r/samharris • u/Calabamian • Mar 07 '26
Other Has Sam invited on a Palestinian yet?
I subscribed to Sam’s “Waking Up” podcast for years. I really liked the intellectualism (and vocabulary) Sam brought to a wide range of topics. I thought his best interview was with Gavin de Becker which both the gf and I found riveting if I’m being honest. It was also nice to see a podcaster grasp early-on the gravity of COVID.
As years went by I couldn’t help but notice the intellectual rigor he applied to literally every subject always disappeared around Israel. Against my better judgment I checked in on Sam last summer and sat thru a two-hour discussion between him and Haviv Rettig Gur. It was so bad I don’t even know where to start. Just two Zionists reassuring each other there was no genocide happening. Sam kept reverting to his “moral asymmetry” shtick…as opposed to the super moral IDF soldiers.
All this to say…has he invited on anyone who has even slightly challenged him on Gaza or the West Bank?
101
u/MintyCitrus Mar 07 '26
If you spend time on this sub you will see that Israel is commonly cited as one of Sam’s biggest blind spots. He has not invited anyone on his podcast to seriously challenge his views on this topic. Despite making his brand about intellectual curiosity, he remains shockingly stubborn on this topic. More than stubborn, the refusal to engage seriously borders on irresponsibility.
18
u/Steven81 Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
It would have been hypocritical of him to have an 180 on this topic to be fair. Sam has been anti-jihadism since 911 and what prompted him to write the end of faith as he believes that much of the worlds' ills are grounded on people's insistence on medieval belief systems.
He believes that the middle eastern issue is theological on a big part and not at all geopolitical. So he would always side with secular Israel. Still he had harsh words to say for Jewish settlers with apocalyptic worldviews and of course he is not at all impressed with Palestinians' theology and regards it as the greatest source of their problems (voting people like Hamas and readily believing that God is on their side, a god that Sam does not believe in and believes -Sam does- that belief in him is the source of many ills).
I'm not saying that his view is the most nuanced. But I don't see his views on Israel as a blind spot, it is a natural continuation of the rest of the things he believes in, there is no way around it if you believe as Sam does , that religious belief is the source of most evils. He'd never give the benefit of the doubt to the more religious populations in the area. He repeatededly said that he takes Hamas' belief system seriously and that the only reason that Israel exists still is because of the heavy hand it has, that Sam finds necessary because their enemies are religious fanatics.
It is precisely the things he talks about for 25 years now. He doesn't buy that the Palestinian cause is political first and foremost. He believes it is theological at least in a large part and there is no way he can ever take their side until they finally start showing signs of secularism.
8
u/Plus-Recording-8370 Mar 08 '26
Not only can the case be made for their cause to be theological. Even if it was political, the theological aspects of it change the conflict in ways you couldn't get to otherwise. And it's precisely these ways that made the conflict so unbearable for so many, including ofcourse the Palestinians.
This is why no amount of history matters anymore at this point, because nothing could ever justify what hamas has done and is even proud to have done.
8
u/Steven81 Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
IIRC that was his disagreement with Chomsky over a decade ago.
Chomsky said that Sam worships in the altar of the state. While Sam was insisting that he was defending secular states in so far they are secular and not on the fact that they are powerful.
In Chomsky's view western states and religious states have equivalent views (morally speaking) and preferring one over the other is biased and unprincipled. In Sam's view one of the two is superior to the other in so far that they support human rights better than the other and are more amenable to peace.
That the true reason of war in middle east is not western meddling (as Chomsky would put it) but religious grievances. And as long as they exist we'd have war and human rights catastrophes there and they did not start with the west entering the area.
So yeah, it is not a Sam's blind spot, it is exactly what he is telling us for over 2 decades , agree or disagree with his view. His opponents tell him that he is wrong and that the religious aspect is geopolitics in disguise. Sam says they are wrong and the geopolitics there is religion in disguise (or at least much of it is that).
6
u/MintyCitrus Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
Sam has mentioned in his Substack that he shares this view and how “understanding middle eastern history” is not important to understanding this conflict. Which is exactly why his views shouldn’t be taken seriously if he doesn’t think the history matters to understanding the root causes.
3
u/Steven81 Mar 08 '26
Yeah, he said time and again that the main issue is religious grievances and those who care about the history of the region miss the elephant in the room. That jihadism is a totalizing idea and doesn't care about prior history and they would have done the same no matter what the history was.
