Listen now | 1:56 How Jews fit—or don’t—into universities’ DEI regimes 10:31 What do controversial pro-Palestine chants really mean? 18:00 When does criticism of Israel become antisemitic? 26:17 The Israel lobby’s influence on Congress and academia 33:49 Do pro-Israel donors unwittingly inflame antisemitism? 40:58 Evidence of increasing antisemitism 49:25 Was Ilhan Omar’s “all about the Benjamins” tweet antisemitic? 56:43 Bob criticizes Bari Weiss, Bill Ackman, and an Eli tweet 1:06:48 Balancing concerns about free speech and antisemitism 1:13:50 Are Israelis too fatalistic about antisemitism for their own good? Robert Wright (Nonzero, The Evolution of God, Why Buddhism Is True) and Eli Lake (The New York Sun, Clements Center, The Re-Education, The Free Press). Recorded May 13, 2024.Twitter: https://twitter.com/NonzeroPods
To his credit, Eli Lake did finally say at the very end of the podcast that the mass killings of civilians in Gaza is a moral problem. However, his inability to simply acknowledge that the mass killings of civilians is the overwhelming reason for the protests, and that of course this is an anti-war protest movement, is childish and not at all convincing.
It's certainly anti-war in the sense that protesters are in part motivated by humanitarian concerns and want a ceasefire.
It's not anti-war in the sense that the protesters are generally supportive of Palestine waging war on Israel ("by any means necessary") and are not supportive of things that would help stop the war like releasing the hostages.
I’ve listened to dozens of protest leaders explain what they want, and not one has said that they support Hamas, support Palestine waging war on Israel, and every one of them wants the release of the hostages. If a protester told me they wanted any of those things you listed, I would tell them they’re wrong and they don’t speak for the rest of us. The protest movement wants the war to stop, and we don’t want Hamas in charge of Gaza’s government anymore. This idea Eli keeps repeating that protesters are pro-Hamas is asinine. There will always be examples of some people saying hateful, idiotic things, and they exist on all parts of the political spectrum. All we can do is condemn those people.
I would like to acknowledge that you say that the protest leaders you spoke to "want" the release of the hostages. I think it is fair to say, however, that that is not a demand you see often in those protests. Why?
Probably because the 35,000 dead Arabs and the recently uncovered mass grave in Khan Younis is a more immediate concern.
I have likewise not seen any pro-war protestors who seem to be too concerned about the hostages who were killed by Israeli military operations in Gaza, nor any who think Israel has any obligation to release the thousands of Palestinian hostages Israel has kept in its prisons for decades.
You are engaging in unfair rhetoric. I am not Eli Lake.
I never said protest leaders say they support Hamas. (The would have to be really stupid to say that, but also they generally genuinely don't actively support Hamas).
I said they do support Palestine waging war on Israel -- did you ask them if they did? What did they say? If you didn't ask (why?), what do you think they would say?
If they didn't support Palestine waging war on Israel, why would they keep using "by any means necessary" as a slogan? (Did you ask?)
Did you ask whether they demand that the hostages be released?
While “from the river to the sea” can have a peaceful interpretation, for “globalize the intifada” it is much harder to find a non-violent interpretation. It is clearly a call to arms.
Did I say that you said “protest leaders say they support Hamas”? Nothing I said was in reference to you. You’re taking statements unrelated to you oddly personally. No offense, but I’m a father and busy guy in general and I’m not going to continue to engage with you. Feel free to reply, but I won’t be coming back to read it.
Why don’t you ask them yourself? Try listening to them before you twist their movement into a straw man.
Christopher's behavior here is I believe typical of what I'm talking about: the movement is an alliance between leftists, Palestinian nationalists, Islamists, and Western-style liberals, and consequently the rhetoric is a mix. PR considerations and coalitional politics mean that sometimes some people want to present the movement as Western-style liberals only, but that's also hard to do because a lot of people in the movement are not like that.
If you try to ask questions, you get deflections and personal attacks. "Why don’t you ask them yourself?" I just asked you, and got a typical response.
"Nothing I said was in reference to you."
" If a protester told me they wanted any of those things you listed,"
"You’re taking statements unrelated to you oddly personally."
"before you twist their movement into a straw man."
Have you actually asked any of these protestors whether they support “Palestine waging war on Israel” or if they support a one-state solution with equal rights for all? When you answer their question, don’t give me your interpretation of their rhetoric, tell me whether you have spoken to these protestors and asked them this question.
(And note of course that it's a false dichotomy: one can support a one-state solution and also support violent means of getting there, although the practicalities of that seem murky)
I'll ask you, too: If you're a protester, do you demand at the protests that Hamas disarm and surrender the terrorist leaders, and unconditionally release all hostages? Do you oppose Gaza's waging war on Israel, and do you express that during protests?
Of course not. Israel's defenders just "know". "Israel has the right to defend itself even by genocide because it was done to our ancestors". That's essentially their only argument.
I've asked Charles and Christopher those questions in this very thread, and got deflection and silence (which is of course typical of the interviews you see, because of the composition of the protests and the coalitional dynamics). If Charles (or you) disagree, about your own views or the protesters', out with it.
I would also ask you not to make up quotes and attribute them to me despite my not saying anything like what's in the quote. Address the actual arguments I made if you care to.
Israel is currently plausibly actually committing a genocide according to the International Court of Justice. That is what is being protested. Denigrating pro-Palestinian protesters by asserting they support Hamas militants is in bad faith. It is a tactic of deflection. Goodbye.
