Wars—like the one between Israel and Hamas—are not only fought on the battlefield, but they are also fought through stories. In today’s episode, I interview Eman Abdelhadi, an American academic, activist, and organizer in the Free Palestine movement. Abdelhadi shares a perspective on Israel that, while controversial, is gaining influence across the United States, particularly on college campuses.
Agree with the thesis that it's important to hear from people your audience might not want to hear from.
I, for one, am grateful for it. I appreciated the context interspersed as well. I think that was the right way to handle this.
It's hard to dismiss Eman outright, she definitely has the conviction of her beliefs. The only thing that still galls me on contentious topics like these is when you do sit down from a self-styled "expert," and if they are an expert, then they *must* know all of the things that *I* know as a non-expert, and yet they still somehow push all of that aside, don't address it, or contextualize it in such a way to provide maximum sympathy to their concerns and very rigid, black and white thinking/bad faith to the other side.
There aren't zero crazy people on the pro-Israel side. But, and this is a very important caveat, most of the "experts" on that side of the table are almost universally willing to concede points about Israel's overreach or relative crimes in this conflict.
I see none of that on the pro-Palestinian side. Absolutely none. No willingness to even entertain it.
That, I think, is damning. And I wish I felt confident that this inconsistency created skepticism of that narrative, as it should.
A big problem with Abdelhadi is that her ideas about the US government works put her well into tinfoil-hat territory, and I say that as someone who distrusts the deep state and am fully aware of dark side of American history. She flat out claims (to quote the favourite phrase of journalists these days, claims without evidence) that the more idiotic statements and tactics of radical pro-Palestine activism are carried out by CONINTELPRO-style deep cover agents. It says a lot about the state of American academia that ideas like this thrive there.
Her responses to this line of questioning were among her worst moments. She did the classic "that's not what's happening, but if it was, it'd be good, actually" thing by blaming the FBI for the worst actors, but also implying that Andy's line of questioning is so racist, it's not worthy of countenancing. I think he did the exact right thing when he drew a parallel to the Unite the Right rally. Would she offer the benefit of the doubt she's implicitly asking for to an activist event held by her enemies that spirals out of control into a hateful riot? I'll take my answer off the air.
Yeah, the verbal tic of "this is racist" is a real eye-roll and very much a product of the academic milieu where that kind of thing gets play. Much like gainsaying criticisms of Israel as 'anti-Semitic', calling criticism of her movement 'racist' needs an actual qualifying argument, and dropping it as simple conversation stopper reeks of bad faith. The kind of qualifying argument that needs to be made needs to point to evidence of a real double-standard at work.
"But, and this is a very important caveat, most of the "experts" on that side of the table are almost universally willing to concede points about Israel's overreach or relative crimes in this conflict."
There's no way you people actually believe this. Or are you all really just that blinkered, that willfully ignorant of what's been said since Oct. 7 (and over the decades that this conflict has gone on)? I just read a piece in Quillette by Benny Morris wherein he outright denies that IDF soldiers have been involved in repugnant conduct (to put it mildly). He straight-up told us not to believe our lying eyes!
The reality is Palestinians and Zionists are one and the same. They're both ethnic chauvinists, they both demanding special treatment and perform special pleading, they both lie through their fucking teeth, they both engage in tedious semantic parlor tricks, they both deploy cynical and bad faith accusations against their critics, and they both deny their own evil and fanaticism while projecting it onto each other. Sick people across the board.
There really aren’t Zionists anymore. Israel already exists. I t asked you comment to be the Palestinian absolutists river to the sea people and the Israel right wing river to the sea people have horse shod (past tense of shoe? Awkward) toward each other
I keep an earnest lookout for "non-crazy" pro-Palestinian activists, but it's extremely dispiriting to regularly only encounter folks who display a debilitating allergy towards acknowledging any facts inconvenient to their purported side. There's way too many Hamas and Hezbollah flags at these protests, and way too much linguistic acrobatics about their chants! I want them to first just acknowledge reality: there is a disturbing amount of pro-terrorism advocacy within these spaces. But Eman just keeps oscillating between "maybe they're planted by the CIA" and "well they're extremely rare" and "maybe they feel that way for a good reason". Please pick one non-contradictory thesis! And ideally, pick a thesis actually grounded in reality rather than delusion. Unreal.
Fifth Column had an interview some months back with a non-crazy pro-Palestinian writer, though I don't think that person was exactly an 'activist' in the current movement. But he did a good job of sorting out what the reasonable and not-so-reasonable demands that were coming from the pro-Palestinian activists, and that was valuable.
You're talking about their episode with Shadi Hamid, right? That was a really good one, Hamid was articulate and even-handed in a way I really appreciated. I don't know what he's like the rest of the time, but he did a good job on the Fifth Column.
Ha! Oh gawd that episode was *terrible*! Hamid came across as completely pretentious and his Jew hate right underneath his breath the entire time. Yikes
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 very much appreciated this episode. The section exploring her political affiliations I felt lacked crucial questions. Eman details all of her support for the typical progressive stances. If politics is so important to her, how does she square her support when her beliefs do not align with the Palestinian people? What does she think the social status of women, or queer, or non-believers would be in an “abolished Israel” new state and how does she reconcile that with her progressive politics?
I did not agree with very much of what she was saying, but I very much appreciate her willingness to sit down and actually talk about it, and I think the effort to put in by this show to cover this viewpoint is important
I've generally been on the pro-Palestine end of this debate, but the rhetoric of people like Abdelhadi has alienated me quite a bit, to the point of becoming more moderate on the issue. I think Israel has a right to exist, but I think that Netenyahu and his cabinet are a bunch of hawkish maniacs. I oppose the settlements in the West Bank (which violate international law), and it does seem to me like there's apartheid going on there. I think the phrase "from the river to the sea" is eliminationist to the point of being antisemitic, and I don't think that the high civilian casualties automatically make the war a genocide. I think it's idiotic to graft American racial politics onto Israel-Palestine, because most Israelis aren't "white." Israel is not a colony, and in fact the Jews have been there for thousands of years, and only migrated to Europe because they were ousted. I hate that so many people my age (I'm 26) are apparently incapable of opposing Israel's actions without demanding that it be eliminated.