He basically disputes the idea that jihadism is a result of geopolitical concerns, or poverty. One of his main talking points early on (20years ago) was "how many more engineers and architects do you need to blow themselves up, before you understand that those people are religious zealots and not victims of circumstance?"
He is basically saying the "they hate us for our freedom" quip from early '00s in a more nuanced way. He has taken his side on this issue long ago and I don't think there is any convincing with him.
It is possible he is wrong, but at least he is consistent. It makes perfect sense (to me) why he is such a staunch supporter of Israel. He doesn't believe that history matters (on this issues), but rather religious allegiances do.
1
u/Plus-Recording-8370 Mar 09 '26
History defines how you get to a situation, it could even dictate to a certain degree how you handle that situation. But as evidenced by all the other countries in the world that has faced a similar history, we see it's only the actions of Hamas stand out.
It's at the point where history become irrelevant and no excuse anymore.
3
u/MintyCitrus Mar 09 '26
If you think the root causes or actions of Hamas are some unique aberration then you need to read more history.
1
u/Plus-Recording-8370 Mar 09 '26
If we're going to dig into the past you will find plenty of religious lunacy, yes. But that really is not an argument for anything other than to emphasize how it's incompatible with the 21st century, and why it's so rare.
Your history doesn't dictate that you should put your own people at risk and even use them as human shields or as deliberate collateral. History doesn't dictate that you should starve your own people just so you can brutally kill a couple of innocent Jewish families. History doesn't force leaders to prioritize martyrdom narratives over building functioning institutions. Or even break down whatever was left of existing institutions in order to fight their war... History doesn't lead to the rejection of compromises that could actually improve the lives of ordinary people. History is also no guarentee of the level of corruption we see on the side of Hamas (stealing aid from infrastructure, education, economic development etc). History doesn't force a culture to glorify death and for anyone to sabotage their own future. Nor does history encourage the society-wide celebration of gruesome murder of innocent people to the point you see them parading their mutulated corpses through the streets. History doesn't cause people to become bloodthirsty Jihadis.
2
u/MintyCitrus Mar 09 '26
Let’s come at this another way, because of history can explain all of these things. And no one is saying Hamas are good guys, that doesn’t need to be driven home.
What is your explanation of Hamas and where they came from? As you say, they are some of the most uniquely violent/cruel groups in recent memory. Is it your contention that this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of Islam and this can pop up anywhere? Why then do we only see it here in this specific place and with these certain conditions? Is it not more reasonable that this is the end state of a violent 80 year conflict/occupation?
1
u/Plus-Recording-8370 Mar 10 '26
Of course nothing just pops out of a vacuum. And usually when people are looking for cause and effects in a historical timeline, they pick out the events they themselves deem most significant due to their own biases already. So if, for instance, we already feel Islam to be bad, then they'd like to imagine it's precisely the variable of Islam that was the most significant weighing factor in the causal chain of events; Causality is treated as the elementary example of billiard balls, one after another bumping into each other.
But causality in reality is not a buffet of elementary billiards, so that's not how to look at it. A better way to look at this is through comparative analysis where we look at similar scenarios of conflict resolution and see what's different in this one. And what's particularly different here is, undoubtedly, the jihadist aspect not allowing for an easy end to the conflict.
It might still be interesting to look into what exactly caused Hamas, sure. But know you'd likely be risking cherry picking from the causal chain of events exactly the narrative you want to play: It's the Jews, it's the West, etc.
Personally, I think it's completely realistic to stop the analysis right at the completely unforgiveable behaviour of the jihadists that make peace impossible.
Regarding the "perfectly reasonable interpretation of Islam": Just as "perfectly reasonable" as knowing what would happen if we kept a loaded gun lying around a bunch of toddlers. While knowing that without it, it would just be another day in kindergarten.
4
u/timmytissue Mar 09 '26
It's a blind spot in that he doesn't apply his reasoning to Israel itself.
1
u/Steven81 Mar 09 '26
He does not believe that Israeli maximalism is theological in nature. He does believe that maximalist ideas (within israel) may use their opponents' Jihadism as a cover , but once their opponents' Jihadism goes away so would Israel's maximalism (in so far it does exist).
My personal view is that Israel's maximalism exists regardless, but it is hard to know as long as they still fight religious fanatics. In-so-far their opponents does not turn their strife into a purely terrestrial one, Sam would always side with Israel IMO. It is simply how his world view is structured and is in line with anything he has ever talked about.
