Listen now | 1:51 How Israelis think about civilian casualties in Gaza 20:47 Is the war spawning a new generation of terrorists? 34:39 Explaining versus justifying bad behavior 49:39 Can Hamas and other extremist groups be moderated? 1:03:12 Is the world biased against Israel? 1:14:45 Cognitive biases that inflame tribal tensions 1:26:09 The “river to the sea” Rorschach test 1:41:03 On the precipice of World War III? Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero, Why Buddhism Is True) and Russ Roberts (Shalem College, EconTalk, Listening to the Sirens, Wild Problems). Recorded January 24, 2024.
Wow. That was a really interesting and informative conversation. It's so rare to be able to hear two people with such differing opinions about something so important have such a rational and respectful conversation. Thank you!
As always after listening to one of your podcasts on this conflict, I am more well informed as well as more depressed. I wish psychologist and mediator extraordinaire Dr. Marshall Rosenberg were still alive, but alas, he died in 2015. I wish somebody from the organization he started would offer to mediate. Would it be easy? No. Is it possible? I have to believe so.
Wow indeed, and thanks. I found this to be a respectful and edifying flushing out of many of the important dimensions of a frustratingly persistent conflict.
Russ Roberts is a remarkably calm, clear, reasonable sounding advocate for the Israeli position. But his position is entirely a tribal one. And tribal positions don't solve problems, except for members of the tribe. Russ offered no long term serious solution for Palestinians or Gaza residents. Fundamentally the Arab/Israeli conflict which has been waged almost continuously with interruptions of peace over the past 75 years is a zero sum conflict, where both the Israelis and the Palestinians want one state for themselves "from the River to the sea." It is impossible to imagine a settlement that could be accepted by both sides. And there won't be one. A settlement could be imposed internationally but it won't be. The US policy needs to be focused on avoiding a regional war which would be a lose/lose situation for the US (not to mention Israel). Roberts' real point was made when he said that Israel is going to defend itself as itt sees fit, and that's his bottom line. And for the Israeli Government that's the end of the story.
The game is not zero sum when there is the potential for both sides to come ahead. As long as peace is possible, it is not zero sum. You point out that demands for a state "from the river to the sea" are problematic. Of course they are. But it is not true that both sides want that. There are some on both sides that see it that way, but certainly not all. Very few Israelis, in fact, support the idea of transfer. Maybe after Oct 7 it's a bit more popular, but it is still fringe, regardless of how many ministers of the current government dream of it.
There's a sense where the demand for a cease-fire is problematic when it omits what happens to the hostages. Clearly we also want the hostages to be released, but other than a cease-fire, Israel has nothing to trade for them. To pressure Israel for a cease-fire is to reduce the value of a cease-fire in negotiations, and hence to have less hostages released per unit of cease-fire. Surely, we can agree we want as many hostages released as possible?
Similarly, protests against the government of Israel demanding it does more for the release of hostages are also problematic. For any fixed length of cease-fire it trades, Israel will receive fewer hostages if each hostage is perceived as more valuable. An increase in the value of hostages implies fewer will be saved. The harsh reality of negotiations dictates that the stance for Israel that will save the most hostages is to act as if it cares little about saving them.
Granted he's stating his argument provocatively there, but its squaredly opposed on the merits to your (also pretty plausible-seeming) argument about the ill-advisedness for Israel of actions likely to foment Palestinian hatred, and I think it could be illuminating to hear the two of you talk through this particular point, given how 1) your views here are diametrically opposed yet 2) you both can generally argue pretty dispassionately.
(And you seemed fairly simpatico in your previous diavlog at least in terms of your affection for isolationism. (Kidding!))
Robert Wright seems to ignore the reality that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran all threaten to destroy Israel and have taken steps to try to do so. He seems not to take them at their word or recognize their actions aimed at destroying the Jewish state. I believe Iran is the only member of the UN that has publicly threatened to destroy another member of the UN. Wright’s statement about hatred ignores the existing hatred that Palestinians are raised with, even when there was no war. The very times when Israel was most forthcoming in moving toward peace were the very times of the worst violence perpetrated by Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Israel is fighting not against an idea but the implementation of the idea through weapons. Were Israel not to destroy the Hamas infrastructure, Hamas would over time become increasingly well-armed, like Hezbollah, and have the capability to inflict mass casualties and destruction on Israel.
The media ignore the reality that Israel has performed far better in averting civilian casualties than other armies and that no army has faced a terror group so entrenched in the civilian population and with such an extensive array of tunnels.
Finally, one only has to watch the former Saudi ambassador to the US recounting his conversation with Yasser Arafat when Arafat rejected the Clinton parameters for a state to realize that the US-brokered offer accepted by Israel was quite real and would have been supported by Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan at a minimum. See the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTSrlONiDU
I advise Mr. Wright to watch some of the following to hear Hamas leaders in their own words and understand why Israel will rightly not tolerate Hamas control, certainly over the West Bank.
Wow. That was a really interesting and informative conversation. It's so rare to be able to hear two people with such differing opinions about something so important have such a rational and respectful conversation. Thank you!
“And in reciprocation, should you ever be in New Jersey, I’ll drive you down the turnpike, show you the whole thing.”
