose Arab states had attacked Israel and taken land... would the provocations mean Israel couldn't "complain"? I guess they could or couldn't.... I don't really care, I'm interested in the historical events here and the causes.
Ultimately, even though Aaron conceded the point about Shlaim, I think he shouldn't have. Aaron seems very smart and friendly, but he thinks in the quote-mining style - so you finding Shlaim calling the war defensive defeated him. But if you look at Shlaim's overall analysis you can see that what he thinks counts as making the war "defensive" isn't at all what most people mean by "defensive war."
@ I don’t trust anyone unequivocally, and it doesn’t surprise me that Oren selectively quoted someone! Still, this book aligns with everything else I have read on the 6DW in terms of the judgements of the stakeholders and the information at hand. I have not seen any evidence that the intelligence indicated anything other than Egypt (and Syria) preparing for w@£. I think you are engaging in the fallacy of hindsight. Yes, we can say now, “That didn’t indicate an imminent attack,” because we know it didn’t. I believe you are allowing that knowledge to infect your judgement about what was reasonable to assume at the time.
AS I recall, the stakeholders were all in agreement (save perhaps Ben Gurion) that each subsequent move by Egypt only confirmed their fears. Egypt systematically moved into positions described in w@£plans Izzzraeli intelligence had for a decade. Neighboring states - particularly Syria and Iraq - were likewise deploying troops. Egypt closed the Straits, knowing it would be viewed as a provocation (and reason enough for Izzzrael to have casus belli). And dismissed peacekeeping forces, which can really only be viewed one way, can it not?
Noam needs to get off his high horse.
If US helps Ukraine militarily and finances have a right to discuss which politicians etc.
I’m only about 35 min in right now but I have to say I truly don’t understand why Noam believes Mate debates in good faith. He repeatedly cherry-picks quotes, deliberately obfuscating the context and dodges direct questions.
It is obvious that he doesn’t actually seek to learn anything or examine his beliefs - he is heavily invested in this worldview and will say just about anything to make it appear true, including things he must know to be half-truths or outright lies.
He’s like Dave smith.
I don't think Noam has ever given a satisfactory answer to where he draws his lines. In other contexts, he talks as if he has clear ideas of what constitutes principled and moral behavior, but when it comes to engaging with people like Mate, his rationalizations make him seem like complete relativist (e.g., "well, you just can't expect Brianna Joy Gray to be honest...").
I never said that about BGJ. The line is obvious. It's whether I think the conversation is worthwhile. If you're listening to it, you must be getting something out of it, no?
@@comedycellarclips yeah personally I get a lot out of these podcasts and I think they do a lot to expose the nonsense that’s out there. I just don’t understand why you consider Mate, Finkelstein etc. as being good faith actors. Doesn’t mean they aren’t worth talking to.
I watch because I think you're a uniquely talented interviewer.
First...i love this show. Just picked up over the last six months and it is a lock in the pod rotation.
2nd...Noam needs to let the co hosts eat at the table. I m good if he wants to run his own show, but if its a 3 person show, he needs to give them some more runway when they do decide to chime in. They could be more succinct, but i feel like they're on the clock when they speak and that doesnt serve the pod well.
Overall, i love the thoughtful discussions on this pod, and the guests have been awesome.
Agree with part 1, Hard disagree with part 2. Consider Dan and Periel to be comic relief, not co-hosts. Noam is the one who does the work to prepare for these conversations.
Another deep and brilliant convo. This channel is criminally unsubscribed
unfortunately the comment section is always a dumpster fire haha
No, there was nothing deep about not letting you guest speak more than a sentence before interupting and moving on to your next monologue.
Host talks for ten minutes and allows guest to stutter through two minutes, how zionist.
Aaron’s time was not occupied. He had full control over his time, Noam just had to monitor it to make sure he didn’t engage in any terrorist speech.
Aaron as never made any terrorist speech. Most of you supporting evil will realise in few years down that you are the worst of all human, and you'll live your live knowing people like Netanyahu.