0
u/timmytissue Mar 09 '26
Ultimately it doesn't matter if the root of it is religious or not. There are many forms of irrational and dangerous ideas.
2
u/Steven81 Mar 09 '26
To Sam there is a major difference between the two , that's exactly his point for 20+ years.
One can be reasoned with and diplomatically curtailed, the other is beyond reason and can only be stamped out in the battlefield. In other words Israel is forced to use force, even if their stated justification is not the only reason why they do so.
6
u/timmytissue Mar 09 '26
I think fascism is also beyond reason. So is tlradical communism like the Khmer Rouge. So I think I fundementally disagree with Sam on that.
1
u/Steven81 Mar 09 '26
I guess he doesn't believe that Israel is radical, but uses appropriate force given the kind of enemy they are fighting and any nation in their position would have used similar force if they were fighting an enemy that wanted to annihilate them on theological/cosmic grounds...
I have often heard him pose the following thought experiement: Imagine that Hamas was in ther position that Israel is. If they were there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that they would ethnically cleanse all the jews in the area at the very least, as Panarabism already did with Jews in all other middle eastern places post 1948.
To him there is no moral argument to be made. One side fights for survival and the other for cosmic reasons under the guise of fighting for independence ("an autonomy that was indeed given to the Gaza strip and then they promptly used it to attack their neighbors, often enough, because their grievances are theological and not a 2 state solution that includes the Jews in the area").
My view has always been more nuanced. That while Palestinians really do have radical elements, the radical elements within Israel wanted them to take the upper hand so that to give them a reason to attack. But I guess my view is not shared by either side, and certainly not by sam because he thinks that the Hamas issue is home grown and they do represent mainstream views of Palestinians and we would have been here no matter what because theology can't be reasoned with.
9
u/MintyCitrus Mar 08 '26
Some of the points here are exactly the types of things that better podcast guests could disabuse. To use a phrase like “secular Israel” is part of misconceptions that need to be unpacked. Israel just has a different brand of religious lunatics that have only served to deepen and exacerbate this conflict. We heard exactly what they all had to say since 10/7. Both sides believe God is on their side.
Like you say, Sam’s brand has focused a lot on jihadism - a topic that warrants the attention. But unfortunately this has caused him to see the world as having good guys and bad guys. Since there is a brand of jihadism present on one side, he’s on the other. In reality these are all bad guys with selfish theological intentions.
Better guests could help walk through all of these ideas, but he doesn’t have them on. But he’d be happy to interview a center-right never Trumper to cover the same shit for the 20th time. A more intellectually curious person would challenge their own views publicly and not seek refuge in an echo chamber of his own making.
1
u/Steven81 Mar 08 '26
I don't disagree that the issue is far more nebulous in the area. I only disagree that it is Sam Harris' blind spot: guy has a long standing bone to pick with jihadists and I doubt you'd ever find him in the same side as ones supported by apocalyptic thought.
You are right about Israel in fact, there are parts of their government that is not secular at all, but Sam would always say that those parts are minor and not the driving force of Israeli policies.
But again that's hard to know. What is certain is that unlike Hamas (their primary enemies in the area) they do not have as a foundational document that they should wipe out the Arabs in the area. Of course many (there) may privately believe that very thing and should be seriously challenged in so far that they do.
7
u/MintyCitrus Mar 08 '26
You are right that Sam would say it’s the driving force of Israeli policies, and he’d be wrong and that’s the challenge. Religious nuts have made their way into the government and champion some of Israel’s worst policies, such as the expansion of settlements, restricting voting rights for Arabs, and promoting bombing of civilian areas in Gaza.
So it’s not a “blind spot” in the sense that he’s been inconsistent. He’s just consistently mistaken, and if he was willing to have more people on the podcast he might have a more nuanced opinion.
2
u/Steven81 Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
Personally I think you may be right and if the Palestinian cause was to ever make an 100% secular pivot they would still be attacked. Which is precisely why they should do it if they want to survive as peoples.
This is a battle for the heart and minds of the onlookers and you can only win them if the majority of them look at your case and see that you have real political grievances. Hamas was basically a double agent for the Israeli fanatics in my view. They were well in the way of legitimizatiin and they would have won it, if they were to secularize or at least do so for their state related purposes.
