Listen now | 00:33 What is this new Overton Windows series about? 10:05 Tamler’s connections to Israel and Bob’s experiences there 19:22 What does Zionism mean in practice? 27:35 The shifting Overton window around Israel/Palestine 45:35 The heavy-handed response to the BDS movement
There was a time when it was verboten to suggest that the US should act as a "neutral broker"re Israel/Palestine. That may still be the case. I think that would have been a fair more productive use of American diplomacy than what we actually did--and better for Israel in the long run.
Also, back in the 90s Brzezinski used to say that Israel's goal for the West Bank was bantustans. I recall him saying it on the Newshour once, and James Baker did not object. Which may be evidence that the Overton Window leaks.
I love the way Tamler says, “You have GENUINELY heterodox opinions...”, implying that a lot of what currently passes for “heterodox” is just re-branded center-right thinking.
Really enjoy the premise and structure of this new feature and I’m looking forward to new episodes. Your motto must have been “go big or go broke” with this fearless first episode. I admire that you didn’t take on a relatively “safe” (or, historic) topic like changing attitudes and laws about smoking or seat belts. Although I’d love to hear what you two think about the wider acceptance for the legalization of marijuana and yet the rise of anti-vaping campaigns (vaping in general, not just vaping marijuana). As one overtone window widens, another gets narrower?
As an avid listener to Non-Zero and occasional listener to VBW I was surprised to hear two mistakes in this first Overton podcast. Non-Jews can absolutely become Israeli citizens https://www.ballstatedaily.com/article/2023/07/israeli-citizenship-for-non-jews-exploring-the-naturalization-process?ct=content_open&cv=cbox_latest and non Jews can buy land anywhere. There were cases when small towns tried to make acceptance interviews. This was primarily aimed at maintaing a balance of religious or non religious Jews. And probably also worked against non Jewish citizens. And I am sure that Jews have made it hard for neighbors to sell to non-Jews. But it's not illegal. I may agree or disagree (both in fact) with the rest of the conversation. I fully accpet the premise that there is a window that probably should shift. But misinformation should be corrected
Thank you for this. What a great topic and brave first episode. It was interesting. I wanted to suggest a few things to consider for future episodes, if I may be so bold. I would really love to hear more historical analysis of how events, images or words change the window. E.g. what was the shift before and after the 2nd intifada or the Rabin shooting. Nick Ut's photo in Vietnam or the Columbine shooting are other examples that come to mind for other topics. I'm also interested in analysis of the actors and strategy design that changes the windows. BDS was a deliberate attempt by Palestinian's to make Westerners more sympathetic to their cause, and Israel has deployed their lobbying efforts to change American perception and law to counter this. You talk about these things, but how does the shift come about exactly? Why do some tactics work and others don't. There was a fascinating example in Canada where Israel had deployed a media watchdog organisation to seek out any misinformation in Canadian media, to the point where it put the media on the backfoot and got them scared of lawsuits and self-censoring. The Palestinians have since launched a similar organisation. Both camps are trying to control the window. Another example: Extinction Rebellion deliberately considered how to change the window when designing their tactics, choosing to be very extreme so that (a) they could garner media attention and (b) so lesser actions could be taken more seriously. Anyways, I think helping people to understand how topics get framed and thus windows changed might help people question why they think the way they do and I'd love to see slightly deeper analysis on this. Again, great topic and good luck. I look forward to hearing more.
We complain about Israel's human rights problem because they are supposed to be our brothers. It's the opposite motive from anti-Semitism. It bothers you more when it's your brother behaving badly than a stranger.
I've always been fascinated by the Israel/Palestine question but have been totally dissuaded from looking into it because I'm convinced I'd be unable to find an unbiased authority on this most contentious of issues. I figured anyone my mediocre search would find who would care enough about this to write extensively about it would be a Zionist who isn't fair to the Palestinian point of view, or a naive progressive who knows nothing about what it's like to live in Israel. Anyone have any good suggestions that don't fall into either of those or similar categories?
I've been to the West Bank and seen the roads and talked to the Palestinians who aren't allowed to drive on them. I should have said "West Bank Palestinians," because Palestinians with Israeli citizenship can drive on them (and maybe a few Palestinian Authority officials, too--I'm not sure). I'd have to go back and relisten to exactly what I said, but I'm pretty sure that, in general, I made a clear distinction between the status of West Bank Palestinians and the status of Palestinians in Israel proper--and between the claim that there is apartheid in the West Bank and the claim that there is apartheid within Israel proper.
The article makes the point that the few restrictions that do exist are primarily for security reasons (and there are similar restrictions on roads in areas controlled by the PA). But those restrictions that do exist do so in the context of settlements. From the article you linked to: "However, for security reasons, a very small percentage of West Bank roads around Israeli settlements (about 40 km in total according to the Israeli human rights organisation B’tselem) are prohibited to Palestinian traffic. "
So I think in the broader context it's fair to classify those roads with restrictions around the settlements part of a broader apartheid regime, since if the settlements weren't there the roads wouldn't be either, and the status of the settlements is, at best, legally dubious.
So it's not to say Bob was right, because it seems like he was making a broader claim, but I don't think it's necessarily incorrect or misinformation, it was simply not contextualized.
