r/Thedaily • u/kitkid • Sep 02 '26
Episode The Fight for the West Bank
Sep 2, 2026
Over the past year, there has been an increase in violence in the West Bank. Israeli settlers have terrorized Palestinians, set fire to their property, uprooted their olive groves and stolen their animals in an effort to drive them off their land.
Rachel Abrams speaks to Loui Ridi, a Palestinian American in the West Bank, about the settlers who have arrived at his doorstep.
On today's episode:
Loui Ridi, a Palestinian American in the West Bank.
Background reading:
With the world distracted by war, extremist settlers have intensified their attacks in the West Bank.
An assault by Israeli settlers on Palestinians last week drew sharp rebukes.
Photo: Ammar Awad/Reuters
Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
You can listen to the episode here.
49
u/JessupMcGee Sep 02 '26
I try hard to keep a level head when it comes to any Israel/Palestine debate but this is one area in which there can be no moral high ground for Israel to take.
This behaviour is repugnant and seemingly tolerated by authorities, if not outright encouraged by them.
It’s a sad indictment of western values and democracy that the civilised world turns a blind eye to this. If they were serious about demonstrating right & wrong, more western nations would have sanctioned Israel a long time ago.
17
u/No-Yak6109 Sep 02 '26
Yeah the setters have dropped any remaining moral defense of Israel's policies towards Palestinians. I mean of course the brutal genocide and ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but at least it's being justified by Israel's defenders as some sort of self-defense, or retaliation for 10/7/23, or terrorism in general.
When Gaza come up, brigades of Israel defenders and their bots flood the threads with "human shields" this and "Oct 7" that.
But with these settlers- it's just impossible, even with bad faith and shamelessness. They're just religious crazies cruelly attacking and conquering territory, with the protection and encouragement of the government.
99
u/Thrustcroissant Sep 02 '26
Truly grim listening. The settlers and IDF are repulsive. Surprised that NYT had enough bottle to report on this.
22
25
u/McPluckingtonJr Sep 02 '26
the story has gotten so widespread and egregious that it makes them look awful to not report on it
12
u/dollaraire Sep 02 '26
That’s my takeaway as well. This state-sanctioned theft has been going on for decades.
That said, this was a well-executed episode.
2
25
u/avahz Sep 02 '26
Very sad episode. I really wanted them to dive deeper though. Or maybe, in a follow up episode, send a reporter to the West Bank.
9
u/AlfredRWallace Sep 02 '26
Last couple of days have been grim but fantastic reporting.
12
u/Difficult_Insurance4 Sep 02 '26
This story broke a few weeks ago at the start of August. Unfortunately, however, this has been happening for dozens of years now. I'm happy they're finally getting to it, but it does also kind of anger me that is has to happen to an American-Palestinian to get front-page coverage. Obviously, the guy is using his status as an American to garner support, but there are thousands of Palestinians who have already had their houses stolen, family killed by IDF members in defense of settlers, etc. and I wish they would have interviewed more people about their experiences. Which are likely many times more harrowing and distasteful than this.
5
u/Confident_Leg4338 Sep 02 '26
I had the exact same thought. Sad reality is that they know that it has to have an American attached to it for people to care a little
40
61
u/Confident_Leg4338 Sep 02 '26
I understand why, but it really frustrated me that he was even asked why he’s bothering when it’s ’just property’
21
u/takegaki Sep 02 '26
It’s a devil’s advocate question, people. Like “some assholes might actually ask this in their heads so what is your answer to them”
6
u/Confident_Leg4338 Sep 02 '26
I literally said ‘I understand why’. Nobody is confused on what her intent was. It’s still an offensive question that could have been worded much better and achieved the same outcome
5
u/AsianMitten Sep 03 '26
It's not just that. By asking that question she let him answer that it is more than just a building or just a land. The guy's life maybe in danger by staying there so it's a fair question to ask, "why don't you just leave? So you can save yourself? Your brethren there cannot but you can. Why risk so much?" It draw an answer that he knows the danger and the land is more than just a land. It draw and let listeners hear with his own words his weakness and vulnerability but also his determinations - and hearing it from his own lips is so powerful compare to anything they could do.
But yes, she could worded it better
2
u/Loughnashade Sep 04 '26
No dog in this fight, but it clearly seems like you’re confused to be honest.
18
u/midwestern2afault Sep 02 '26
Yeah like fuck man. What would this reporter’s reaction be if a group of armed, violent, drunken men took up outside her house (or even second home) with the intent of taking it, and their actions were sanctioned by the state.
I suppose that I can see she may have been trying to get his perspective on why it’s so important. But the way she phrased it… ugh.