Leftists boycotting Harris when the race is as close as it is might as well be voting for Trump, who will be a million times worse for Gaza. They want to "send a message" to Democrats, even if it means making things worse for the people they claim to be advocating for. It's a textbook luxury belief.
Also, Abdelhadi should take some voice coaching, because her vocal fry makes her sound unintelligent, like a valley girl. I don't know how old she actually is (30s I'm going to guess), but she sounds like she's 19.
"Israel is not a colony, and in fact the Jews have been there for thousands of years, and only migrated to Europe because they were ousted. I hate that so many people my age (I'm 26) are apparently incapable of opposing Israel's actions without demanding that it be eliminated."
I don't really buy the "Jews were there first" argument. There are many ethnic groups that lived in entirely different places historically - hell, the English lived in northern Germany more recently than the time when the Romans started expelling Jews from Palestine. Other populations came into Palestine and older populations were assimilated - Palestinians actually do have significant Israelite ancestry if you look at their genetics.
I'll say that if this was the 1930s, I would be an anti-Zionist - Palestine was not an "empty land" and it was not right to expel the population that was there in order to clear the way for a new population. Even one that was suffering persecution in Europe and had remote, ancient roots in that land.
But that said, the Aliyah happened. And you've had at least three generations of Jewish Israelis who have been born and raised there since 1948. There is simply no way to reverse that short of actual genocide. *That* to me is the basis for Jewish claims to territory, at least as regards Israel within its pre-1967 borders. Much like the fact that, for all the unjust history of European settlement of the Americas, there is no serious movement to return those countries to their pre-1492 demographics. And yet there are a lot of people who seem to think that Palestine can be returned to its pre-1948 (even pre-1918) status quo ante without actually considering what that would entail.
But all of that said, the condition of Palestinian statelessness and status as a permanent refugee/occupied population cannot be continued forever. Just as there was a "Jewish question" in the 1930s, there is today a "Palestinian question" that will not go away.
"I don't know how old she actually is (30s I'm going to guess), but she sounds like she's 19."
I hear that, and it's the bane of academia. You have some otherwise smart people, very accomplished in their specialized areas of knowledge, often turn into complete IDIOTS when they open their mouths about politics. The Dunning-Kruger effect in action, really.
Thanks the reply. When I point out that the tribes of Judah were the first civilization in what is today Israel-Palestine, I don't do it as a justification for the founding of the modern state of Israel. Rather, I'm specifically disputing the characterization of Israel as a "colony" of either the United States or the British empire. I would not characterize a people living in their ancestral holy land as "colonial" regardless of who sponsored their statehood. Only about 30% of the Jews living in Israel today are European, though I still don't think that eliminates whatever ethno-religious ties they potentially have to the area. Although I do have to wonder why Abdelhadi characterizes Israel as "white" when (excepting that 30% minority) its citizens are as "brown" as Palestinians are, and as you alluded to often have the same ancestry.
All of this is why it irritates me when Americans act as though the relationship between the U.S. and its indigenous nations is analogous to Israel-Palestine, with Israel being the white American settlers and the Palestinians being the "rightful" owners of the land. As you demonstrated, the comparison could just as easily be made in the opposite direction, with the roles reversed. Interestingly, the "Land Back" movement is trying to return land to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and is gaining serious traction in Canada-- comically, the people behind this movement are often the exact same sort who chafe against the idea of the Israelis having their holy land back. Like you said, heritage isn't actually a very practical tool for determining who the rightful owner of a territory ought to be, because in this case as in many others, their claimants either both have reasonable ancestral claims, or are too ethnically homogeneous between each other to make a clear determination.
I fully agree with that point - the claim that Israeli's are 'European' interlopers in the Middle East is a half-truth at best. Something like half of modern Israeli Jewish ancestry are Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews with origins in Arabic-speaking countries. They are literally a mixed European/Middle Eastern population. So I absolutely don't buy the "Israelis are Europeans who have no place in that part of the world" nonsense at all. But at the same time, there is the simple reality that only a tiny percentage of Israel's Jewish population are descended from Palestinian Jews, so regardless of origin, it's still a case that the Palestinian population that was there for centuries was pushed out to make way for resettlers. Again, that's hardly historically unique, and in fact, not even unique for that time - millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, Pakistanis, Hindus, etc were pushed out of their homelands around that same time and many died in the process. (Raising hand here - I'm partly of East Prussian descent, a place that doesn't even exist on the modern map of Europe.) But of all these groups, it's the Palestinians that are still stateless, not just without their own state, but largely not assimilated into any other.
“…and it was not right to expel the population that was there in order to clear the way for a new population”
And that is also false. The Arabs (who Arafat starts to call Palestinians by the 1960s), would not stop attacking Jews for decades, and Jews fought back. Finally in the 1930s the Arab leader at the time, Amin Al Husseini, instructed the Arab people to leave the area while the Arab army would fight even harder to get the Jews out. The Jews won that battle too. Those 2 million Arabs who didn’t listen to Al Husseini at the time are the ones with Israeli citizenship today.
So the nakba is a very charged way of saying that the Jews didn’t return the land that they won in a war of self defense. In other chapters of world history it’s called losing land in a war.
I'm well aware of the conflicting Zionist vs Anti-Zionist narratives of Israeli history, and it seems that you're repeating the former here. And I really don't buy into either narrative entirely, which are each based around a detailed but selective reading of historical events. Yes, the immediate causes of the Nakba were Arab intransigence, both on the part of the Palestinians and Israel's neighbours. But there are many other causes of that chain of events, many of which included Zionist settler aggression and even terrorism. And, ultimately, there was no way to carry out the ambitions of the Zionist project, to resettle Jews in the sheer numbers that the Zionist movement had envisioned, without pushing out the settled Arab population. And this is not even going into the post-1967 history and the reality of West Bank settlements, backed by the Israeli government. I'm sorry if this offends the ardent pro-Zionists here, but in a historic sense, I don't consider this justifiable any more than America's claims of Manifest Destiny.