Aaron isn't motivated by narcissism.
Can someone get Noam a headset that fits?
He is doing the old “one-ear in one-ear out” haha I do this a lot but I’m alone in my studio…not on camera
Good job, yall doing gods work out there
Maté dismantled this fool. Free Palestine.
I thought you were going to have Finkelstein back on? Despite the heated parts, that was a really good episode
He ghosted us.
Ugh. Mate.
Good episode!
The key point on October 7th crimes is not whether there’s enough evidence to convict Hamas soldiers but that even if they _are_ guilty of every allegation, it doesn’t justify the war crime of collective punishment or the ethnic cleansing/genocide (crimes against humanity).
Nothing justifies collective punishment. But collateral damage is a different story.
Candace's state is worsening
I think the Zaka thing is very misrepresented. Yes, it's true that Zaka ppl said things that ended up not being true - but that sort of thing always happens in the early moments following a chaotic event. It's not deliberate and it's not malicious. I remember hearing all types of things on 9/11 that ended up being untrue or exaggerrated. Little details get misheard and misunderatood, and then repeated, and it snowballs... and then things clear up in the following days. Give Zaka a break they do very important work.
I know, it was probably severely traumatic and they didn’t know what they were seeing. But I’m sure whatever they said they saw probably was reality, it’s a matter of how it’s interpreted in the moment. I actually don’t know what they are referring to that wasn’t true but if it was the SA, I’m sure they saw things that were undeniable sings of it.
I’m sure none of it’s true. They didn’t lie, that’s bizarre.
@@RachelJ-ki6nt Do you believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?
If it’s not deliberate why were the claims repeated over and over and by the highest levels of government? And how do you accidentally think you saw 40 beheaded babies?
@@billusher2265 They were "repeated over and over again" within the same 48-hour period after the attacks. Government officials were repeating what they had heard in the media.
As for the 40 babies, this was a case of broken telephone. One person said that 40 children were killed, including babies (which is true). There were also reports of beheadings (which was also true - there is even footage). These two facts ended up getting merged incorrectly by the media into one claim.
Thank you
The reason he thinks Norman Finkelstein is batshit crazy is because he's so intense and so human, something which overwhelms him.
I just think he says that about anyone who doesn't agree with his narrative, and doesn't let him philabuster the whole interview.
They weren’t pushed over the line into “what was supposed to their state”.
Explain?
@ meaning Israel took 78% of Mandate Palestine despite the 55% partitioned to them.
@@stargazerh112 I heard the statement differently, but I see where it was ambiguous. I think Noam was countering the refugee status of those As in the WB and Azag, ie they’re internally displaced at best. He was also making the point that a right of return is not applicable since they are still in the same vicinity as where they started. The right of return does not guarantee a return to your original home or village.
@ they are not internally displaced at best. If the partition was 55% of the territory, and Israel ended up with 78% those people in the 23% that was taken beyond what the partition recommended are not internally displaced. And that is granting the authority and/or Legitimacy of the partition in the first place and doesn’t even address settlements. Also the patrician did not call for the displacement of the people in the “55%”
@ Listen closely… If a country was x + y, but is now just y, and the inhabitants of y ended up in x, they are internally displaced if they’re anything. Given their current proximity to y, they’re not even that.
Have you ever had Michael Oren on? He’s the guy to talk to about the 6DW. His book is a play by play of the years/months/days leading up to it. Zero talk about seizing land.
We had him on a few months ago.
who is the prime minister right now? lol, cant answer, what a disingenous clown mate is
why does aaron NOT mention that when yatesnyuk became prime minister, he was voted into office by the ukrainian rada with near unanimous support, including 94 out of 95 members of yanukovych's own party?
Guess you can't have an opinion on a decades long conflict if you don't know the Prime Minister at this moment.
@@johnybalohny not what i said at all, way to miss the point
@atguils Are you not able to look back at the very first sentence you wrote that I responded to? Please, tell me what I didn't understand about that.