1. Israel is engaging in a was with too little regard for civilians, it's true. Calling it "committing genocide" is IMO unhelpful rhetoric
2. No such thing as "plausibly actually". As you know, that's not what the ICC said anyway
3. It's not bad faith if it's true. Note that I didn't say "Hamas" and indeed most protesters would rather support a more secular movement and have substantial difference with Hamas. However, as pointed out here, they don't demand that the hostages be released, but rather want to leverage Hamas's hostage-taking for something to be gained
A release of all hostages would probably bring an immediate end to Israel war crimes, will it not? Then how come chants demanding it are absent from the protestor script? The likely answer is that the anti-war protestors are being used as “useful fools” by the pro-war organizers.
I’m not a defender of Israel, and yet I can see how it is being singled out for responding in the same despicable way all other western nation-states would respond to a similar event.
Presumably not all attendees of all protests were actively engaged in chanting at all times. Have you attended a protest and asked one of them (I) what they subjectively believed their chants meant, and/or (II) whether they personally want to see “Palestine wage war on Israel”? Have you looked at any of the long-form interviews that have been conducted with protest leaders to discern the answers to these question? Here’s an example of the latter: https://www.middleeasteye.net/video/why-young-jewish-americans-are-turning-israel
The claim that the war would stop — more accurately, that Israel would stop its siege of Gaza — if the hostages were released is simply false. Hamas offered to release all the hostages in exchange for a permanent end to the war this week. Israel rejected the proposal.
It’s not surprising that Israel rejected the proposal. Israel’s cabinet includes genuine fascists Yitamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalal Smotrich. Since Bibi only has a one-seat majority in a coalition government, both of these nutjobs have the ability to literally dissolve the government at any time. Both of them have said publicly that they would dissolve the government if Rafa wasn’t invaded or if Israel agreed to a ceasefire. The Times of Israel covered this extensively.
Hamas offered to release the hostages *in exchange for all Palestinian prisoners and a permanent ceasefire* (but note: not peace. I.e., Hamas plans to break the ceasefire at some point since their goal is to conquer Israel). So the offer is: Hamas takes hostages (and murders a bunch of people), and then Hamas sets the terms for releasing the hostages. If you look at it from Israel's POV, of course that doesn't make sense.
A truly pro-peace movement that's not sympathetic to Hamas would demand for Hamas to unconditionally release the hostages, disarm, and surrender the terrorist leaders.
Now, separately from that, it is also true that the Israeli government are far-right loons who at this point likely would try to press their advantage. But of course there would be a ceasefire with an unconditional release and surrender, and of course Hamas is a terrorist orgnization that right-thinking people *should* want to give up and surrender.
The release of the hostages coupled with a long enough cease-fire, say 6 months, is likely to cause the fall of Netanyahu, which would likely facilitate a step in the direction of more compliance with international law.
How exactly does “globalize the intifada” sound anti-war to you? What heroic fit of interpretive gymnastics can you conjure in order to plaster over its core message of support for violent engagement with the oppressor?
Bluntly, the United States does not have a serious problem with anti-Semitism. Many people who were taught from childhood to be ever-vigilant about anti-Semitism are seeing ghosts, and many others know that this is true but are simply being dishonest about it for political reasons.
Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, recently said that “if you listen in your heart, you can almost hear the shatter glass of Kristallnacht” on America’s college campuses. This is wildly irresponsible rhetoric, but you can expect no less from a Republican. Suffice it to say that if these protests were *actually* motivated by real anti-Semitism — that is, hatred of all Jews everywhere simply for being Jews — then (I) Jewish students and professors wouldn’t be participating in and leading the protests (they are), (II) these protestors would be attacking Jewish-owned business like the Nazi thugs did in Kristallnacht (they aren’t), and (III) they presumably would not be hosting Seder services in the middle of the encampments.
We are witnessing a manufactured hysteria in the U.S. right now that is a perfect parallel to the hysteria that gripped British elite culture over the supposed surge of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn took over. (I note that this phenomenon only seemed to affect the British elite. No ordinary British person with common sense I have spoken to has ever told me they believed that the narrative was true.)
In fact, Bob, perhaps you might be able to get one of the anti-Zionist Labour Party members who were expelled from the party — like Moshe Machover or Naomi Wissborne-Idrissi — as a guest to give their perspective on this claim.
Re "the hysteria that gripped British elite culture over the supposed surge of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn took over. (I note that this phenomenon only seemed to affect the British elite. No ordinary British person with common sense I have spoken to has ever told me they believed that the narrative was true.)"
I think the impact on the ground was much more extensive than what you came across in your circle of acquaintance. A relative of mine, who as far as I'm aware does not know a single Jew (there are very few in that part of the country), voted against Labour due to the reports of anti-Semitism. Simon Wren-Lewis quoted a poll where the public thought the incidence of complaints about anti-Semitism within the Labour party membership was 500x the actual incidence (which was 300 out of 500,000 members): https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/corbyn-and-antisemitism.html
I agree that the US does not have a serious Antisemitism problem, but it does have a non-serious Antisemitism problem. Critique of Israel is not Antisemitism, but the singling out of Jewish donors, such as George Soros and Bill Ackman is mildly antisemitic. The ADL has lost its way, sure, but saying that they yield excessive power is mildly antisemitic. Arguing that Israel does not have a right to exist as a Jewish nation-state is more than mildly antisemitic.