But a key point is *it happened*, generations ago, and trying to fully undo the effects of colonization can only lead to further genocide, which is the dirty underside that most folks in the "Decolonize" movement won't deal with. At the same time, there is a legacy of injustice that colonization has left with us, and I think that can't be brushed aside either. Embracing that nuance and complexity seems to piss off the partisans on both sides, and therein lies the problem.
In fact, inflating American colonialism with what Israel is doing in Israel is probably the definition of modern-day antisemitism. Antisemitism is always some form of blaming Jews for the historical wrongs of others. And trust me, I do not think Israel and Jews are the most innocent, free-of-criticism, etc. But the rot from the left stanks do badly that it’s difficult to talk about that in any kind of mixed company.
Well I’m glad you at least know some history. But your desire to parallel this with the history of the US is pretty much the problem with your argument and the argument of all people on the Western left. There is no comparison. American settlers were not homeless refugees who were either kicked out from their homes (Arab lands) or rejected from state after state right after being systematically slaughtered (European lands). People need to stop thinking they can assuage their American, Colonialist guilt onto Israel.
Well, first off, I think some comparison is appropriate, even if comparisons between Israeli settlement and American settlement are inexact. Nonetheless, there are points of comparison, and I do think there are parallels between ideological Zionism and Manifest Destiny.
Again, I think you're pushing a very one-sided narrative here, and the pro-Palestine folks have their own one-sided narrative. Yes the Jews were a refugee population, as the Palestinians are today. I don't think that gives either one the right to kick an established population out of its home. That's just simple humanitarianism rather than one-sided nationalism, something you're not selling me on vis the strong pro-Israel narrative any more than Abdelhadi is selling me on the strong pro-Palestine one.
Again, you say “kicked out” but I’m saying “won in battle” like so many countries that were established throughout history. Why do you continue to infantilize the Palestinian Arabs of the late 1800s and early 1900s? There were very strong at the time, much stronger than the Jews.
Listening to this episode was challenging. I was struck by Eman's perspective of disappointment stemming from her side's losses in various conflicts and the resulting circumstances she perceives as unreasonable, even untenable. This sentiment resonates with a recurring theme throughout history: those on the losing side of conflicts often face the impositions of the victors. It's a common pattern—members of a particular group feeling mistreated by those who win in conflict. Whether it's the Ottomans, Native Americans, members of the US Confederacy, Germans after WWII, Russians during the Cold War, the Jewish people in the past, the Inuit of Canada, the Scots under British rule, South American indigenous tribes—the list seems almost endless.
We in polite society may judge the validity of any one of those groups, as some may wish to judge Eman's group, but let's set that aside to recognize that each group would, of course, have preferred to shape the terms moving forward rather than the impositions of the victor; that too is human nature. Even today, many in those groups still hold animus towards their situation; again we may judge that experience. Many have grappled with the repercussions imposed by those who prevailed. It's a sobering reflection on the human condition that conflicts often leave the defeated navigating challenges set by others.
Broadening the lens this much, some may will result in our losing focus on 'the cause' as in my group's struggles, but it also gives us focus on 'the cause' as in from where this emerges. In balancing those perspectives, I focus on the emergence of this conflict from the human condition as the aspect that is most useful to consider. In that, I can offer compassion to the human experience; however, I cannot offer my support to Eman's struggle.
What's noteworthy and perhaps due praise that in the arc of human history that Eman and others are experiencing a society where their rights as citizens are protected to such an extent that they can openly refer to current democratically elected leaders as war criminals without fear of immediate reprisal. This level of freedom is significant and perhaps worth acknowledging, even while grappling with disappointment over past conflicts.
Right, but to steelman the Palestinian case a bit, it needs to be acknowledged that the Palestinians got a particularly raw deal from the course of history, in that the majority are now stateless - I don't just mean the absence of a Palestinian state, but the fact that the majority don't have citizenship in an existing state, but rather live under occupation or as refugees. This is the fault of the policies of both Israel and the neighbouring Arab states who denied Palestinians citizenship for generations. As Hannah Arendt pointed out regarding Jews in the last century, it's actually very difficult to have human rights protections under conditions of statelessness.
I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people, but to assert they got a “particularly raw deal” is simply not true. They were offered their own state multiple times and chose war over compromise. You may not like the terms of the deals they were offered, but in terms of raw deals in history this is not even in the top 100.
There are a lot of nationalities who lack their own state and aspire to one (Kurds and Tibetans coming to mind immediately), but in most cases, these people at least have citizenship in an actual country. Most Palestinians don't even have that. There were a lot of 'population transfers' and outright ethnic cleansings following WWII, but the Palestinian question sticks out as the most unresolved 75 years later.
> This is the fault of the policies of both Israel and the neighbouring Arab states who denied Palestinians citizenship for generations.
It is also the fault of the Palestinians themselves who have demonstrated over and over how awful they are when given a chance to build their own society. Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt all have experienced massive social unrest and violence from their Palestinian populations. The reason they are not wanted in any country is not due to mere bigotry from their hosts.
That wears a little bit thin with me, really. It's basically saying that because these people have awful politics and awful governments, it's fine to drop bombs on them and otherwise regard them as having a lesser standard of human rights. I think seeing what this mindset did to America's record on human rights during the War on Terror serves as a rebuttal to that idea, and if anything, Israel is much further down the 'our enemies don't have human rights' road than the US has gone. My own feeling is that it's analogous to civil liberties - within our society, if you want to have actual free speech, then you have to extend it to illiberal people who would do away with free speech if they came to power. By analogy, if human rights means anything, you have to absolutely respect the human rights of enemy civilians (insofar as it's possible under conditions of warfare), and also respect the Geneva Convention rights of enemy combatants. The alternative is barbarism and erosion of the very democracy that you are claiming to defend.
> It's basically saying that because these people have awful politics and awful governments, it's fine to drop bombs on them and otherwise regard them as having a lesser standard of human rights.