@@johnybalohny no, you either didnt understand or dont want to understand what I wrote. everyone can have an opinion on anything, no matter how un/misinformed, as you are so amply demonstrating and i never claimed otherwise
Aaron the truth mate 💪👊👏
Aaron wouldn't know the truth if it sat on his face.
Entertaining this as if he's not completely disingenuous or a complete idiot? Actually hurts us more.
Actually your inability to listen is what is hurting you most.
Oslo was an attempt to steal more land? What?
** pps. If you read Qurei's book, he didn't seem to think so either.
Loool
People like him believe they know exactly what was in the mind of every Israeli at every point in history. They are psychic apparently!
Maybe the idea is that Oslo was in part an attempt to legitimize the west bank settlements? I mean, it's pretty silly, but I try to find the most sensible core of their claims 🤷♂️
Stealing land by giving it away....
For. The. Love. Of. God. Stop. Inter. Rupting.
Aaarooon🤩
13:13 dude you been talking 4 eva!
Just wait if you manage to watch the whole thing, it doesn't stop.
It's rare to see 4x more comments than likes. Great convo.
No one wants to spread mate’s nonsense.
What's with the headphones? Is that prop comedy?
I think he's got someone coaching him in his ear.
Aaron Mate-and-Bailey.
So much propaganda on both sides. Either way people are dying. And we need conversations from all sides to find out wtf is really going on.
It is a travesty that we dont have access to credible journalism which presents the facts and data so that we the people can make informed decisions. Hard to feel a part of a democracy without a strong healthy journalism institution.
Eh, not entirely. I hate when people both sides it, because sometimes that means they don’t understand both sides properly. Sometimes things are not 50/50. Sometimes they are 70/30, 90/10. 100/0. You have to get to know the people on both sides over a long period of time to understand that, and truly understand the different psyches on each. I believe the Arabs probably had perceptions of Jews immigrating back then that were very wrong but understandable according to their knowledge. But I feel like they were never remotely willing to talk to the other side and explore the idea that they may be wrong.
I just don’t understand the people who only admonish Zelenskyy, but rarely have anything negative to say about the person who invaded his country.
They're evil?
Russia had UN sanctioned peace keeping forces in Abkhazia and they were un alived by Georgians, in 2008. So, being there done that.
Having debated the Israeli-Palestian Arab conflict I have not heard Walter Lowdermilk, Martin Gilbert or Efraim Karsh name come up in these discussions. To have a podcast journalist on does not always lend itself to knowledge of the topic.
Yeah. Everyone knows an owner of a comedy club is the ultimate authority on the subject. LMFAO. Not an actual award winning journalist.
@@under-en6lo Awards like Yassar Arafat Nobel Peace Award or Barack Obama Nobel Peace Award. Walter Duranty Pulitzer Award . Awards -LOL
I guarantee you none of them will follow-up on the "sensitive issue" at the end. I'd like to see that debate, but I just know it won't happen. And if it does, please don't bring Eylon Levy as your expert nor that woman Fleur... lol.
Haha!
Why, because they are great communicators of the truth and you can’t handle it? It bothers you?
@@RachelJ-ki6nt Haha!
@@RachelJ-ki6ntwho? Fleeuurrrrrr? 😂 lol!
Did you guys talk before and decide to not go through with the plan to rehash that list and topics from last time, having beforehand agreed on a set of facts? I thought that was a good idea. Did you forget about that?
Either way, great interview.
So israel was blockaded and felt besieged in 1967 so it launched a war , would you describe Gaza situation any different?
Israeli diplomatic efforts to prevent violent confrontation was substantial. Egyptian forces were massing on the border for weeks while Israelis begged the US to prevent conflict. Israel was asking Jordan and Egypt to not start a war. Egypt refused to let peace keeping forces return to the Sinai, and refused to stop threatening Israel.
I would love to see that kinda effort from Gaza before they start wars.