In my view, Eli is a tribalistic propagandist; Coleman is just a dishonest opportunist. Both had no intentions of debating issues in good faith. Yet, both are considered to be "public intellectuals". America is FUBAR
I don't think one can fairly look at Coleman Hughes's oeuvre and call him a "dishonest opportunist" - he has generally been insightful and even-handed. It's true though that this cannot be said about his output on this particular issue, and some of his comments on Joe Rogan's podcast about other matters (pandemic responses, R.F. Kennedy Jr., etc) were not reassuring
I guess in your world only people you agree with are engaged in rational debate, while the rest are demagogues seeking to subvert the discourse for personal gain. Also in your world: the ad-hominem logical fallacy is not really a fallacy. Arguments are judged first and foremost by the plausible motivation of whoever argues them.
2. Eli said that pro-Palestinian protesters blocked a Jewish hospital in Toronto. This is in reference to a protest that passed by Mount Saini hospital. He can be given credit for not knowing better as it was reported poorly in Canadian media. But the protesters did not actually block the hospital. They merely passed by it as they went south down University Avenue (https://globalnews.ca/news/10306790/protesters-outside-toronto-hospital-dispute-antisemitism-allegations/).
Also just insane to me that Eli is opposed to the anti-Vietnam war protests. I didn't know anyone since Willian F. Buckley still held this position.
I know you have a non-confrontation style Robert and appreciate that it probably allows you to have much more interesting conversations with people that you would otherwise not be able to--or maybe it comes from a genuine sense of empathy. I can't help but feeling that you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back as Eli asserts everything under the sun is antisemitic, while you equivocate on whether someone waving a flag by another person was an intentional stabbing, or whether she actually had to go to the hospital for having a piece of fabric graze her face.
I ask Bob a question, check my email 30 minutes later, and there’s an invite to to an AMA with Bob on Friday. Sure the Zoom meeting is about AI, but that’s still excellent service! Smash that subscribe button folks.
You meant that metaphorically, right? Right? Oh I see now that you did use the words “rhetorical” and “people like Eli” instead of “self-tightening” and “Jews”. That clears it. Good thing Jews can’t hear dog whistles.
Do you also go around telling African Americans that they have anger issues, or do you reserve the psychotherapy for the Jews in your life, because, you know, they’re into that kind of thing?
I’ve wondered the same thing. Bob you seem to avoid bringing up the mass killing of civilians in Gaza when you speak to folks like Coleman and Eli, could you talk about why that is? Maybe it’s because we all agree that it’s an obvious moral problem that needs to end immediately. Or maybe it’s just a conversational dead end.
I don't really understand Bob's rhetoric about "unfortunate" slogans. It's not "unfortunate," it's a deliberate choice.
Everyone's heard about what "from the river to the sea" means, and people who keep chanting it do it because they want to be kind of edgy. (Similarly for "globalize the intifada", "by any means necessary", etc). You can be OK with that kind of edginess or you can think that it crosses the line, but it doesn't make sense to pretend that it's some weird coincidence that demonstrators keep using slogans that hint at violence.
Is there any real data about all the protests? Such as the percentage of counter/protesters that are current students, their understanding of slogans/phrases/flags, and (most importantly) what they actually want?
Everything I hear assumes that the majority of protesters on campus are current students, but even assuming that is true, there is necessarily a lot of assumption about what these student protesters actually want: do they all want what the most vocal of their groups want?
Now you might think that in order for protestors to get what they want it would be in their interest to make it as clear as possible what exactly they want. But that would be awfully naive. Ambiguity is the wining strategy because it allows for people that would be truly appalled had they knew each other’s goals to pretend they are working for the same goal.
In general I agree with your sentiment, but it’s not naive to desire or even expect protestors to be coherent. Nor is it naive to expect intelligent commentary about the protests to be nuanced. It would be naive to take commentary about the protests — or any subject with little actual data — at face value.
The most successful/effective protests are coherent, so a protest that is not coherent is itself naive. Likewise, it’s naive to assume all these naive and incoherent counter/protestors are a monolith characterized by their most vocal or offensive elements.
Historically in Europe, Antisemitism was motivated by Christian faith and a hatred of the rich. Now globally, it's motivated by Islamic faith, a hatred of the rich, and a hatred of military might. It's a variation of the recurring theme where Jews are singled out for the sickness of the world. Who the oppressed of the world really hate is America. America is the one that truly lures them to temptation, has a chokehold on the global financial system, and yields supreme military might. The Jews are just a crunchier substitute. A breakfast to get you going. No Antisemite is born an Antisemite. They arrive at it after starting out seeking fortitude against temptation, resources to be fairly distributed, and violent power to be constrained. The noble cause sits at the heart of evil.
The Israeli lobbies have an undeniably fierce influence on the US political system and US foreign policy. Many Jews acknowledge this. Many Jews themselves point out that Judaism is not a monolith. Zionist Jews arguably have more in common with Zionist Christians than with other Jews.
Some Jews cling to their persecution complex, in some cases pathologically so, because they were brought up to believe the conspiracy theory that everyone is out to get the Jews.
And there was no suggestion in your reply that in this particular case I am showing signs of a pathological clinging to a persecution complex. You were just speaking of all the other Jews that have a pathological persecution complex, right? Because you wouldn’t dream of being this rude or passive-aggressive?
The Jews are over-represented in America among the rich and powerful, anyone not seeing that is wearing a magical blindfold. But that gives rise to a nasty problem of explaining how this situation came about. If one assumes that the Jews attained this over-representation while playing by the rules, then one must arrive at the unsavory conclusion that the Jews must have some genetic or cultural advantage over the rest of us. That's a hard pill to swallow, even for me, and I'm a Jew! I disgust myself even thinking it. Much easier to believe that the Jews obtained their positions of seniority through excessive wrongdoing. Yes, that must be the truth (I'm being sarcastic).