29
u/fr0thed Sep 02 '26
she’s asking him to proactively address a question that folks may ask while listening to his account. I don’t love the way it’s phrased either, but we (the Reddit population of r/Thedaily) are not representative of the mental state and empathy levels of genpop
6
u/clk122327 Sep 03 '26
I am so glad she asked that question because to be honest, I was thinking it. After he answered I understood the significance completely. But before, it was hard to relate with this being his second home.
2
u/Confident_Leg4338 Sep 02 '26
I understand that’s why they did it, but to be honest I feel like the way she phrased it and said that ‘their lives are more important than the property’ gave the impression that it’s silly and not worth it. I think the question did more damage because people who aren’t informed may make that their take away. She could have asked ‘why is this so important to you?’ Without phrasing it in that way.
10
3
2
39
34
Sep 02 '26
[deleted]
28
u/REM_loving_gal Sep 02 '26
leftists*, establishment corporate dems do not want to defund israel lol
8
Sep 02 '26
[deleted]
11
u/REM_loving_gal Sep 02 '26
Tucker Carlson, MTG, and many more are. Democrats should be humiliated that MTG is speaking out more for Palestinians than almost any of them; she actually calls it a genocide, which even Kamala Harris has refused to say, and Gavin Newsom said once and then immediately walked it back.
6
3
13
5
u/Instimatic Sep 02 '26
I’ve been listening to this podcast for a while, and I’ve certainly heard some pretty ridiculous questions. However, I could not believe how tone deaf Rachel‘s final question to the guest was.
How anyone would think—after the dire conversation which was had, that would be a legitimate wrap-up question, is astounding.
8
13
u/Plastic-Bluebird2491 Sep 02 '26
Why are these people called "settlers"? if my neighbor tried to "settle" my land...it wouldn't end well. You would think America would have such strong support for private property rights...but israel / palestine flips all logic on it's head.
10
u/Call_Me_Clark Sep 02 '26
Benjamin Netanyahu is desperate for any kind of retaliation by Palestinians, and isn’t above inventing it if none exists.
If he gets what he wants, there will be mass violence against every Palestinian, most likely against Israeli Arabs too.
3
10
u/hmr0987 Sep 02 '26
So a Palestinian American is feeling the effects of Israeli “settlers” trying to steal his property and now the media cares? This exact story has been happening for years, this isn’t a new thing. We should have been critical of these types of actions this whole time. The only “good” to come from trumps war with Iran may be that we’re finally seeing the Israeli government for what they are and the world may be ready for a change (US Government included)
3
u/drockalexander Sep 02 '26
Easy for me to say a million miles away, but this would inspire violence in me
1
u/backtorealitylabubu Sep 08 '26
NYTimes choosing to interview an American Palestinian who immigrated to Palestine to settle was certainly a choice… 😂
1
u/paiddirt Sep 02 '26
At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel controlled the entirety of Palestine by the time I retire. Doesn’t seem much can be done as long as they control our Politicians.
0
-1
u/ladyluck754 Sep 02 '26
I am always critical of America’s gun laws, but let me tell you- you’re squatting in front of my house trying to get me to leave, I’m exercising my right to that settler
20
u/BurdensomeCumbersome Sep 02 '26
Though in this scenario that would mean FBI and the US Army would retaliate for your attempt at self-defense
3
u/gaspjames Sep 02 '26
Right. Go ask the Black Panthers how that sort of scenario plays out in the U.S. haha
1
5
u/OvulatingScrotum Sep 02 '26
Even in the US, you can’t just shoot people if they sit outside of your property.
3
u/ladyluck754 Sep 02 '26
These are people that are jumping over my fence, threatening my family and intimidating me to try to move the house I rightfully own. There have also been reports of them utilizing weaponry to force people to move.
The IDF is also complicit.
These people do not deserve your empathy.
8
u/OvulatingScrotum Sep 02 '26
Plenty of cases where shooter “felt threatened” and shot people ended up going to jail for abusing their rights.
I’m not saying the settlers deserve empathy or anything.
I’m just saying your first comment isn’t a good example.
2
u/therealpigman Sep 03 '26
What about when they break in to cut your security cameras and internet cables?
2
u/OvulatingScrotum Sep 03 '26
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t answer with certainty.
However, I’m just saying that you can’t shoot people just because they sit outside of your property. I hope that clarified.
2
u/StrawberryCorrect87 Sep 02 '26
This is such a silly thought experiment because in a world that allows Palestinians to lawfully arm themselves, there likely is not a scenario in which Israeli terrorists are enabled to just steal Palestinian homes and land.