Israel's blockade of Gaza was meant to prevent weapons from reaching a group that was openly hostile and agressive towards Israel (Hamas). It was for defensive purposes. Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression. It meant to strangle Israel, as part of their plan to attack and destroy it. Not the same.
Nope, wikileaks leaked messages from Israeli officials saying the goal was to keep Gaza’s economy on the brink of collapse.
@@billusher2265 A few random comments are not definitive, and dont represent what Israel's strategy was throughout all 18 years of the blockade. But either way, the question is why? It's not bc Israelis just dont like Gazans. It's bc Hamas presented an agressive and hostile threat to Israel, and Israel's objective was to protect itself - either by restricting access to weapons etc, or by weakening Gaza economically in order to induce an internal revolt.
- that’s not different from Egypt’s reason for blockading, they received intel from the Soviet Union on security
- when they won the election they offered a long term peace treaty in exchange for a state, instead Israel attempted a coup then strengthened the blockade
- long before this Israel was doing raids in Gaza to stop Palestinians trying to return to their home they were expelled from, like Khan Yunis 1956
- your final statement agrees with what I said, it was collective punishment to get a response, it came and now they have an excuse to cleanse
- given that the PA a in the West Bank has been collaborating for years and the response has just been to expand settlements and treat them even worse it’s clear it’s not just security
Aaron is great, many honest jews, but not on mainstream media
He is a narc - haunted by his inept father. "Listen. Listen. Anyway. Okay. Okay...".
Thank you for platforming people like this. When you let them talk it's the best way to discredit them. It's a clear giveaway of bias (for lack of a stronger word), whenever someone uses quotes instead of facts. He even at one point said someone should've used a quote of Biden, rather than that the person was wrong.
Quotes mean literally nothing. Human beings are infinite word generators. You can put together quotes from any time period to fit any narrative. I wish people wouldn't even engage with them.
If you ask a Donald Trump fan how his presidency was in 2016, they'd just quote him and his people and it would sound perfect. Same for Biden (Or anyone from any time period ever), Quotes are useless. Whenever someone goes to quotes in a debate I always wish the host would stop them and point out how their quotes are not evidence and please use evidence if you're going to require evidence.
They use quotes and then create their own narrative around them, and decide what the person meant and why. Only the person who said it knows what they meant.
On the other hand, sometimes you can take what people say and use it to judge their motives and feelings. Like when so many people of a collective continually say J’s are demons, deserve to be unalived just for existing, and are dehumanized, you can draw conclusions.
@@RachelJ-ki6nt exactly, but even if the person MEANT IT, it still doesn't matter. All that matters is what HAPPENED.
You can find someone from any group in the wrong state of mind, at war, grieving etc that could say something they would never really do.
Lol, he barely got to talk, so I guess not much discrediting happened.
Noam, what did you find that Zaka lied about?
I highly recommend this 16 minute report by Double Down News, "What Really Happened on October 7," which reviews what evidence does and/or does not reveal about what happened on Oct 7, including allegations of sexual assault.
ruclips.net/video/-mxfnya3ZRc/видео.html
Thank you.
I listened to it. Imo, its excellent and consistent with other credible reporting.Thanks again.
May I ask you a question, whats your opinion of Live From The Table with regards to its impact on how people respond to whats happened to Palestinians since and including Oct 7th ?
You can’t listen to random reports on RUclips.
@@RachelJ-ki6ntyeah, let’s listen to Jews, who never lie.
Why is Noam threatened by Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson?
You are seriously an idiot
He was trying to group Aaron in with their ideas, that was the point.
Underrated podcast. Intro before interview/debate/discussion is way too long though.
I understand (I knew it at the time). I felt it necessary though. I get a lot of pushback about these things, and I wanted to make myself clear.
Periel doesn’t get it. Ever.
It seems Aaron’s template for thinking about conflicts is “the Original sin”.
He decides who have sined in Israel it was “the Zionists” and in “Ukraine” it was the US and since Ukraine is an extension of the US (or something close) in his eyes Ukrainians need to pay.
Such a simplistic way to look at the world!