When there is a major difference between the motivations of organizers and the motivations of participants, by definition, the participants are "useful fools".
> ChatGPT 4o: The term "useful fool" refers to someone who is unwittingly manipulated or used by a group or person to further their own agenda, often without fully understanding the larger implications or the true motives of the manipulators. This term is often used in political contexts where an individual or group is exploited to support a cause, ideology, or propaganda, even though they might not align with the manipulator's ultimate goals. <
When someone leads a chant of "from the river to the sea" the only intentions that matter are the ones of the person holding the megaphone and the organizers pulling his or her strings. The intentions of the people in the crowd are irrelevant.
> Luke 23:34: Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. <
The warrant requests issued today against Hamas and Israel's leaders have my almost complete support. The one thing I'm missing is an assertion that the ICC needs to address the question of whether unconstrained use of AI in target acquisition can be considered a war crime (which I hope is the case).
Calls for divestment of university endowments from Israeli companies show a lack of understanding for how financial markets operate. The effect on Israeli companies’ ability to raise funds is most likely to be minimal, and they are already locked out of the IPO market due to investors’ risk aversion. It’s a pointless measure that does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. It makes protestors feel accomplished but it accomplishes nothing else.
While I reject the ADL mindless protection of Israel, and lament its misguided attempt to equate critique of Israel with Antisemitism, I do view charges that it yields excessive influence in American politics as Antisemitic. It has the amount of influence that it gets away with, as protected by First Amendment. I'm a free speech advocate and I oppose the ADL's attempts to silence critique of Israel, but I also oppose unfounded innuendo that the ADL is not playing by the rules, or that it should self-censure so as to not feed Antisemitic troupes. It should be obvious that the ADL does not speak for the Jewish people. It answers only to its donors. I support its right to pursue goals that I oppose, just like any other non-profit.
Based on the kind of responses that I’m seeing on this comment section I would say that discussion of this topic is quite attractive to Antisemites. Can you critique the ADL without calling the ugly out of the woodwork? A bit of a challenge.
Eli Lake's claim about Columbia Law professor Katherine Franke is false. Democracy Now interviewed her (https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/25/columbia_palestine_protest_attack) after three Columbia students who were former IDF members sprayed skunk water on pro-Palestinian protesters. She said that there has been a history of bad behavior by former Israeli soldiers, who come to Columbia through a special program for older students, and that Columbia has been slow to discipline them. She said that Columbia did ban these three students from campus but that such bans are hard to enforce.
Obviously the skunk attackers should be arrested, stand for trial, then deported after serving their time. But you have to understand that almost all Israelis are former soldiers. It’s mandatory service in Israel. And they are all older when they go to college because it’s a three year service. To say about an Israeli that he or she is a former IDF member means nothing. I’m a former IDF member too. I refused to serve in the occupied territories and the nice officer that was tasked with processing my allocation (to Gaza) decided to change my allocation to accommodate me instead of throwing me in jail, going above and beyond her call of duty. To call an Israeli a former IDF member is to suggest something nefarious that isn’t there. That’s precisely how Antisemitism operates.
You do make a valid point. That's the tight line Bob is walking IMHO. I understand that line from his perspective, i e. as an explanation, but I don't expect everyone to accept it as a justification. I do personally because it is my hope that people who listen to Eli may, by being exposed to Bob's moderate arguments and non-confrontational style, be more amenable to revising their entrenched, outmoded (or simply inaccurate) views on Israel.
Robert: if you wimp out like that again, I'm unsubscribing.
Lake has the pro Palestine protesters as the exception to his (invented?) on-campus crackdown on free speech. Any other campus protests the subjects of police actions?
If you're going to have him on the show, buck him back on his bs.
Aren’t you acting just a bit like the Bill Ackmans of the world when threatening to withdraw your monthly $6 donation in order to beat Bob into submission? Acting a bit like a Jew?
I expect that Jews and Goys alike listen to what they want to listen to, and stop listening when it doesn't interest them anymore. If Wright can't call Lake out on his utter nonsense, it isn't my kind of show.
He is walking a fine line but has made his own views clear publicly in his writings and in other podcasts. This episode was on the topic of anti-Semitism, and veered off topic repeatedly, despite Bob's IMHO best efforts to keep it on track.
Lake never met a platform he couldn't flood with tripe, and Wright surely knew that going in. The free speech martyr act is predictable, and I'd have very much liked to hear how Lake reconciled it with the fact that the only protest group drawing actual gov't (& police) pushback are the Palestinian support protests that he insists are being given special treatment.
You make a valid point. To explain the fine line that Bob is walking without necessarily justifying it, IMHO Bob hopes to expose Eli Lake's followers to viewpoints they would not be open to if presented in a more confrontational way, and to encourage them to modify their outdated and/or inaccurate beliefs about Zionism and Israel. Our (Bob's and mine) generation grew up in the Cold War US, with no exposure to Palestinian perspectives whatsoever, but great exposure to the Holocaust in the political and cultural landscapes.
To his credit, Eli Lake did finally say at the very end of the podcast that the mass killings of civilians in Gaza is a moral problem. However, his inability to simply acknowledge that the mass killings of civilians is the overwhelming reason for the protests, and that of course this is an anti-war protest movement, is childish and not at all convincing.
It's a mix.
It's certainly anti-war in the sense that protesters are in part motivated by humanitarian concerns and want a ceasefire.
