Weird how comments work on Substack. I was able to comment on the paid version but there is a whole other comment thread here that is entirely separate. Anyway, I'll just repost what I wrote over there: This was tough to listen to. I don't fault Andy though for having her on. I hate to Monday morning quarterback this, but I can't help it…
Weird how comments work on Substack. I was able to comment on the paid version but there is a whole other comment thread here that is entirely separate. Anyway, I'll just repost what I wrote over there: This was tough to listen to. I don't fault Andy though for having her on. I hate to Monday morning quarterback this, but I can't help it. He did push her on some things, which I was hoping for, but I feel like he also let her weasel out or provide half-answers. (Man, he also asked some REALLY long-winded and wandering questions where perhaps one pointed question got completely buried by a bunch of distractions, which made it easier for her to pick and choose what to answer.) Early on, he asked (paraphrased), "So what does victory look like for your movement?" and her answer (also paraphrased), "The US should cut off military and financial aid to Israel etc". But... the follow-up that was missing is, "To what end? Not what specific political goal are you trying to reach but what is the real and ultimate goal of this movement?" If he had asked that follow-up, he might have forced her to be explicit about the fact that she wants a Jew-free Middle East. Because what else would be the outcome of Israel losing support and losing this war? What else does "from the river to the sea" mean? What becomes of Jews in the Middle East if they are living in a single state, from the river to the sea, ruled by Hamas or the PA? I guess you could ask the Jews of Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Jord- oh, wait. She wants, and hopes, for the Jews of Israel to die or be expelled. It's implicit in her argument, as a journalist he could've made it explicit.
I too felt the need to quarterback the interview. I have no idea if this part is true, but in fairness to Andy, I know from personal experience that it's near-impossible to get a pro-Palestinian activist to agree to an interview that has any whiff of antagonism or pushback. I've seen how sensitive to criticism these people are and expected Eman to walk out of the interview in response to the first substantive question. Again, I don't know if Andy was concerned about triggering Eman, but it's an achievement for anyone to get them to agree to an interview.
I generally agree with your point, but I'm going to try to steel-man the pro-Palestinian argument here: when pressed on this issue, many people in this movement claim that the goal is a single, secular, multi-ethnic state where Palestinians, Jews, and smaller minority groups live as equals. But that's the best I can steel man it, because the devil is really in the details, and on just about every point, it doesn't look good for Israeli Jews. First, they seem to want a single state without a Jewish character and that state would be Palestine, not Israel. The Palestinian right of return would be basically unlimited, and how that ends up with anything other than a reverse Nakba is beyond me. Basically, Jews are relegated to permanent minority status and at the mercy of Palestinian parties that range from corrupt to theocratic. I don't see creative solutions like a multi-ethnic federative state with real protections for religious and ethnic minorities put on offer.
There might be a good-faith version of Palestinian liberation politics, but it seems notably absent from the radical pro-Palestine movement. Which is why I don't think it's going to make any headway in the American political mainstream, but will continue to thrive in places like academia.
I have my own set of criticisms of pro-Israel politics, which seem to lean toward maintaining the current shitty status quo and that this will somehow drive Palestinians to the bargaining table and maybe end with a viable two-state solution. We've had decades of this, and it isn't turning out too well.
I completely agree and came here to say this (also a paying subscriber). I wish Andy had asked more pointed questions without so much throat clearing and contextualizing and had asked pointed follow-ups. The way he surrounded many questions in fluff allowed her to evade the real question and just address one of the side points.
I also wish he had addressed the issue of Hamas and Hezbollah embedding themselves into civilian infrastructure, causing far more civilian casualties than would have otherwise been the case. Eman would have undoubtedly claimed that those are IDF lies and that there is no evidence for that, but it’s a critical aspect of this war and should be a part of any discussion of it.
Weird how comments work on Substack. I was able to comment on the paid version but there is a whole other comment thread here that is entirely separate. Anyway, I'll just repost what I wrote over there: This was tough to listen to. I don't fault Andy though for having her on. I hate to Monday morning quarterback this, but I can't help it. He did push her on some things, which I was hoping for, but I feel like he also let her weasel out or provide half-answers. (Man, he also asked some REALLY long-winded and wandering questions where perhaps one pointed question got completely buried by a bunch of distractions, which made it easier for her to pick and choose what to answer.) Early on, he asked (paraphrased), "So what does victory look like for your movement?" and her answer (also paraphrased), "The US should cut off military and financial aid to Israel etc". But... the follow-up that was missing is, "To what end? Not what specific political goal are you trying to reach but what is the real and ultimate goal of this movement?" If he had asked that follow-up, he might have forced her to be explicit about the fact that she wants a Jew-free Middle East. Because what else would be the outcome of Israel losing support and losing this war? What else does "from the river to the sea" mean? What becomes of Jews in the Middle East if they are living in a single state, from the river to the sea, ruled by Hamas or the PA? I guess you could ask the Jews of Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Jord- oh, wait. She wants, and hopes, for the Jews of Israel to die or be expelled. It's implicit in her argument, as a journalist he could've made it explicit.
I too felt the need to quarterback the interview. I have no idea if this part is true, but in fairness to Andy, I know from personal experience that it's near-impossible to get a pro-Palestinian activist to agree to an interview that has any whiff of antagonism or pushback. I've seen how sensitive to criticism these people are and expected Eman to walk out of the interview in response to the first substantive question. Again, I don't know if Andy was concerned about triggering Eman, but it's an achievement for anyone to get them to agree to an interview.
This observation alone speaks volumes. If their position were actually renewable, you’d expect them to take on all comers.
I generally agree with your point, but I'm going to try to steel-man the pro-Palestinian argument here: when pressed on this issue, many people in this movement claim that the goal is a single, secular, multi-ethnic state where Palestinians, Jews, and smaller minority groups live as equals. But that's the best I can steel man it, because the devil is really in the details, and on just about every point, it doesn't look good for Israeli Jews. First, they seem to want a single state without a Jewish character and that state would be Palestine, not Israel. The Palestinian right of return would be basically unlimited, and how that ends up with anything other than a reverse Nakba is beyond me. Basically, Jews are relegated to permanent minority status and at the mercy of Palestinian parties that range from corrupt to theocratic. I don't see creative solutions like a multi-ethnic federative state with real protections for religious and ethnic minorities put on offer.
There might be a good-faith version of Palestinian liberation politics, but it seems notably absent from the radical pro-Palestine movement. Which is why I don't think it's going to make any headway in the American political mainstream, but will continue to thrive in places like academia.
I have my own set of criticisms of pro-Israel politics, which seem to lean toward maintaining the current shitty status quo and that this will somehow drive Palestinians to the bargaining table and maybe end with a viable two-state solution. We've had decades of this, and it isn't turning out too well.
I completely agree and came here to say this (also a paying subscriber). I wish Andy had asked more pointed questions without so much throat clearing and contextualizing and had asked pointed follow-ups. The way he surrounded many questions in fluff allowed her to evade the real question and just address one of the side points.
I also wish he had addressed the issue of Hamas and Hezbollah embedding themselves into civilian infrastructure, causing far more civilian casualties than would have otherwise been the case. Eman would have undoubtedly claimed that those are IDF lies and that there is no evidence for that, but it’s a critical aspect of this war and should be a part of any discussion of it.