That said, the fact that he can see you as a friend although those fundamental disagreements gave him a lot of points in my view (and I’m saying it as an Israeli who knows he hates me and for whole he cares me and my kids deserve to die).
He’s damaged, someone to be ignored. Doesn’t it make you furious to listen to foreigners like him think they know what’s what in Israel, when they have zero authority or basis to know anything about the reality on the ground? I’m American and I can’t imagine how an Israeli could listen to the people like him, who speak as if they know something that the people living there don’t. So obnoxious.
@ Oh I gotten used to it…:)
I don’t pay attention to what people like him say, it has no substance in my eyes.
He is saying in the begging: “Yes I have a bias but it’s supported by facts”😂
How can someone take him seriously!?
The way I see it, he lives in lalaland and at best he and the likes of him are projecting their bs on us and the Palestinians.
He doesn’t hate you; I’ve no doubt he’s a nice genuine fellow. He simply cannot for one reason or another unspool the logic of his arguments to the regressive hellscape where they lead.
@yaniv - I can imagine. But it’s worse when it’s his type of “Jew” (I hesitate to call him a Jew), the people who don’t realize they let the hate and psychological abuse against Jews and israel get to them, manifesting as shame and self hate. People think they can read a book that goes over the history from one persons perspective and suddenly they know everything. And what he thinks are facts are really subjective opinions. Yeah it’s funny, because he shows he knows neither population, not Palestinians or Israelis. How are things holding up in Israel? It’s painful the way they are being treated. I wish I could visit and help.
32:19 this was a missed point. Noam is saying that a black person 500 years from now would be indigenous AND wouldn't have rights to return. Yet Ashkenazi Jews do after 3500 years?
NO. I only was making clear that they are two separate points. In fact, Jews were a majority in Jerusalem, and there was no legal or moral reason in the late 1800s or early 1900s that they couldn't join and expand their existing and ancient community.
Also, read up on Liberia.
This obsession with Ashkenazim as "white Jews" is ridiculous diaspora shaming with petty logic. Why does a Persian Jew have inherent right to expel a Palestinian from their home because Persia is considered also part of the Islamic ummah? Sure, bro.
@comedycellarclips No one doubts that there were Jews in Palestine in the last century. The question which you answered for yourself without knowing it is that Ashkenazi Jews, Jews from India and Jews from other parts of the world don't have a right to settle in the country and have this right imposed on others by force and deception.
You'll have to be more specific in your recommendation to "read about Liberia" and how this connects to your point that US blacks 300 years from now have no right to return to the parts of Africa that they were enslaved from.
@@SuperKripke Ten years ago, Spain offered to repatriate any Js who show that their ancestors were expelled in the 15th Century.
@@SuperKripke Ummm… all Js are descended from the same Levantine population. What are you talking about?
Wow, what an amazing episode. My respect you to you Noam; I normally don’t agree with your takes but I immensely appreciate the method you use to get to them. Happy you had Maté on and just yeah keep doing what you’re doing great video😊
Aaron is correct about original sin.
Mate is the worst kind of dishonest actor. Hamas atrocity needs the most rigorous evidence to be believed. Israel atrocity doesnt need any evidence to be believed. He's actually worse than Tucker Carlson cos he at least has the good sense to leave his clown nose and clown car out of plain sight.
Aaron is brilliant.
Perhaps no other journalism has been more essential to my understanding of what happened on Oct 7th:
ruclips.net/video/SF52hZ8Dqfc/видео.htmlsi=62WYGl4TtqTNv80a
The only people who say "alleged Russian atrocities in Bucha" are ones who are wilfully ignorant to the facts, or who can't admit them, because it destroys their argument. Aaron consistently tailors his facts to his ideology, regardless of how many times the truth is pointed out to him.
I wish Noam would break out a whiteboard, list Aaron’s ‘evidence’ for a given position, and then cross off each piece as it’s proven incorrect. A visual like this might help to illustrate exactly how flimsy his argument is.