Not at all what I said, or intended to imply. I was just trying to explain that your characterization of their refugee status as being a result of how *other* people treated them was an incomplete picture of the situation. They bear a lot of the responsibility for their immiserated conditions.
I have a lot of issues with the way Israel is conducting this war. A lot. But it is a war! Israel doesn’t actually have many good options here.
This whole thing is a gigantic tragedy, and I really do feel terrible for the Palestinian people. But in terms of human rights, nobody has less regard for the rights and lives of Palestinian people than Hamas.
I agree that Hamas is absolutely at the rock bottom when it comes to regard for anybody's human rights. But, still, a takeaway that I get from the neocon excess of the War on Terror years is that the awfulness of your enemies - Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda being cases in point - should not be a reason to disregard your own standards and descend into atrocities and wars without any kind of end game.
It's a bit like how suppressing neo-Nazis, who hold basic human and democratic rights in contempt, would nevertheless violate basic constitutional rights.
First off, about Coates, I will note that he does seem to condemn the October 7th attacks unreservedly, without the usual "Well, what do you expect an oppressed people to do?" justifications that so often infect pro-Palestine rhetoric. That said, he's extremely anti-Israel and does not seem to think any Israeli response to the attacks is justified. What really comes across about Coates is how blindingly self-righteous he comes across. He's quite open about the fact that he has never met with conservative or even moderate Israelis and that to take their perspective seriously would be like listening to white Southerners who were trying to justify segregation.
He also plays the role of angry black man quite strategically, in a way that I think is probably intimidating to a lot of white progressives. And this is where I give Klein some credit - he's very much a progressive and generally in agreement with Coates, but does not seem to be afraid to disagree or push back a bit, albeit, in a more subtle way than Tony Dokoupil did, and I think it works better for drawing out a response. Klein does flat-out ask Coates about his opinion of the October 7th attack about midway through the interview, and Coates condemns it seemingly without reservations rather than trying to make justifications. He also does not support Hamas. That said, his real ire is for Israel and everybody but the left-most segment of Israeli society.
Klein is also super-critical of Israel, but I find his criticisms to be more interesting and having some nuance, some understanding of real world politics, and not having the same moral sanctimony that really kills Coates ideas for me. They both point out the daily indignities that Palestinians have to fact, both in the West Bank and even in Israel proper and how that cannot be sustained. But Klein raises an interesting point that comes from his conversation with Jewish moderates who started out in the peace camp and have drifted toward support of Israel's current harsh policies - he says something to the effect of, "I can sympathize with how Israel got here, but I cannot sympathize with where you've ended up." And I think that's a good point.
Klein also points out that many older Jewish-Americans are out of touch with the harsh realities of modern Israel, and that the version of Israel they defend is the Israel of 20 years ago or even longer. And this was an interesting point which I'm taking on board: the talk of long-term solutions - two-state, one-state, whatever - is basically irrelevant. The only relevant conversation is how the Israelis and Palestinians get themselves out of the current horrific course they're in now and that something like a two-state solution or whatever is only going to come out of a much longer peace and reform process, and that talk of long-term solutions is utterly premature.
Anyway, it's well worth a listen, even if you lean strongly pro-Israel.
Kudos for doing this. From what I've seen, many folks in the 'heterodox' milieu talk a game about hearing from all sides and learning even from even very bad ideas, but this seems to break down when it comes to having serious conversations with folks on the hard left. (Albeit, people on the hard left often won't talk to people who aren't 100% on-board with their ideas.) I'm glad to see you're bucking that unfortunate trend.
I didn't find much to sympathize with in her ideas. She's using every lame excuse I've heard from supporters of violent left-wing movements since the 60s, to the point of claiming that ugly rhetoric from her own side is the work of CIA deep cover agents. I might even be with her on the idea that Palestinians have the right to violently resist Israeli police and military occupiers in places like the West Bank, but even if you can justify these as legitimate military targets, there's no way you can extend that principal to Israeli civilians being legitimate targets.
In general, she has a very slanted world view in which the United States has ALWAYS been the bad guy in world affairs. Which, in many cases, it really has been. But that's ignoring the many other even worse actors on the world stage. If anything, for a great power, the USA has actually been relatively benign.
Great episode. I'm not at all in Abdelhadi's camp of supporters, and as much as I would have wanted to hear more substantive pushback against her positions, I appreciate Andy treating her perspective seriously and giving her as much time as she felt necessary to fully lay out her worldview.
That even in such a welcoming environment, this staunchly anti-Israel voice reveals her position to be so contradictory, intellectually flimsy, and morally bankrupt is why this episode is such an important one for the world to hear.
I'm so glad you made this episode. It's important to take one of their best, most refined representatives (prof at a prestigious university) and let her reveal just how morally bankrupt, ahistorical and violent their movement is.
While listening to the interview with Abdelhadi, I fantasized about a discussion between her and Eli Lake. I doubt she would have agreed and, if she had, I doubt she would have lasted five minutes. In any case, she is a True Believer and her mind and heart are locked closed. I am by nature a very optimistic person and I look for hope everywhere. But I'm sorry to say that there's likely little hope that Eman Abdelhadi will be able to see the humanity of others beyond her cult.
But the terrorists are listening and still deciding to ethnically cleanse all the Jews from the Middle East. Israel has no choice but to win in the fight against them. Decisively.
With seemingly no limit on the number of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians who are killed in the process? I know this might sound hall-monitorish, but arguments about desperation and how this is a total war do not excuse literal war crimes. That goes for Hamas and that goes for Israel too.
Agree with the thesis that it's important to hear from people your audience might not want to hear from.
I, for one, am grateful for it. I appreciated the context interspersed as well. I think that was the right way to handle this.
It's hard to dismiss Eman outright, she definitely has the conviction of her beliefs. The only thing that still galls me on contentious topics like these is when you do sit down from a self-styled "expert," and if they are an expert, then they *must* know all of the things that *I* know as a non-expert, and yet they still somehow push all of that aside, don't address it, or contextualize it in such a way to provide maximum sympathy to their concerns and very rigid, black and white thinking/bad faith to the other side.