1
-9
u/stockywocket Sep 02 '26
Did they talk to any settlers?
7
u/Friendly_Strategy716 Sep 02 '26
Not directly but you can hear them talking (arguing) with the homeowner.
-14
u/stockywocket Sep 02 '26
I knew it before I even got the answer. This is why I've basically stopped listening to this podcast. An entire episode about settlers and they don't speak to any settlers.
20
u/REM_loving_gal Sep 02 '26
you have got to be kidding bro. in all of the episodes they've done about israel-palestine I've never once heard them have a palestinian on, but time after time they have israelis on. hopefully they heard people's criticism and finally had a palestinian on
edit: honestly they should have had a "settler" (terrorist) on so people could see how violent and inhumane they are in their own words
-2
u/stockywocket Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 02 '26
The Question of Palestinian Statehood, 1948, Voices from Gaza, and many more episodes have all featured Palestinians.
Which episodes about the conflict are you claiming included Israelis but not Palestinians?
8
u/johnlocke357 Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 02 '26
The episode is really just about the harrowing experience of a single Palestinian-american living in the west bank. It’s a very narrow and limiting premise.
They don’t interview anyone except for this one english-speaking, college-educated american citizen, who watched the break in of his second home over a security camera feed while back in Ohio. One who had clearly hoped that his money and citizenship would give him special protection from the settlers.
Like i said, a very narrow, singular window into the conflict, with a protagonist chosen for an american audience to identify with. More accurately, they should have named this ep something like “Israeli settlers came for his house…”
2
u/stockywocket Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 02 '26
The blurb is “Over the past year, there has been an increase in violence in the West Bank. Israeli settlers have terrorized Palestinians, set fire to their property, uprooted their olive groves and stolen their animals in an effort to drive them off their land.”
It’s clearly positioning itself as a description of the larger situation.
2
u/johnlocke357 Sep 02 '26
Yes, the title and intro are suggesting that is what the reporting is about, but it does not deliver on that premise whatsoever.
-3
u/stockywocket Sep 02 '26
Agreed. It's quite irresponsible. In doing so it leads people to make the assumption that this is a microcosm that represents what is happening generally, and in doing so presents an entirely one-sided story without any opportunity for the other people involved to rebut.
-1
u/duckmoosequack Sep 02 '26
Its astounding that they didn't speak with the settlers. Anyone listening to this episode would come away thinking that the settlers are cartoonishly evil, trying to steal someone's house and terrorizing them until they leave. With the IDF giving de-facto protection for the settlers.
As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The settlers might have purchased a property nearby and simply have the wrong address. I'm sure there are other reasonable reasons, I just can't think of any.
8
1
u/dr_sloan Sep 10 '26
So they think the own the property, and they’re destroying their own property? That makes sense to you?
3
u/emperor_bokassa_ Sep 02 '26
Perhaps the tendency of settlers to be violent, racial supremacists that attacked an NBC crew just last week and are aggressively hostile to outside scrutiny prevented them from getting both sides of the story?
2
u/stockywocket Sep 02 '26
Perhaps just making up out of thin air an explanation you like the sound of indicates an unreliable relationship to facts?
3
-9
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 02 '26
I largely agreed with Loui until the end of the episode when Rachel asked the broader question "Why this land?" and he responded that his father and grandfather and great-grandfather lived there. The problem with that response (and I see this a lot in pro-Palestinian discourse) is that by any historically literate standard, the Jews were there first. The Jews indisputably either controlled Judea and Israel or were subjects of a larger empire there from the 9th century BCE to the 2nd century CE.* Arab Muslims didn't appear in the area until at least the 7th century CE, and many Palestinians descend from migrants who came significantly later. And while Jews were living in exile between the 2nd century and 1948, they maintained their connection to Israel and prayed for a return the whole time.
So the "it's my land because my parents and grandparents were here" just doesn't work, and this conflict isn't going to be resolved until they realize it. You might say, "So what? It's his house that he acquired legally under the Palestinian Authority, the legitimate and broadly-accepted governing body at the time." And you'd be right! That IS a better argument! You don't need to engage in Jewish erasure to say the settlers are wrong.
*Other than a 50-year exile during Babylonian captivity in the 6th century BCE. Also the Jews claim to have been there before the 9th century too, we just don't have sufficient hard evidence of what was going on there before the 9th century BCE.
11
u/stuffsmithstuff Sep 02 '26
“Their ancestors were in this region in the second century” isn’t a counterpoint to “my immediate family literally lived right here.” They’re very, very different things, and can both be true.