It's not anti-war in the sense that the protesters are generally supportive of Palestine waging war on Israel ("by any means necessary") and are not supportive of things that would help stop the war like releasing the hostages.
I’ve listened to dozens of protest leaders explain what they want, and not one has said that they support Hamas, support Palestine waging war on Israel, and every one of them wants the release of the hostages. If a protester told me they wanted any of those things you listed, I would tell them they’re wrong and they don’t speak for the rest of us. The protest movement wants the war to stop, and we don’t want Hamas in charge of Gaza’s government anymore. This idea Eli keeps repeating that protesters are pro-Hamas is asinine. There will always be examples of some people saying hateful, idiotic things, and they exist on all parts of the political spectrum. All we can do is condemn those people.
I would like to acknowledge that you say that the protest leaders you spoke to "want" the release of the hostages. I think it is fair to say, however, that that is not a demand you see often in those protests. Why?
Probably because the 35,000 dead Arabs and the recently uncovered mass grave in Khan Younis is a more immediate concern.
I have likewise not seen any pro-war protestors who seem to be too concerned about the hostages who were killed by Israeli military operations in Gaza, nor any who think Israel has any obligation to release the thousands of Palestinian hostages Israel has kept in its prisons for decades.
"I have likewise not seen any pro-war protestors "
"likewise" indeed. Most protesters, both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, are a little bit pro-war.
As I argued elsewhere, unconditionally releasing the hostages would undoubtedly save lives.
You are engaging in unfair rhetoric. I am not Eli Lake.
I never said protest leaders say they support Hamas. (The would have to be really stupid to say that, but also they generally genuinely don't actively support Hamas).
I said they do support Palestine waging war on Israel -- did you ask them if they did? What did they say? If you didn't ask (why?), what do you think they would say?
If they didn't support Palestine waging war on Israel, why would they keep using "by any means necessary" as a slogan? (Did you ask?)
Did you ask whether they demand that the hostages be released?
While “from the river to the sea” can have a peaceful interpretation, for “globalize the intifada” it is much harder to find a non-violent interpretation. It is clearly a call to arms.
Did I say that you said “protest leaders say they support Hamas”? Nothing I said was in reference to you. You’re taking statements unrelated to you oddly personally. No offense, but I’m a father and busy guy in general and I’m not going to continue to engage with you. Feel free to reply, but I won’t be coming back to read it.
Why don’t you ask them yourself? Try listening to them before you twist their movement into a straw man.
Christopher's behavior here is I believe typical of what I'm talking about: the movement is an alliance between leftists, Palestinian nationalists, Islamists, and Western-style liberals, and consequently the rhetoric is a mix. PR considerations and coalitional politics mean that sometimes some people want to present the movement as Western-style liberals only, but that's also hard to do because a lot of people in the movement are not like that.
If you try to ask questions, you get deflections and personal attacks. "Why don’t you ask them yourself?" I just asked you, and got a typical response.
"Nothing I said was in reference to you."
" If a protester told me they wanted any of those things you listed,"
"You’re taking statements unrelated to you oddly personally."
"before you twist their movement into a straw man."
ok
Have you actually asked any of these protestors whether they support “Palestine waging war on Israel” or if they support a one-state solution with equal rights for all? When you answer their question, don’t give me your interpretation of their rhetoric, tell me whether you have spoken to these protestors and asked them this question.
(And note of course that it's a false dichotomy: one can support a one-state solution and also support violent means of getting there, although the practicalities of that seem murky)
I'll ask you, too: If you're a protester, do you demand at the protests that Hamas disarm and surrender the terrorist leaders, and unconditionally release all hostages? Do you oppose Gaza's waging war on Israel, and do you express that during protests?
Of course not. Israel's defenders just "know". "Israel has the right to defend itself even by genocide because it was done to our ancestors". That's essentially their only argument.
I've asked Charles and Christopher those questions in this very thread, and got deflection and silence (which is of course typical of the interviews you see, because of the composition of the protests and the coalitional dynamics). If Charles (or you) disagree, about your own views or the protesters', out with it.
I would also ask you not to make up quotes and attribute them to me despite my not saying anything like what's in the quote. Address the actual arguments I made if you care to.
Israel is currently plausibly actually committing a genocide according to the International Court of Justice. That is what is being protested. Denigrating pro-Palestinian protesters by asserting they support Hamas militants is in bad faith. It is a tactic of deflection. Goodbye.
1. Israel is engaging in a was with too little regard for civilians, it's true. Calling it "committing genocide" is IMO unhelpful rhetoric
2. No such thing as "plausibly actually". As you know, that's not what the ICC said anyway
3. It's not bad faith if it's true. Note that I didn't say "Hamas" and indeed most protesters would rather support a more secular movement and have substantial difference with Hamas. However, as pointed out here, they don't demand that the hostages be released, but rather want to leverage Hamas's hostage-taking for something to be gained
A release of all hostages would probably bring an immediate end to Israel war crimes, will it not? Then how come chants demanding it are absent from the protestor script? The likely answer is that the anti-war protestors are being used as “useful fools” by the pro-war organizers.
I’m not a defender of Israel, and yet I can see how it is being singled out for responding in the same despicable way all other western nation-states would respond to a similar event.
Can you cite any other Western state currently doing so, with US funding and diplomatic cover?
Which part of “responding to a similar event” are you blind to?
Yes, I've asked Christopher in this very comment thread! He deflected.
How about anyone actually attending a protest?
What do you mean? Christopher obviously was at a protest according to what he said.
Do you mean did I go up to people while they're chanting "from the river to the sea" to ask questions or something?