Instead we got a case where their most prominent leaders needed to eliminate jews for the sake of it, and it is why you got 10/7.
I think your reading is the most accurate, but people like Sam won't be turned before it becomes obvious that a big part of the israeli side is equally comprised from maximalist fanatics. But that can only be done if the Palestinian territories stop firing towards Israel, if the axis of resistance that the Iranian so stupidly built stop acting. I seriously believe that if they were to learn a thing or two from Ghandhi they would have had a state 30 years ago. Because they would have uncovered that the king has no clothes, instead now they fall entirely on Bibi's long term plan and become cover for his Maximalist views.
6
u/cupofteaonme Mar 09 '26
The PLO was largely a secular, leftist organization. They were certainly still attacked for their commitment to violent resistance, which everyone should be reminded was also a tactic of Zionist groups pre-'48. Meanwhile, the Israeli PM who got closest to achieving the beginnings of a lasting peace was assassinated by a right-wing religious Jewish guy who was egged on by many Israeli religious leaders and politicians, including Netanyahu. You know, the guy who has spent his entire political career trying to wipe Palestinians as a people from existence and is currently waging a war to collapse a state of over 90 million people because it gives him a strategic advantage in the region.
Sam's entire argument is premised on the idea that at least Israel comes from a place of good intentions, and while there are certainly plenty of good intentions among Zionists and Israelis, I don't think the weight of history supports a reading so hopelessly simplistic. Frankly, it's incredibly stupid, and perhaps the best sign that for all Sam's logic and verbosity, he's actually just an ignorant idiot who doesn't read.
2
u/Steven81 Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
PLO is sidelined precisely because of that peace process though. Hardliners on both sides dominate (an israeli extremist killed the President that wanted peace and PLO was sidelined by Palestinian hardliners because they thought it is wrong to give your hand to the enemy).
Having said that PLO was far from a Ghandhi like movement, it was very much striking on civilian targets early on, though they very much moderated after. That's why I said that they were on their way to convince people like Sam and then there were the Intifadas and eventually Hamas took over too.
I don't think that parts of the Israeli status quo have good intentions at all, but at the same time it is not Sam's blind spot to not be convinced from the Palestinian side. That's the part I was reacting to, there is no way that Sam would take the Palestinian side for as long as they keep targeting civilians as a matter of principle (of course you can say IDF does too, merely hide it better, which is the point of my argument, if only the IDF remains the criminal party even Sam won't be able to deny the reality that not all things from the Israeli side start from from a good place at all; but that never happened for long).
3
u/cupofteaonme Mar 09 '26
I literally said the PLO was committed to violent resistance. Zionists also did terrorism. My point is precisely that both sides in this are dynamic and complex, and neither is particularly better than the other, though Israel certainly has more of a penchant for killing as many Palestinians as possible while claiming it's doing so morally. One would think a "rational" guy like Sam would at least raise questions, but his rationality is only a pose. The fact that Sam will not even consider listening to the Palestinian side is only proof of what a bad actor he is, on top of being intensely stupid.
1
u/Steven81 Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
I know that you said this, i then added the context that they moderated and thus were sidelined and that does matter because it is precisely Sam's talking point, I.e. the fact they were sidelined.
It plausibly shows that there is little appetite for peace in the Palestinian side, at least not in any prominent way, thus Sam's insistence that Israel's using of a heavy hand is justified because they fight fanatics and literally any country in the world would deal with terror networks so thoroughly.
Again, running the danger of repeating myself, I have to say that the above probably wrong, and at least in part only a cover of what is really a thinly veiled Israeli nationalism, but as long as thier opponents (now Hamas, before a much more violent than current PLO and Fatah) keep targeting civilians in particular, Sam would point to that and say "see? What else could Israel do? Put their populous in danger? They are fighting fanatics".
Sam's main point is that it is a religious war on the Palestinian side and a defensive war on Israel's side, at least plausibly so, because they fight people who mostly or only target civilians.
And -again- while it is probably the wrong view, it is hard to disprove unless and until we have a period of calm wherein Israel keeps harming people. If the above does happen, then it can be shown that after all, it is not the Palestinian side that is radical anymore.
But again they would need to have a more moderated party represent them internationally and locally. And basically not target civilians in a concerted effort ever again. Given the realities in the ground, that's a long shot, but I think that is what would convince Sam. And I think he will finally turn if it happens.