There aren't zero crazy people on the pro-Israel side. But, and this is a very important caveat, most of the "experts" on that side of the table are almost universally willing to concede points about Israel's overreach or relative crimes in this conflict.
I see none of that on the pro-Palestinian side. Absolutely none. No willingness to even entertain it.
That, I think, is damning. And I wish I felt confident that this inconsistency created skepticism of that narrative, as it should.
A big problem with Abdelhadi is that her ideas about the US government works put her well into tinfoil-hat territory, and I say that as someone who distrusts the deep state and am fully aware of dark side of American history. She flat out claims (to quote the favourite phrase of journalists these days, claims without evidence) that the more idiotic statements and tactics of radical pro-Palestine activism are carried out by CONINTELPRO-style deep cover agents. It says a lot about the state of American academia that ideas like this thrive there.
Her responses to this line of questioning were among her worst moments. She did the classic "that's not what's happening, but if it was, it'd be good, actually" thing by blaming the FBI for the worst actors, but also implying that Andy's line of questioning is so racist, it's not worthy of countenancing. I think he did the exact right thing when he drew a parallel to the Unite the Right rally. Would she offer the benefit of the doubt she's implicitly asking for to an activist event held by her enemies that spirals out of control into a hateful riot? I'll take my answer off the air.
Yeah, the verbal tic of "this is racist" is a real eye-roll and very much a product of the academic milieu where that kind of thing gets play. Much like gainsaying criticisms of Israel as 'anti-Semitic', calling criticism of her movement 'racist' needs an actual qualifying argument, and dropping it as simple conversation stopper reeks of bad faith. The kind of qualifying argument that needs to be made needs to point to evidence of a real double-standard at work.
"But, and this is a very important caveat, most of the "experts" on that side of the table are almost universally willing to concede points about Israel's overreach or relative crimes in this conflict."
There's no way you people actually believe this. Or are you all really just that blinkered, that willfully ignorant of what's been said since Oct. 7 (and over the decades that this conflict has gone on)? I just read a piece in Quillette by Benny Morris wherein he outright denies that IDF soldiers have been involved in repugnant conduct (to put it mildly). He straight-up told us not to believe our lying eyes!
The reality is Palestinians and Zionists are one and the same. They're both ethnic chauvinists, they both demanding special treatment and perform special pleading, they both lie through their fucking teeth, they both engage in tedious semantic parlor tricks, they both deploy cynical and bad faith accusations against their critics, and they both deny their own evil and fanaticism while projecting it onto each other. Sick people across the board.
And you sound like the kind of antisemite who broadens his hate to all the non Jewish Semites, too. Wow. You trendsetter.
There really aren’t Zionists anymore. Israel already exists. I t asked you comment to be the Palestinian absolutists river to the sea people and the Israel right wing river to the sea people have horse shod (past tense of shoe? Awkward) toward each other
Eman was extremely painful to listen to.
I keep an earnest lookout for "non-crazy" pro-Palestinian activists, but it's extremely dispiriting to regularly only encounter folks who display a debilitating allergy towards acknowledging any facts inconvenient to their purported side. There's way too many Hamas and Hezbollah flags at these protests, and way too much linguistic acrobatics about their chants! I want them to first just acknowledge reality: there is a disturbing amount of pro-terrorism advocacy within these spaces. But Eman just keeps oscillating between "maybe they're planted by the CIA" and "well they're extremely rare" and "maybe they feel that way for a good reason". Please pick one non-contradictory thesis! And ideally, pick a thesis actually grounded in reality rather than delusion. Unreal.
Fifth Column had an interview some months back with a non-crazy pro-Palestinian writer, though I don't think that person was exactly an 'activist' in the current movement. But he did a good job of sorting out what the reasonable and not-so-reasonable demands that were coming from the pro-Palestinian activists, and that was valuable.
You're talking about their episode with Shadi Hamid, right? That was a really good one, Hamid was articulate and even-handed in a way I really appreciated. I don't know what he's like the rest of the time, but he did a good job on the Fifth Column.
Yes, this one: https://www.wethefifth.com/p/434-crazed-conspiracies-moral-mulligans Thanks for reminding of his name - the Fifth archives can be kind of a pain to search through if I've forgotten a guest's name.
The problem, of course, is that the Students for Justice in Palestine crowd would probably consider Shadi Hamid to be a sell-out moderate. From what I've read, they've recently doubled down on their most violent rhetoric: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/us/columbia-pro-palestine-group-apology/index.html
Ha! Oh gawd that episode was *terrible*! Hamid came across as completely pretentious and his Jew hate right underneath his breath the entire time. Yikes
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 very much appreciated this episode. The section exploring her political affiliations I felt lacked crucial questions. Eman details all of her support for the typical progressive stances. If politics is so important to her, how does she square her support when her beliefs do not align with the Palestinian people? What does she think the social status of women, or queer, or non-believers would be in an “abolished Israel” new state and how does she reconcile that with her progressive politics?
I did not agree with very much of what she was saying, but I very much appreciate her willingness to sit down and actually talk about it, and I think the effort to put in by this show to cover this viewpoint is important
I've generally been on the pro-Palestine end of this debate, but the rhetoric of people like Abdelhadi has alienated me quite a bit, to the point of becoming more moderate on the issue. I think Israel has a right to exist, but I think that Netenyahu and his cabinet are a bunch of hawkish maniacs. I oppose the settlements in the West Bank (which violate international law), and it does seem to me like there's apartheid going on there. I think the phrase "from the river to the sea" is eliminationist to the point of being antisemitic, and I don't think that the high civilian casualties automatically make the war a genocide. I think it's idiotic to graft American racial politics onto Israel-Palestine, because most Israelis aren't "white." Israel is not a colony, and in fact the Jews have been there for thousands of years, and only migrated to Europe because they were ousted. I hate that so many people my age (I'm 26) are apparently incapable of opposing Israel's actions without demanding that it be eliminated.
Leftists boycotting Harris when the race is as close as it is might as well be voting for Trump, who will be a million times worse for Gaza. They want to "send a message" to Democrats, even if it means making things worse for the people they claim to be advocating for. It's a textbook luxury belief.