Presumably not all attendees of all protests were actively engaged in chanting at all times. Have you attended a protest and asked one of them (I) what they subjectively believed their chants meant, and/or (II) whether they personally want to see “Palestine wage war on Israel”? Have you looked at any of the long-form interviews that have been conducted with protest leaders to discern the answers to these question? Here’s an example of the latter: https://www.middleeasteye.net/video/why-young-jewish-americans-are-turning-israel
The claim that the war would stop — more accurately, that Israel would stop its siege of Gaza — if the hostages were released is simply false. Hamas offered to release all the hostages in exchange for a permanent end to the war this week. Israel rejected the proposal.
It’s not surprising that Israel rejected the proposal. Israel’s cabinet includes genuine fascists Yitamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalal Smotrich. Since Bibi only has a one-seat majority in a coalition government, both of these nutjobs have the ability to literally dissolve the government at any time. Both of them have said publicly that they would dissolve the government if Rafa wasn’t invaded or if Israel agreed to a ceasefire. The Times of Israel covered this extensively.
Your contention is simply not true.
That was not my contention.
Hamas offered to release the hostages *in exchange for all Palestinian prisoners and a permanent ceasefire* (but note: not peace. I.e., Hamas plans to break the ceasefire at some point since their goal is to conquer Israel). So the offer is: Hamas takes hostages (and murders a bunch of people), and then Hamas sets the terms for releasing the hostages. If you look at it from Israel's POV, of course that doesn't make sense.
A truly pro-peace movement that's not sympathetic to Hamas would demand for Hamas to unconditionally release the hostages, disarm, and surrender the terrorist leaders.
Now, separately from that, it is also true that the Israeli government are far-right loons who at this point likely would try to press their advantage. But of course there would be a ceasefire with an unconditional release and surrender, and of course Hamas is a terrorist orgnization that right-thinking people *should* want to give up and surrender.
The release of the hostages coupled with a long enough cease-fire, say 6 months, is likely to cause the fall of Netanyahu, which would likely facilitate a step in the direction of more compliance with international law.
How exactly does “globalize the intifada” sound anti-war to you? What heroic fit of interpretive gymnastics can you conjure in order to plaster over its core message of support for violent engagement with the oppressor?
Bluntly, the United States does not have a serious problem with anti-Semitism. Many people who were taught from childhood to be ever-vigilant about anti-Semitism are seeing ghosts, and many others know that this is true but are simply being dishonest about it for political reasons.
Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, recently said that “if you listen in your heart, you can almost hear the shatter glass of Kristallnacht” on America’s college campuses. This is wildly irresponsible rhetoric, but you can expect no less from a Republican. Suffice it to say that if these protests were *actually* motivated by real anti-Semitism — that is, hatred of all Jews everywhere simply for being Jews — then (I) Jewish students and professors wouldn’t be participating in and leading the protests (they are), (II) these protestors would be attacking Jewish-owned business like the Nazi thugs did in Kristallnacht (they aren’t), and (III) they presumably would not be hosting Seder services in the middle of the encampments.
We are witnessing a manufactured hysteria in the U.S. right now that is a perfect parallel to the hysteria that gripped British elite culture over the supposed surge of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn took over. (I note that this phenomenon only seemed to affect the British elite. No ordinary British person with common sense I have spoken to has ever told me they believed that the narrative was true.)
In fact, Bob, perhaps you might be able to get one of the anti-Zionist Labour Party members who were expelled from the party — like Moshe Machover or Naomi Wissborne-Idrissi — as a guest to give their perspective on this claim.
Re "the hysteria that gripped British elite culture over the supposed surge of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn took over. (I note that this phenomenon only seemed to affect the British elite. No ordinary British person with common sense I have spoken to has ever told me they believed that the narrative was true.)"
I think the impact on the ground was much more extensive than what you came across in your circle of acquaintance. A relative of mine, who as far as I'm aware does not know a single Jew (there are very few in that part of the country), voted against Labour due to the reports of anti-Semitism. Simon Wren-Lewis quoted a poll where the public thought the incidence of complaints about anti-Semitism within the Labour party membership was 500x the actual incidence (which was 300 out of 500,000 members): https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/corbyn-and-antisemitism.html
I agree that the US does not have a serious Antisemitism problem, but it does have a non-serious Antisemitism problem. Critique of Israel is not Antisemitism, but the singling out of Jewish donors, such as George Soros and Bill Ackman is mildly antisemitic. The ADL has lost its way, sure, but saying that they yield excessive power is mildly antisemitic. Arguing that Israel does not have a right to exist as a Jewish nation-state is more than mildly antisemitic.
In my view, Eli is a tribalistic propagandist; Coleman is just a dishonest opportunist. Both had no intentions of debating issues in good faith. Yet, both are considered to be "public intellectuals". America is FUBAR
I don't think one can fairly look at Coleman Hughes's oeuvre and call him a "dishonest opportunist" - he has generally been insightful and even-handed. It's true though that this cannot be said about his output on this particular issue, and some of his comments on Joe Rogan's podcast about other matters (pandemic responses, R.F. Kennedy Jr., etc) were not reassuring
I guess in your world only people you agree with are engaged in rational debate, while the rest are demagogues seeking to subvert the discourse for personal gain. Also in your world: the ad-hominem logical fallacy is not really a fallacy. Arguments are judged first and foremost by the plausible motivation of whoever argues them.