@@joge2468The dude has been corrected so many times on his misrepresentations of facts by so many people that have manifestly greater expertise than him, yet continues to peddle literally the exact same misinformation, no matter how many times he's corrected. He's a bad faith actor.
@@GeorgeousOhm I agree. I didn’t mean for Aaron’s benefit.
The SHEER FACT that Mate said that the original sin is the formation of the state of Israel is extremely telling. It's either
1. He does not know the history in the early 1900s, way before any clear borders who the home of the jews were created.
2. He knows the history, but his bias does not allow him to accept the fact that it's not as simple as "original sin was the creation of the state of Israel" and the Arabs around that area had no agency and ZERO responsibility in the events that took place.
He has also never provide reasons why the land is the historic homeland of the Palestinian and not the Jews, and simply assumes that is the case.
Aaron sounds way less unhinged on your podcast than his panels on Pierce Morgan - It's nice to see he is just dug into his position - and not the crazy unhinged nutjob he sounds like in shouting debates!
Lol he's one of the most calm and collected debaters I've seen. You're obviously mistaken.
His game of cherry picking quotes and talking quotes out of context is so pathetic and bad faith. Not surprised he looks at Finkelstien as a hero
This is exactly what I think about the whole school that Aharon Mate belongs to
How would they like if people analyzed their lives and their intentions from the outside and went around the world saying it. Wouldn’t be fun to hear random people claim to know your truth. He’s just unwise.
Oh, I thought you were talking about the bad faith host, cherry picking quotes.
He should let Erin talk
Aaron!!!! ❤🩹🖤🤍💚
ruclips.net/video/qmjGdzyj5BA/видео.html
I'd fork over for good pay per view money of Aaron crying into his Stolichnaya watching the news from Syria over the last two days...
I read Avi Schlaim’s book and learned so much. I love Aaron’s resolve. His viewpoint is based on his extensive research. Noam just can’t accept that an intelligent person won’t be persuaded to his point of view.
Dude, you have like 5 separate comments on this video spamming anti-Israel crap. Did you forget to switch to your alt accounts when your spam? Jesus...
Should’ve caught Aron with the hudnah that’s unfortunately what Tzvi yehezkeli has been yapping about for years , not understanding Arab mentality in this case is detrimental to solving this for all sides and he just causally got away with one of the key parts of it.
Regardless -
The right in Israel would live for Gaza to be free and I’m talking about the actual revisionist right not Ben gvir imported kahanist wakos. The real frightening factor for them is the security breach that giving a land connection between WB and Gaza would create. Should’ve put him in the point with this since it’s just wrong how people can BS without accountability.
Appreciate you Noam
Noam: 500 years from now a black guy will be able to say he’s indigenous to Africa”. Not if he’s a white man and has a separate culture 500 years from now.
When does a black man become “white”? What percentage? According to the US in the 1930s, any perceptible trace of black blood, meant the person was black. According to the knotsies, 25% (one Jish grandparent) meant you were Jish. All Ashkenazi are 30-50% Levantine. Mizrahi are at least 50% mixed with some other MENA heritage, and a small amount of Spanish from the Sephardi who mixed after Spanish expulsion. It’s very convenient for the racists to now claim you must be overwhelmingly Levantine to count as Jish. Additionally, Jish culture/religion/language is thoroughly Levantine unlike Islaaam & Arabic.
@@joge2468 They are not Levantine, they are converts of Irano-Turkic origin. And it is 40% - 20% Middle Eastern. Ashkenazi are genetically distant to other Levantine groups.
So now are you saying Jews are white? Interesting. What did you consider them 100 years ago? What about 60 years ago in the US? What else are Jews that they don’t even know they are according to you? Does that mean my dark skinned sister is now not Jewish because she’s brown, but I am because I am light?
@@based4573 The Khazarian theory has been utterly debunked by DNA studies (and history and archeology). Read Josephus - at least 100,000 Jews were sent by the Roman colonial power as slaves to Europe. That's the origin of Ashkenazi Jews - over the centuries they were expelled around the continent and most ended up in central and eastern Europe.