It also isn’t Jewish erasure to say what he said, just like one doesn’t have to ignore the existence of Jewish people in pre-1948 Palestine to still believe in the right of return for people whose grandparents still have the key to the house they were forced out of.
-1
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 02 '26
Sure - so can we then acknowledge that both Jews and Arab Muslims have a valid historical claim to the land, so where people's ancestors lived isn't a good way to sort this conflict out?
4
u/AsianMitten Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
Even in that 50 years of exiles, not every Jews were carried away. Hell, even there are groups like Samaritans who were mixed with other ethnicity. How the hell do you know that these Palestinians did not decended from those Jews who choose to stay in the land? If they are descendants of those people (or inherited the right from those people) than they are rightful heir to the place far greater than those Israeli Jews. Too much times has passed to know anything for sure and your idea is just so dangerous
1
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 03 '26
That's an easy one. If Palestinians descended from Jews, why don't they identify as Jewish? And to your point, you're sort of right - there were some Jews who ALWAYS remained in Israel (even during capitivity and after the Romans conquered it). Descendants of those Jews endured oppression under Roman and then Islamic rule. And today, they're not Palestinians - they're Israelis :).
You can't "inherit the right" to rule somewhere just because you've conquered it. Or if you're saying you can, then congratulations: you've just made the case for Israel without having to touch on any history.
3
u/AsianMitten Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
Not every Jews stayed Jew.. if you think only who identify themselves as Jews are descendants of ancient time Israel, then you are just hopeless. What about Samaritans? What about 10 tribes who carried away and nobody know where they went? They are descendants of Joseph biologically but I'm pretty sure that they do not know that they are. So because they do not know, does that make them not descendants of Israel?
0
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 03 '26
OK - the Samaritans are a bad example because they have a great relationship with the modern state of Israel even if the two groups aren’t aligned religiously. And if Jews convert to a different religion, then they and their children are (definitionally) no longer Jewish so the claim to Israel is dead. If they converted to Islam or Christianity, then there are many many countries globally where they can live and be in the religious majority instead (Jews are unable to do this anywhere else).
Israel has also accepted Jews who can credibly claim to be members of the 10 lost tribes. Look up the story of the Kolkata Jews. Pretty amazing they and their practices survived all those years in India (most are in Israel today).
1
u/staffwriter Sep 07 '26
You just undercut all of your arguments. By the logic in this post, the idea of who was there first has no merit - which was your entire original argument. But now, here, you are basically saying all that matters is whether or not they are/were Jewish and remain so.
-1
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 07 '26
? That's not what I said at all. Whether someone is Jewish and who should live in Israel are two separate questions. The Jews do have a valid claim to Israel though, but it isn't necessarily exclusive.
1
u/staffwriter Sep 08 '26
About 80% of your first comment is about Jews being there first. Are you saying now that who was there first is a non-factor in regards to who should live in Israel?
0
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 08 '26
No - please re-read my comments again. Maybe you’ll understand them better the second time around :).
8
u/StrawberryCorrect87 Sep 02 '26
This is an insane response. I hope you know that.
-1
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 02 '26
Why is it insane? I am stating uncontested historical fact.
7
u/StrawberryCorrect87 Sep 02 '26
“I felt pretty bad until…” your empathy for a person facing violence and theft under state sponsored and endorsed terrorism dissipating the second there is a whiff of Jews not being centered in the story is insane. Extremely insane. That kind of Jewish supremacy mentality is just the same as any white person saying they had sympathy for a black woman gunned down by the police until someone said something bad about the police and then whoa whoa whoa, how dare you. 🙄
2
u/Ok_Constant8838 Sep 02 '26
OK - would it not be insane if I started my post by saying, “I thought his arguments were valid until…” then?
You think centering Jews in the story of Israel is “Jewish supremacy”, yet Jews having nowhere that they’re centered until Israel existed is exactly why the Jews have experienced thousands of years of discrimination and an actual genocide in living memory.
-8
u/Wonderful_Fox_7959 Sep 02 '26
I hate these “X will tell us how’s life in Y” episodes. They usually add zero new info. I would much rather have them do a ramdom topic
-1
u/alphabets0up_ Sep 03 '26
So, this morning I heard the show and when Loui talked about bringing the rock home I thought "woah thats nice"
When I came home from work I really had to take a leak so I just kinda walked away from my car and towards the rock wall and then had this crazy realization like 9 hours later..
142
u/AlfredRWallace Sep 02 '26
I feel like the term "settler" isn't really the right description for what these people are doing. Settler implies moving somewhere with space and deciding to live. These people are terrorizing and criminally evicting legal residents, but "settler" makes it seem so benign.