Also, Abdelhadi should take some voice coaching, because her vocal fry makes her sound unintelligent, like a valley girl. I don't know how old she actually is (30s I'm going to guess), but she sounds like she's 19.
"Israel is not a colony, and in fact the Jews have been there for thousands of years, and only migrated to Europe because they were ousted. I hate that so many people my age (I'm 26) are apparently incapable of opposing Israel's actions without demanding that it be eliminated."
I don't really buy the "Jews were there first" argument. There are many ethnic groups that lived in entirely different places historically - hell, the English lived in northern Germany more recently than the time when the Romans started expelling Jews from Palestine. Other populations came into Palestine and older populations were assimilated - Palestinians actually do have significant Israelite ancestry if you look at their genetics.
I'll say that if this was the 1930s, I would be an anti-Zionist - Palestine was not an "empty land" and it was not right to expel the population that was there in order to clear the way for a new population. Even one that was suffering persecution in Europe and had remote, ancient roots in that land.
But that said, the Aliyah happened. And you've had at least three generations of Jewish Israelis who have been born and raised there since 1948. There is simply no way to reverse that short of actual genocide. *That* to me is the basis for Jewish claims to territory, at least as regards Israel within its pre-1967 borders. Much like the fact that, for all the unjust history of European settlement of the Americas, there is no serious movement to return those countries to their pre-1492 demographics. And yet there are a lot of people who seem to think that Palestine can be returned to its pre-1948 (even pre-1918) status quo ante without actually considering what that would entail.
But all of that said, the condition of Palestinian statelessness and status as a permanent refugee/occupied population cannot be continued forever. Just as there was a "Jewish question" in the 1930s, there is today a "Palestinian question" that will not go away.
"I don't know how old she actually is (30s I'm going to guess), but she sounds like she's 19."
I hear that, and it's the bane of academia. You have some otherwise smart people, very accomplished in their specialized areas of knowledge, often turn into complete IDIOTS when they open their mouths about politics. The Dunning-Kruger effect in action, really.
Thanks the reply. When I point out that the tribes of Judah were the first civilization in what is today Israel-Palestine, I don't do it as a justification for the founding of the modern state of Israel. Rather, I'm specifically disputing the characterization of Israel as a "colony" of either the United States or the British empire. I would not characterize a people living in their ancestral holy land as "colonial" regardless of who sponsored their statehood. Only about 30% of the Jews living in Israel today are European, though I still don't think that eliminates whatever ethno-religious ties they potentially have to the area. Although I do have to wonder why Abdelhadi characterizes Israel as "white" when (excepting that 30% minority) its citizens are as "brown" as Palestinians are, and as you alluded to often have the same ancestry.
All of this is why it irritates me when Americans act as though the relationship between the U.S. and its indigenous nations is analogous to Israel-Palestine, with Israel being the white American settlers and the Palestinians being the "rightful" owners of the land. As you demonstrated, the comparison could just as easily be made in the opposite direction, with the roles reversed. Interestingly, the "Land Back" movement is trying to return land to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and is gaining serious traction in Canada-- comically, the people behind this movement are often the exact same sort who chafe against the idea of the Israelis having their holy land back. Like you said, heritage isn't actually a very practical tool for determining who the rightful owner of a territory ought to be, because in this case as in many others, their claimants either both have reasonable ancestral claims, or are too ethnically homogeneous between each other to make a clear determination.
I fully agree with that point - the claim that Israeli's are 'European' interlopers in the Middle East is a half-truth at best. Something like half of modern Israeli Jewish ancestry are Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews with origins in Arabic-speaking countries. They are literally a mixed European/Middle Eastern population. So I absolutely don't buy the "Israelis are Europeans who have no place in that part of the world" nonsense at all. But at the same time, there is the simple reality that only a tiny percentage of Israel's Jewish population are descended from Palestinian Jews, so regardless of origin, it's still a case that the Palestinian population that was there for centuries was pushed out to make way for resettlers. Again, that's hardly historically unique, and in fact, not even unique for that time - millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, Pakistanis, Hindus, etc were pushed out of their homelands around that same time and many died in the process. (Raising hand here - I'm partly of East Prussian descent, a place that doesn't even exist on the modern map of Europe.) But of all these groups, it's the Palestinians that are still stateless, not just without their own state, but largely not assimilated into any other.
“…and it was not right to expel the population that was there in order to clear the way for a new population”
And that is also false. The Arabs (who Arafat starts to call Palestinians by the 1960s), would not stop attacking Jews for decades, and Jews fought back. Finally in the 1930s the Arab leader at the time, Amin Al Husseini, instructed the Arab people to leave the area while the Arab army would fight even harder to get the Jews out. The Jews won that battle too. Those 2 million Arabs who didn’t listen to Al Husseini at the time are the ones with Israeli citizenship today.
So the nakba is a very charged way of saying that the Jews didn’t return the land that they won in a war of self defense. In other chapters of world history it’s called losing land in a war.
I'm well aware of the conflicting Zionist vs Anti-Zionist narratives of Israeli history, and it seems that you're repeating the former here. And I really don't buy into either narrative entirely, which are each based around a detailed but selective reading of historical events. Yes, the immediate causes of the Nakba were Arab intransigence, both on the part of the Palestinians and Israel's neighbours. But there are many other causes of that chain of events, many of which included Zionist settler aggression and even terrorism. And, ultimately, there was no way to carry out the ambitions of the Zionist project, to resettle Jews in the sheer numbers that the Zionist movement had envisioned, without pushing out the settled Arab population. And this is not even going into the post-1967 history and the reality of West Bank settlements, backed by the Israeli government. I'm sorry if this offends the ardent pro-Zionists here, but in a historic sense, I don't consider this justifiable any more than America's claims of Manifest Destiny.
But a key point is *it happened*, generations ago, and trying to fully undo the effects of colonization can only lead to further genocide, which is the dirty underside that most folks in the "Decolonize" movement won't deal with. At the same time, there is a legacy of injustice that colonization has left with us, and I think that can't be brushed aside either. Embracing that nuance and complexity seems to piss off the partisans on both sides, and therein lies the problem.