@@leica0001 Josephus is NOT a reliable historical source.
It seems like Aaron is unable to see the situation emotionally through the Jewish lense. Only the other side. It seems that people who can’t see the suffering of Israel and the Jews are the American Jews who have now been living in safety and comfort for a while, and project their experience into a Jews, including the ones who came to Israel and currently live in Israel. So they only see the other side through who they perceive as the victim, and think all Jews always lived like he is now. Which is a shame, because it’s the first time Jews have been equal and not mistreated or k**led (although it’s come back obviously…). Also I don’t know background but usually children of h-caust survivors have his mentally due to psychological trauma that they don’t even realize they have (centuries of shame, fear, hate, psychological abuse, gaslighting, framing, blaming and the h-caust etc etc). They are particularly sensitive to seeing others as being treated how J’s were during the h-cause, and tend to see it everywhere even when the situation is totally different. They also have this engrained self-blame, shame, all of it from how J’s have always been treated and all the abuse. It’s like “abused wife syndrome”. Maybe his grand parents were survivors (though usually this is more common with direct children of survivors), but he has that mentality. And it’s sad because people from the other side take advantage of those deep psychological issues that stem from the h-caust and the whole J history.
And by the way I’m an American J born in the good times, but see it so clearly. Many typos in my statement! I meant he projects how he lives now onto all* jews, including the ones that fled the h-caust to Israel. No ability to see things through the Jewish lense that’s not his own Jewish experience. And I don’t know *his background.
Awful sound
I’m watching because Aaron Mate is on. Aaron is always respectful so please allow him to communicate, uninterrupted. I do respect Norman Finkelstein, also, and am not persuaded by Noam’s opinions of him as I am not persuaded by Douglas Murray’s extreme, crazy assessment of Norman Finkelstein.
I also do t understand why people debate what people’s intentions were when they should just ask them- ask the people who were around in ‘67 or fought in the wars what their intentions were. What they felt during the time. What was going on. That’s the reality that history books are supposed to be written on- not someone’s perception from afar. Just ask the people who were there!! They were the ones in the history, making the history. The later and later history books are written from a certain time period, the further from reality they get. They interpret things through a current lense and not the lense of the time, with all the complicating factors that only the people living it could know.
Same could be said about ""people"" from 1933 - 1945, who denied ""certain"" claims
Yeah, everyone that can be should be asked about their intentions. Straight from the source.
Mate is a liar on the rape issue and most likely everything else
He’s correct. Cope harder.
@@areaunderthecurve9918
He isn't.
I'm of the same mind as Mate when it comes to Isreal , however, he really undermines his own integrity, when he editorializes and cherry picks , and blindly denies literally every single piece of evidence contrary to his views.
Reporters have done themselves no favors, by being so blatantly opinionated on their own reporting, tweeting anything that supports their view, and ignoring anything that contradicts it.
This is what perpetuates the news echo chambers.
I fear that the press have dug themselves a huge hole when it comes to public trust.
Social media is amazing at deceminating information, but i fear the draw backs are beginning to erode objectivity in reporting.
How can you be of the same mind when all of his evidence is proven wrong? To cling to a position that is evidence-free is the height of bias.
When I say that, I mean his general view of Isreals actions in the current conflict, slaughtering Gazans and reducing their homes to rubble, plenty of evidence for that , independant if mr. Mate@@joge2468
Lol you're delusional if you think Aaron was the one guilty of all that.
We get it, both the US and Russia want to have influence in Ukraine’s politics. But according to Aaron, the Ukrainian people do not have any agency whatsoever. Sometimes it feels this guy does not live in the real world.
Aaron said multiple times that the US should not be interfering with Ukraine politics. It's obvious you're not in the real world.
@@johnybalohny And? How does that change what I said?
@@pepunar I misread a word, I thought you said: Aaron thinks the Ukrainians *should* not have any agency.
@@johnybalohny No worries:)