Two points where Eli made some unsubstantiated claims that could have been pushed back on:
1. At Columbia University he said that students were posting signs of Israel with an image of a skunk, implying it was a racist depiction of Israelis. These signs were actually in direct reference to a former IDF student releasing a stink bomb at a pro-Palestinian protest on campus, for which they were later suspended (https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2024-04-18/ty-article/.premium/jewish-student-suspended-from-columbia-for-skunk-spray-attack-sues-for-discrimination/0000018e-ee1b-dbb3-a3bf-ffdffff10000). It's also in reference to the chemical weapon called "skunk" which is used by the IDF against Palestinians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_(weapon)).
2. Eli said that pro-Palestinian protesters blocked a Jewish hospital in Toronto. This is in reference to a protest that passed by Mount Saini hospital. He can be given credit for not knowing better as it was reported poorly in Canadian media. But the protesters did not actually block the hospital. They merely passed by it as they went south down University Avenue (https://globalnews.ca/news/10306790/protesters-outside-toronto-hospital-dispute-antisemitism-allegations/).
Also just insane to me that Eli is opposed to the anti-Vietnam war protests. I didn't know anyone since Willian F. Buckley still held this position.
I know you have a non-confrontation style Robert and appreciate that it probably allows you to have much more interesting conversations with people that you would otherwise not be able to--or maybe it comes from a genuine sense of empathy. I can't help but feeling that you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back as Eli asserts everything under the sun is antisemitic, while you equivocate on whether someone waving a flag by another person was an intentional stabbing, or whether she actually had to go to the hospital for having a piece of fabric graze her face.
Thanks for the podcast loved it as always.
I second the mischaracterization of the events in Toronto as an attendee. It was en route to the U.S. embassy.
I ask Bob a question, check my email 30 minutes later, and there’s an invite to to an AMA with Bob on Friday. Sure the Zoom meeting is about AI, but that’s still excellent service! Smash that subscribe button folks.
Bob is wise to let people like Eli hang themselves with their own rhetorical rope.
You meant that metaphorically, right? Right? Oh I see now that you did use the words “rhetorical” and “people like Eli” instead of “self-tightening” and “Jews”. That clears it. Good thing Jews can’t hear dog whistles.
#PersecutionComplex
Do you also go around telling African Americans that they have anger issues, or do you reserve the psychotherapy for the Jews in your life, because, you know, they’re into that kind of thing?
I’ve wondered the same thing. Bob you seem to avoid bringing up the mass killing of civilians in Gaza when you speak to folks like Coleman and Eli, could you talk about why that is? Maybe it’s because we all agree that it’s an obvious moral problem that needs to end immediately. Or maybe it’s just a conversational dead end.
“I didn’t come on here to indict your boss, although….” Is my favourite Bob Wright line in a while.
The Art of the Ambush.
I don't really understand Bob's rhetoric about "unfortunate" slogans. It's not "unfortunate," it's a deliberate choice.
Everyone's heard about what "from the river to the sea" means, and people who keep chanting it do it because they want to be kind of edgy. (Similarly for "globalize the intifada", "by any means necessary", etc). You can be OK with that kind of edginess or you can think that it crosses the line, but it doesn't make sense to pretend that it's some weird coincidence that demonstrators keep using slogans that hint at violence.
The funny thing is that it’s all an echo of the uprising of the oppressed in the book of Exodus. It’s edgy because it’s biblical.
Is there any real data about all the protests? Such as the percentage of counter/protesters that are current students, their understanding of slogans/phrases/flags, and (most importantly) what they actually want?
Everything I hear assumes that the majority of protesters on campus are current students, but even assuming that is true, there is necessarily a lot of assumption about what these student protesters actually want: do they all want what the most vocal of their groups want?
Now you might think that in order for protestors to get what they want it would be in their interest to make it as clear as possible what exactly they want. But that would be awfully naive. Ambiguity is the wining strategy because it allows for people that would be truly appalled had they knew each other’s goals to pretend they are working for the same goal.
In general I agree with your sentiment, but it’s not naive to desire or even expect protestors to be coherent. Nor is it naive to expect intelligent commentary about the protests to be nuanced. It would be naive to take commentary about the protests — or any subject with little actual data — at face value.
The most successful/effective protests are coherent, so a protest that is not coherent is itself naive. Likewise, it’s naive to assume all these naive and incoherent counter/protestors are a monolith characterized by their most vocal or offensive elements.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Historically in Europe, Antisemitism was motivated by Christian faith and a hatred of the rich. Now globally, it's motivated by Islamic faith, a hatred of the rich, and a hatred of military might. It's a variation of the recurring theme where Jews are singled out for the sickness of the world. Who the oppressed of the world really hate is America. America is the one that truly lures them to temptation, has a chokehold on the global financial system, and yields supreme military might. The Jews are just a crunchier substitute. A breakfast to get you going. No Antisemite is born an Antisemite. They arrive at it after starting out seeking fortitude against temptation, resources to be fairly distributed, and violent power to be constrained. The noble cause sits at the heart of evil.
The Israeli lobbies have an undeniably fierce influence on the US political system and US foreign policy. Many Jews acknowledge this. Many Jews themselves point out that Judaism is not a monolith. Zionist Jews arguably have more in common with Zionist Christians than with other Jews.
Some Jews cling to their persecution complex, in some cases pathologically so, because they were brought up to believe the conspiracy theory that everyone is out to get the Jews.
And there was no suggestion in your reply that in this particular case I am showing signs of a pathological clinging to a persecution complex. You were just speaking of all the other Jews that have a pathological persecution complex, right? Because you wouldn’t dream of being this rude or passive-aggressive?