In fact, inflating American colonialism with what Israel is doing in Israel is probably the definition of modern-day antisemitism. Antisemitism is always some form of blaming Jews for the historical wrongs of others. And trust me, I do not think Israel and Jews are the most innocent, free-of-criticism, etc. But the rot from the left stanks do badly that it’s difficult to talk about that in any kind of mixed company.
Well I’m glad you at least know some history. But your desire to parallel this with the history of the US is pretty much the problem with your argument and the argument of all people on the Western left. There is no comparison. American settlers were not homeless refugees who were either kicked out from their homes (Arab lands) or rejected from state after state right after being systematically slaughtered (European lands). People need to stop thinking they can assuage their American, Colonialist guilt onto Israel.
Well, first off, I think some comparison is appropriate, even if comparisons between Israeli settlement and American settlement are inexact. Nonetheless, there are points of comparison, and I do think there are parallels between ideological Zionism and Manifest Destiny.
Again, I think you're pushing a very one-sided narrative here, and the pro-Palestine folks have their own one-sided narrative. Yes the Jews were a refugee population, as the Palestinians are today. I don't think that gives either one the right to kick an established population out of its home. That's just simple humanitarianism rather than one-sided nationalism, something you're not selling me on vis the strong pro-Israel narrative any more than Abdelhadi is selling me on the strong pro-Palestine one.
Again, you say “kicked out” but I’m saying “won in battle” like so many countries that were established throughout history. Why do you continue to infantilize the Palestinian Arabs of the late 1800s and early 1900s? There were very strong at the time, much stronger than the Jews.
Listening to this episode was challenging. I was struck by Eman's perspective of disappointment stemming from her side's losses in various conflicts and the resulting circumstances she perceives as unreasonable, even untenable. This sentiment resonates with a recurring theme throughout history: those on the losing side of conflicts often face the impositions of the victors. It's a common pattern—members of a particular group feeling mistreated by those who win in conflict. Whether it's the Ottomans, Native Americans, members of the US Confederacy, Germans after WWII, Russians during the Cold War, the Jewish people in the past, the Inuit of Canada, the Scots under British rule, South American indigenous tribes—the list seems almost endless.
We in polite society may judge the validity of any one of those groups, as some may wish to judge Eman's group, but let's set that aside to recognize that each group would, of course, have preferred to shape the terms moving forward rather than the impositions of the victor; that too is human nature. Even today, many in those groups still hold animus towards their situation; again we may judge that experience. Many have grappled with the repercussions imposed by those who prevailed. It's a sobering reflection on the human condition that conflicts often leave the defeated navigating challenges set by others.
Broadening the lens this much, some may will result in our losing focus on 'the cause' as in my group's struggles, but it also gives us focus on 'the cause' as in from where this emerges. In balancing those perspectives, I focus on the emergence of this conflict from the human condition as the aspect that is most useful to consider. In that, I can offer compassion to the human experience; however, I cannot offer my support to Eman's struggle.
What's noteworthy and perhaps due praise that in the arc of human history that Eman and others are experiencing a society where their rights as citizens are protected to such an extent that they can openly refer to current democratically elected leaders as war criminals without fear of immediate reprisal. This level of freedom is significant and perhaps worth acknowledging, even while grappling with disappointment over past conflicts.
Right, but to steelman the Palestinian case a bit, it needs to be acknowledged that the Palestinians got a particularly raw deal from the course of history, in that the majority are now stateless - I don't just mean the absence of a Palestinian state, but the fact that the majority don't have citizenship in an existing state, but rather live under occupation or as refugees. This is the fault of the policies of both Israel and the neighbouring Arab states who denied Palestinians citizenship for generations. As Hannah Arendt pointed out regarding Jews in the last century, it's actually very difficult to have human rights protections under conditions of statelessness.
I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people, but to assert they got a “particularly raw deal” is simply not true. They were offered their own state multiple times and chose war over compromise. You may not like the terms of the deals they were offered, but in terms of raw deals in history this is not even in the top 100.
There are a lot of nationalities who lack their own state and aspire to one (Kurds and Tibetans coming to mind immediately), but in most cases, these people at least have citizenship in an actual country. Most Palestinians don't even have that. There were a lot of 'population transfers' and outright ethnic cleansings following WWII, but the Palestinian question sticks out as the most unresolved 75 years later.
> This is the fault of the policies of both Israel and the neighbouring Arab states who denied Palestinians citizenship for generations.
It is also the fault of the Palestinians themselves who have demonstrated over and over how awful they are when given a chance to build their own society. Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt all have experienced massive social unrest and violence from their Palestinian populations. The reason they are not wanted in any country is not due to mere bigotry from their hosts.
That wears a little bit thin with me, really. It's basically saying that because these people have awful politics and awful governments, it's fine to drop bombs on them and otherwise regard them as having a lesser standard of human rights. I think seeing what this mindset did to America's record on human rights during the War on Terror serves as a rebuttal to that idea, and if anything, Israel is much further down the 'our enemies don't have human rights' road than the US has gone. My own feeling is that it's analogous to civil liberties - within our society, if you want to have actual free speech, then you have to extend it to illiberal people who would do away with free speech if they came to power. By analogy, if human rights means anything, you have to absolutely respect the human rights of enemy civilians (insofar as it's possible under conditions of warfare), and also respect the Geneva Convention rights of enemy combatants. The alternative is barbarism and erosion of the very democracy that you are claiming to defend.
> It's basically saying that because these people have awful politics and awful governments, it's fine to drop bombs on them and otherwise regard them as having a lesser standard of human rights.
Not at all what I said, or intended to imply. I was just trying to explain that your characterization of their refugee status as being a result of how *other* people treated them was an incomplete picture of the situation. They bear a lot of the responsibility for their immiserated conditions.
I have a lot of issues with the way Israel is conducting this war. A lot. But it is a war! Israel doesn’t actually have many good options here.
This whole thing is a gigantic tragedy, and I really do feel terrible for the Palestinian people. But in terms of human rights, nobody has less regard for the rights and lives of Palestinian people than Hamas.