Russ, don’t sleep on that offer!!!
As always after listening to one of your podcasts on this conflict, I am more well informed as well as more depressed. I wish psychologist and mediator extraordinaire Dr. Marshall Rosenberg were still alive, but alas, he died in 2015. I wish somebody from the organization he started would offer to mediate. Would it be easy? No. Is it possible? I have to believe so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z0yQMfHdeY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjIHSo8sALE
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/crq.21370
Wow indeed, and thanks. I found this to be a respectful and edifying flushing out of many of the important dimensions of a frustratingly persistent conflict.
Russ Roberts is a remarkably calm, clear, reasonable sounding advocate for the Israeli position. But his position is entirely a tribal one. And tribal positions don't solve problems, except for members of the tribe. Russ offered no long term serious solution for Palestinians or Gaza residents. Fundamentally the Arab/Israeli conflict which has been waged almost continuously with interruptions of peace over the past 75 years is a zero sum conflict, where both the Israelis and the Palestinians want one state for themselves "from the River to the sea." It is impossible to imagine a settlement that could be accepted by both sides. And there won't be one. A settlement could be imposed internationally but it won't be. The US policy needs to be focused on avoiding a regional war which would be a lose/lose situation for the US (not to mention Israel). Roberts' real point was made when he said that Israel is going to defend itself as itt sees fit, and that's his bottom line. And for the Israeli Government that's the end of the story.
The game is not zero sum when there is the potential for both sides to come ahead. As long as peace is possible, it is not zero sum. You point out that demands for a state "from the river to the sea" are problematic. Of course they are. But it is not true that both sides want that. There are some on both sides that see it that way, but certainly not all. Very few Israelis, in fact, support the idea of transfer. Maybe after Oct 7 it's a bit more popular, but it is still fringe, regardless of how many ministers of the current government dream of it.
I think at this point a redrawing of the map to pre 67 borders would be accepted by the Palestinians. But not by the Israelis
There are 700,000 Israelis living in illegal settlements in the West Bank and your guest glossed right over that
and he talked about the settlements that were removed in Gaza as if their very existence weren’t hugely problematic
There's a sense where the demand for a cease-fire is problematic when it omits what happens to the hostages. Clearly we also want the hostages to be released, but other than a cease-fire, Israel has nothing to trade for them. To pressure Israel for a cease-fire is to reduce the value of a cease-fire in negotiations, and hence to have less hostages released per unit of cease-fire. Surely, we can agree we want as many hostages released as possible?
Similarly, protests against the government of Israel demanding it does more for the release of hostages are also problematic. For any fixed length of cease-fire it trades, Israel will receive fewer hostages if each hostage is perceived as more valuable. An increase in the value of hostages implies fewer will be saved. The harsh reality of negotiations dictates that the stance for Israel that will save the most hostages is to act as if it cares little about saving them.
Hey Bob, this was really great. Relatedly, (previous) guest suggestion on this topic: Hanania. Specifically vis-a-vis this: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/israel-must-crush-palestinian-hopes
Granted he's stating his argument provocatively there, but its squaredly opposed on the merits to your (also pretty plausible-seeming) argument about the ill-advisedness for Israel of actions likely to foment Palestinian hatred, and I think it could be illuminating to hear the two of you talk through this particular point, given how 1) your views here are diametrically opposed yet 2) you both can generally argue pretty dispassionately.
(And you seemed fairly simpatico in your previous diavlog at least in terms of your affection for isolationism. (Kidding!))
Robert Wright seems to ignore the reality that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran all threaten to destroy Israel and have taken steps to try to do so. He seems not to take them at their word or recognize their actions aimed at destroying the Jewish state. I believe Iran is the only member of the UN that has publicly threatened to destroy another member of the UN. Wright’s statement about hatred ignores the existing hatred that Palestinians are raised with, even when there was no war. The very times when Israel was most forthcoming in moving toward peace were the very times of the worst violence perpetrated by Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Israel is fighting not against an idea but the implementation of the idea through weapons. Were Israel not to destroy the Hamas infrastructure, Hamas would over time become increasingly well-armed, like Hezbollah, and have the capability to inflict mass casualties and destruction on Israel.
On casualties, war in urban areas usually leads to a 4:1 or higher ratio of civilian to military deaths. As the head of the West Point urban war studies points out, Israel’s efforts have led to a much lower ratio. See: https://www.newsweek.com/memo-experts-stop-comparing-israels-war-gaza-anything-it-has-no-precedent-opinion-1868891
The media ignore the reality that Israel has performed far better in averting civilian casualties than other armies and that no army has faced a terror group so entrenched in the civilian population and with such an extensive array of tunnels.
Finally, one only has to watch the former Saudi ambassador to the US recounting his conversation with Yasser Arafat when Arafat rejected the Clinton parameters for a state to realize that the US-brokered offer accepted by Israel was quite real and would have been supported by Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan at a minimum. See the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTSrlONiDU
I advise Mr. Wright to watch some of the following to hear Hamas leaders in their own words and understand why Israel will rightly not tolerate Hamas control, certainly over the West Bank.
https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-its-own-words-october-7-attack-%E2%80%93-memri-tv-compilation