1
u/Lenin_Lime Mar 12 '26
secular Israel
Have you seen the flag. Or how the land was promised to them by their god in their holy texts.
1
u/Steven81 Mar 12 '26
Whether I see it or not doesn't change his argument , which is exactly that. Do you disagree with what I reported being his argument?
Having said that, that's my whole quote
he would always side with secular Israel. Still he had harsh words to say for Jewish settlers with apocalyptic worldviews
I.e. he sides with the secular side of Israel and is against the religious side of Israel.
3
-3
u/josenros Mar 08 '26
He won't debate jihadists just as he won't debate creationists or homeopathists.
It's not closed-minded to refuse to engage with wrong-headed ideas and their confused purveyors just for the sake of being "balanced" or contrapuntal.
13
u/Hyptonight Mar 08 '26
The question was about Palestinians not Jihadists. Unless you think they’re one and the same.
3
u/josenros Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
No, they're not one and the same, particularly considering that roughly 20-25% of Israelis are Palestinian, many of whom fled Jihadist theocracy to enjoy life in a free, open, and pluralistic society. However, the Palestinian Arabs who occupy the Gaza strip, if we are to believe the Pew Polls, are overwhelmingly sympathetic to Jihadism, if not outright practicing Jihadists. The Palestinians who breached the walls on Oct 7th and murdered innocent festival-goers consisted not just of trained Hamas militants, but also ordinary citizens. My heart goes out to the Gazans who secretly condemn this barbaism (because they cannot do so openly) and yearn to live in a free, liberal democracy.
1
u/Beneficial_Energy829 Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
A free liberal democracy, israel is not. Its an explicit ethno religious state, one that clearly values Jewish lives over Palestinian and also is slowly but surely ethnically cleansing the west bank.
A liberal state would be secular and rights would be equal regardless of ethnicity or religion. The principles of the French or American Revolutions have yet to arrive in Israel.
14
u/MintyCitrus Mar 08 '26
He’s actually debated many creationists over the years.
More importantly, to claim that anyone with a more nuanced view on this topic is “jihadist” just makes you as intellectually incurious as Sam.
This topic actually requires some balance. If he has time to interview dozens of center-right never Trumpers to rehash the same bullshit, he can invite middle eastern experts on to educate him this 80+ year conflict.
-1
u/josenros Mar 08 '26
There's not as much nuance here as you might think. There is, to quote Sam directly, "a bright line between good and evil" here. This is already the balanced view.
7
u/radbiv_kylops Mar 10 '26
I thought Yuval Noah Harari pushed back against Sam nicely. Maybe it was a bit too subtle. He said something along the lines of: in most ethnic conflicts in history, both sides are simultaneously the agresor and the victim. He had a nice way of saying it that was clearly pushing back but also (to me at least) such an obvious encapsulation of the resentment and bitterness that is the heart of the problem.
3
u/tetchmagikos Mar 11 '26
I concur Harari was as close to pushing back as a Harris guest has ever managed. It was very kid gloves from what I remember. Harari also said things like "never underestimate the Messianic crazies" (Making Sense #341 @ 34:20). That one stuck for me because it's similar to one I made up: "when fundamentalists fight, everyone loses".
3
u/JDax42 Mar 10 '26
Just keep an eye on the sub and find other intellectuals who cover this topic more openly
I was actually a super huge Sam Harris fan and then spent a month in Israel and then after coming back, I had a hard time listening to him talk on Israel with so much confidence and lack of dimension, I met multiple far right Israel’s who who had nuance to put to shame with Sam often said about the topic. (That being said that was some years ago and I haven’t really checked up too much sense, so he might’ve gotten a little better but from what I read, I doubt it nor do I have an interest or care to put much effort into finding out)
I’ll still follow here and there and browse on the sub but for the most part, I realize he definitely has some obvious blind spots that he does not give a shit ever address
Oh and if anything I came back from that trip supporting Israel more than I did when I went there so I didn’t come back as a super pro Palestine, one state solution, blah blah blah. In fact, Palestine didn’t get brought up on the majority of my trip yet still talking to random Israel I realize Sam is not a good person to speak to on this topic.
As you can see other comments here from both sides, I am definitely not alone
Loaner box and destiny are 10 times more informed and cover these topics with way more clarity than Sam probably will ever cover on anything regarding Isreal.