I agree that Hamas is absolutely at the rock bottom when it comes to regard for anybody's human rights. But, still, a takeaway that I get from the neocon excess of the War on Terror years is that the awfulness of your enemies - Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda being cases in point - should not be a reason to disregard your own standards and descend into atrocities and wars without any kind of end game.
These people do not reflect American or Western values. We should search for means to remove them from the United States.
If we do that, we will be violating our American and Western values.
It's a bit like how suppressing neo-Nazis, who hold basic human and democratic rights in contempt, would nevertheless violate basic constitutional rights.
On the topic of critics of Israel, I just listened to Ezra Klein's interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, and it's surprisingly good: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ta-nehisi-coates-on-israel-i-felt-lied-to/id1548604447
First off, about Coates, I will note that he does seem to condemn the October 7th attacks unreservedly, without the usual "Well, what do you expect an oppressed people to do?" justifications that so often infect pro-Palestine rhetoric. That said, he's extremely anti-Israel and does not seem to think any Israeli response to the attacks is justified. What really comes across about Coates is how blindingly self-righteous he comes across. He's quite open about the fact that he has never met with conservative or even moderate Israelis and that to take their perspective seriously would be like listening to white Southerners who were trying to justify segregation.
He also plays the role of angry black man quite strategically, in a way that I think is probably intimidating to a lot of white progressives. And this is where I give Klein some credit - he's very much a progressive and generally in agreement with Coates, but does not seem to be afraid to disagree or push back a bit, albeit, in a more subtle way than Tony Dokoupil did, and I think it works better for drawing out a response. Klein does flat-out ask Coates about his opinion of the October 7th attack about midway through the interview, and Coates condemns it seemingly without reservations rather than trying to make justifications. He also does not support Hamas. That said, his real ire is for Israel and everybody but the left-most segment of Israeli society.
Klein is also super-critical of Israel, but I find his criticisms to be more interesting and having some nuance, some understanding of real world politics, and not having the same moral sanctimony that really kills Coates ideas for me. They both point out the daily indignities that Palestinians have to fact, both in the West Bank and even in Israel proper and how that cannot be sustained. But Klein raises an interesting point that comes from his conversation with Jewish moderates who started out in the peace camp and have drifted toward support of Israel's current harsh policies - he says something to the effect of, "I can sympathize with how Israel got here, but I cannot sympathize with where you've ended up." And I think that's a good point.
Klein also points out that many older Jewish-Americans are out of touch with the harsh realities of modern Israel, and that the version of Israel they defend is the Israel of 20 years ago or even longer. And this was an interesting point which I'm taking on board: the talk of long-term solutions - two-state, one-state, whatever - is basically irrelevant. The only relevant conversation is how the Israelis and Palestinians get themselves out of the current horrific course they're in now and that something like a two-state solution or whatever is only going to come out of a much longer peace and reform process, and that talk of long-term solutions is utterly premature.
Anyway, it's well worth a listen, even if you lean strongly pro-Israel.
Kudos for doing this. From what I've seen, many folks in the 'heterodox' milieu talk a game about hearing from all sides and learning even from even very bad ideas, but this seems to break down when it comes to having serious conversations with folks on the hard left. (Albeit, people on the hard left often won't talk to people who aren't 100% on-board with their ideas.) I'm glad to see you're bucking that unfortunate trend.
I didn't find much to sympathize with in her ideas. She's using every lame excuse I've heard from supporters of violent left-wing movements since the 60s, to the point of claiming that ugly rhetoric from her own side is the work of CIA deep cover agents. I might even be with her on the idea that Palestinians have the right to violently resist Israeli police and military occupiers in places like the West Bank, but even if you can justify these as legitimate military targets, there's no way you can extend that principal to Israeli civilians being legitimate targets.
In general, she has a very slanted world view in which the United States has ALWAYS been the bad guy in world affairs. Which, in many cases, it really has been. But that's ignoring the many other even worse actors on the world stage. If anything, for a great power, the USA has actually been relatively benign.
Great episode. I'm not at all in Abdelhadi's camp of supporters, and as much as I would have wanted to hear more substantive pushback against her positions, I appreciate Andy treating her perspective seriously and giving her as much time as she felt necessary to fully lay out her worldview.
That even in such a welcoming environment, this staunchly anti-Israel voice reveals her position to be so contradictory, intellectually flimsy, and morally bankrupt is why this episode is such an important one for the world to hear.
I'm so glad you made this episode. It's important to take one of their best, most refined representatives (prof at a prestigious university) and let her reveal just how morally bankrupt, ahistorical and violent their movement is.
I agree with the other commenters that this was very difficult to listen to. I came close to bailing early on but I stayed with it.
She strikes me as a member of a religious cult, which indeed she is. But in her case it's a death cult.
As an antidote, I just finished listening to Eli Lake's excellent account of what he calls the Hundred Year Holy War:
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-hundred-year-holy-war-57d
While listening to the interview with Abdelhadi, I fantasized about a discussion between her and Eli Lake. I doubt she would have agreed and, if she had, I doubt she would have lasted five minutes. In any case, she is a True Believer and her mind and heart are locked closed. I am by nature a very optimistic person and I look for hope everywhere. But I'm sorry to say that there's likely little hope that Eman Abdelhadi will be able to see the humanity of others beyond her cult.
“Violent palestinian resistance”?
Please just call it terrorism by jew hating nazis.
Not surprised that the bastions on yt supremacy are cool with dead jews. They never liked us much to begin with
https://marlowe1.substack.com/p/job-chapter-23
I can see how Hammas have become desperate but neither their terrorism or that of the Israeli government is serving the peace process...
Both need to listen to eachother...
But the terrorists are listening and still deciding to ethnically cleanse all the Jews from the Middle East. Israel has no choice but to win in the fight against them. Decisively.
With seemingly no limit on the number of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians who are killed in the process? I know this might sound hall-monitorish, but arguments about desperation and how this is a total war do not excuse literal war crimes. That goes for Hamas and that goes for Israel too.
Well, name the limit.