The Jews are over-represented in America among the rich and powerful, anyone not seeing that is wearing a magical blindfold. But that gives rise to a nasty problem of explaining how this situation came about. If one assumes that the Jews attained this over-representation while playing by the rules, then one must arrive at the unsavory conclusion that the Jews must have some genetic or cultural advantage over the rest of us. That's a hard pill to swallow, even for me, and I'm a Jew! I disgust myself even thinking it. Much easier to believe that the Jews obtained their positions of seniority through excessive wrongdoing. Yes, that must be the truth (I'm being sarcastic).
When there is a major difference between the motivations of organizers and the motivations of participants, by definition, the participants are "useful fools".
> ChatGPT 4o: The term "useful fool" refers to someone who is unwittingly manipulated or used by a group or person to further their own agenda, often without fully understanding the larger implications or the true motives of the manipulators. This term is often used in political contexts where an individual or group is exploited to support a cause, ideology, or propaganda, even though they might not align with the manipulator's ultimate goals. <
When someone leads a chant of "from the river to the sea" the only intentions that matter are the ones of the person holding the megaphone and the organizers pulling his or her strings. The intentions of the people in the crowd are irrelevant.
> Luke 23:34: Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. <
The warrant requests issued today against Hamas and Israel's leaders have my almost complete support. The one thing I'm missing is an assertion that the ICC needs to address the question of whether unconstrained use of AI in target acquisition can be considered a war crime (which I hope is the case).
Calls for divestment of university endowments from Israeli companies show a lack of understanding for how financial markets operate. The effect on Israeli companies’ ability to raise funds is most likely to be minimal, and they are already locked out of the IPO market due to investors’ risk aversion. It’s a pointless measure that does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. It makes protestors feel accomplished but it accomplishes nothing else.
While I reject the ADL mindless protection of Israel, and lament its misguided attempt to equate critique of Israel with Antisemitism, I do view charges that it yields excessive influence in American politics as Antisemitic. It has the amount of influence that it gets away with, as protected by First Amendment. I'm a free speech advocate and I oppose the ADL's attempts to silence critique of Israel, but I also oppose unfounded innuendo that the ADL is not playing by the rules, or that it should self-censure so as to not feed Antisemitic troupes. It should be obvious that the ADL does not speak for the Jewish people. It answers only to its donors. I support its right to pursue goals that I oppose, just like any other non-profit.
Based on the kind of responses that I’m seeing on this comment section I would say that discussion of this topic is quite attractive to Antisemites. Can you critique the ADL without calling the ugly out of the woodwork? A bit of a challenge.
Eli Lake's claim about Columbia Law professor Katherine Franke is false. Democracy Now interviewed her (https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/25/columbia_palestine_protest_attack) after three Columbia students who were former IDF members sprayed skunk water on pro-Palestinian protesters. She said that there has been a history of bad behavior by former Israeli soldiers, who come to Columbia through a special program for older students, and that Columbia has been slow to discipline them. She said that Columbia did ban these three students from campus but that such bans are hard to enforce.
Obviously the skunk attackers should be arrested, stand for trial, then deported after serving their time. But you have to understand that almost all Israelis are former soldiers. It’s mandatory service in Israel. And they are all older when they go to college because it’s a three year service. To say about an Israeli that he or she is a former IDF member means nothing. I’m a former IDF member too. I refused to serve in the occupied territories and the nice officer that was tasked with processing my allocation (to Gaza) decided to change my allocation to accommodate me instead of throwing me in jail, going above and beyond her call of duty. To call an Israeli a former IDF member is to suggest something nefarious that isn’t there. That’s precisely how Antisemitism operates.
You do make a valid point. That's the tight line Bob is walking IMHO. I understand that line from his perspective, i e. as an explanation, but I don't expect everyone to accept it as a justification. I do personally because it is my hope that people who listen to Eli may, by being exposed to Bob's moderate arguments and non-confrontational style, be more amenable to revising their entrenched, outmoded (or simply inaccurate) views on Israel.
Robert: if you wimp out like that again, I'm unsubscribing.
Lake has the pro Palestine protesters as the exception to his (invented?) on-campus crackdown on free speech. Any other campus protests the subjects of police actions?
If you're going to have him on the show, buck him back on his bs.
Aren’t you acting just a bit like the Bill Ackmans of the world when threatening to withdraw your monthly $6 donation in order to beat Bob into submission? Acting a bit like a Jew?
I expect that Jews and Goys alike listen to what they want to listen to, and stop listening when it doesn't interest them anymore. If Wright can't call Lake out on his utter nonsense, it isn't my kind of show.
Jews and Goys alike donating only to the causes they believe in? Jews and Goys alike demanding that the rule of law be enforced on campus ground?
He is walking a fine line but has made his own views clear publicly in his writings and in other podcasts. This episode was on the topic of anti-Semitism, and veered off topic repeatedly, despite Bob's IMHO best efforts to keep it on track.
Lake never met a platform he couldn't flood with tripe, and Wright surely knew that going in. The free speech martyr act is predictable, and I'd have very much liked to hear how Lake reconciled it with the fact that the only protest group drawing actual gov't (& police) pushback are the Palestinian support protests that he insists are being given special treatment.
You make a valid point. To explain the fine line that Bob is walking without necessarily justifying it, IMHO Bob hopes to expose Eli Lake's followers to viewpoints they would not be open to if presented in a more confrontational way, and to encourage them to modify their outdated and/or inaccurate beliefs about Zionism and Israel. Our (Bob's and mine) generation grew up in the Cold War US, with no exposure to Palestinian perspectives whatsoever, but great exposure to the Holocaust in the political and cultural landscapes.