There was a time when it was verboten to suggest that the US should act as a "neutral broker"re Israel/Palestine. That may still be the case. I think that would have been a fair more productive use of American diplomacy than what we actually did--and better for Israel in the long run.
Also, back in the 90s Brzezinski used to say that Israel's goal for the West Bank was bantustans. I recall him saying it on the Newshour once, and James Baker did not object. Which may be evidence that the Overton Window leaks.
I love the way Tamler says, “You have GENUINELY heterodox opinions...”, implying that a lot of what currently passes for “heterodox” is just re-branded center-right thinking.
Really enjoy the premise and structure of this new feature and I’m looking forward to new episodes. Your motto must have been “go big or go broke” with this fearless first episode. I admire that you didn’t take on a relatively “safe” (or, historic) topic like changing attitudes and laws about smoking or seat belts. Although I’d love to hear what you two think about the wider acceptance for the legalization of marijuana and yet the rise of anti-vaping campaigns (vaping in general, not just vaping marijuana). As one overtone window widens, another gets narrower?
As an avid listener to Non-Zero and occasional listener to VBW I was surprised to hear two mistakes in this first Overton podcast. Non-Jews can absolutely become Israeli citizens https://www.ballstatedaily.com/article/2023/07/israeli-citizenship-for-non-jews-exploring-the-naturalization-process?ct=content_open&cv=cbox_latest and non Jews can buy land anywhere. There were cases when small towns tried to make acceptance interviews. This was primarily aimed at maintaing a balance of religious or non religious Jews. And probably also worked against non Jewish citizens. And I am sure that Jews have made it hard for neighbors to sell to non-Jews. But it's not illegal. I may agree or disagree (both in fact) with the rest of the conversation. I fully accpet the premise that there is a window that probably should shift. But misinformation should be corrected
Thank you for this. What a great topic and brave first episode. It was interesting. I wanted to suggest a few things to consider for future episodes, if I may be so bold. I would really love to hear more historical analysis of how events, images or words change the window. E.g. what was the shift before and after the 2nd intifada or the Rabin shooting. Nick Ut's photo in Vietnam or the Columbine shooting are other examples that come to mind for other topics. I'm also interested in analysis of the actors and strategy design that changes the windows. BDS was a deliberate attempt by Palestinian's to make Westerners more sympathetic to their cause, and Israel has deployed their lobbying efforts to change American perception and law to counter this. You talk about these things, but how does the shift come about exactly? Why do some tactics work and others don't. There was a fascinating example in Canada where Israel had deployed a media watchdog organisation to seek out any misinformation in Canadian media, to the point where it put the media on the backfoot and got them scared of lawsuits and self-censoring. The Palestinians have since launched a similar organisation. Both camps are trying to control the window. Another example: Extinction Rebellion deliberately considered how to change the window when designing their tactics, choosing to be very extreme so that (a) they could garner media attention and (b) so lesser actions could be taken more seriously. Anyways, I think helping people to understand how topics get framed and thus windows changed might help people question why they think the way they do and I'd love to see slightly deeper analysis on this. Again, great topic and good luck. I look forward to hearing more.
We complain about Israel's human rights problem because they are supposed to be our brothers. It's the opposite motive from anti-Semitism. It bothers you more when it's your brother behaving badly than a stranger.
My thought exactly. I am so very critical of Israeli government's racism precisely because I love so much the Jewish spirit.
I've always been fascinated by the Israel/Palestine question but have been totally dissuaded from looking into it because I'm convinced I'd be unable to find an unbiased authority on this most contentious of issues. I figured anyone my mediocre search would find who would care enough about this to write extensively about it would be a Zionist who isn't fair to the Palestinian point of view, or a naive progressive who knows nothing about what it's like to live in Israel. Anyone have any good suggestions that don't fall into either of those or similar categories?
You made a strong claim the appears to be incorrect and #misinformation.
Specifically about non Jews being not able to drive on certain roads. https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/yourview/arid-30856339.html.
You casually mentioned this as part of your “apartheid” claim.
I've been to the West Bank and seen the roads and talked to the Palestinians who aren't allowed to drive on them. I should have said "West Bank Palestinians," because Palestinians with Israeli citizenship can drive on them (and maybe a few Palestinian Authority officials, too--I'm not sure). I'd have to go back and relisten to exactly what I said, but I'm pretty sure that, in general, I made a clear distinction between the status of West Bank Palestinians and the status of Palestinians in Israel proper--and between the claim that there is apartheid in the West Bank and the claim that there is apartheid within Israel proper.
The article makes the point that the few restrictions that do exist are primarily for security reasons (and there are similar restrictions on roads in areas controlled by the PA). But those restrictions that do exist do so in the context of settlements. From the article you linked to: "However, for security reasons, a very small percentage of West Bank roads around Israeli settlements (about 40 km in total according to the Israeli human rights organisation B’tselem) are prohibited to Palestinian traffic. "
So I think in the broader context it's fair to classify those roads with restrictions around the settlements part of a broader apartheid regime, since if the settlements weren't there the roads wouldn't be either, and the status of the settlements is, at best, legally dubious.
So it's not to say Bob was right, because it seems like he was making a broader claim, but I don't think it's necessarily incorrect or misinformation, it was simply not contextualized.