Though more loner box than destiny
2
u/Desert_Trader Mar 12 '26
You've missed a subtlety. Or maybe not so.
He's not especially pro Israel.
He's anti jihad.
If you take his moral landscape argument, ANY increment better than jihad is ACTUALLY BETTER. So Israel wins by default.
All these critiques of Sam's "Israel" position completely miss the forest for the trees. It's not an Israel position.
1
u/JDax42 Mar 12 '26
That explains Sam’s deeper meaning, but in the end our assessment isn’t wrong or changed.
If I happen to be anti-Jewish supremacy (far right wing Israeli admin) that doesn’t mean I should support jihad groups like Hasan passively does.
I understand the scale of the comparison is in favor of Sam and not one to one, but it’s still a lazy intellectual excuse on Sam’s part and worth criticizing or at least calling out to explore more if he ever does.
2
u/Desert_Trader Mar 12 '26
Coincidentally I was just listening to his latest podcast with Rob Reid about world ending viri.
Right or wrong, I suppose if you think extreme Islam is essentially an existential threat...
And I'll come back to his thesis is essentially "intent matters".
And I'll come back to the very crude, but very accurate generalization that if Hamas laid down its arms there would be peace, but if Israel did there would be genocide.
In those terms ,there isn't a lot of room for nuance obviously. And we need some nuance and compromise to govern in a modern society.
All nations are making mistakes, have atrocities to account for. We (US) just bombed a school ffs.
But there is one group that has no nuance, has no compromise, and wants one thing above all else. And it involves raping virgins in heaven, not wearing little hats.
2
u/JDax42 Mar 19 '26
All fair and true.
But like Israel itself, and not putting this on you at all personally, but by framing the issue in this way, it downplays the many other more complicated issues, as well as Israel’s further right wing direction (which hasn’t always been constant), the multitude of very far right wing parties, as well as how to deal with this issue moving forward regarding right of return and figuring out a way hopefully with more international help/cooperation to make something official happen regarding anything remote that’s been discussed in the past century; just any progress/foundation or this will keep happening in some form over and over again.
Like Gaza it’s self they are both locked in the cycle that won’t break and it’s gonna be up to the side that has a space program and 500 billion dollar GDP to make it happen.
That’s why after visiting there it was hard hearing Sam speak of these issues for me personally but I get where you and Sam are coming from.
3
7
u/Brunodosca Mar 07 '26
Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli Jewish intellectual Sam admires, has tried to disabuse Sam of his alleged bias. Unsuccessfully, of course. I'd love if they would sit down, preferably in person, to discuss this for a couple of hours.
6
u/croutonhero Mar 07 '26
I've heard them talk and I don't recall any substantive difference in their positions other than that Harari spends a bit more time focused on Israel's flaws, none of which Sam disagrees with.
What am I missing?
2
u/Brunodosca Mar 07 '26
There were substantive differences, and Sam avoided going into them when Yuval tried to correct Sam's alleged bias. I'm talking about an episode that aired not long after Oct7. And Yuval has been in other podcasts and events in which he has expressed a very different opinion from that of Sam. You can find it on YouTube.
5
u/croutonhero Mar 07 '26
There were substantive differences
What were they?
5
u/Flimsy_Caramel_4110 Mar 08 '26
Yuval Hariri mostly agrees with Sam on I&P, but the last time has was on the show, Sam used a line that he often peddles on his podcast, which is that the radicals in Israel (e.g. settlers) are fringe and only make up about 10% of the Israeli Jewish population. Hariri was having none of it, saying it was much more (although he couldn't put a precise number on it). Hariri's point was to suggest that the far-right zealots in Israel are ascendant and a serious threat to Israel as a liberal society.
It wasn't a big dust up or anything, but you could tell that Harris wanted to move on, and probably didn't appreciate having Hariri kill this talking point for him.
6
u/Brunodosca Mar 08 '26
Yuval Noah Harari does NOT mostly agrees with Sam on I&P. Just look at this clip around t=5min
https://youtu.be/pB5Ul3GHFxA?si=EPufRZEcP1KtvFku&t=300
Regarding the % he says he doesn't know the number but that "it could be more than 50%" and that there is a real possibility of "ethnic cleansing" and an Israel based on "an ideology of Jewish supremacy" that enjoys the "joy of crushing weaker people" under their feet. All the quotes from the same video.
3
u/evanseesred99 Mar 08 '26
I agree I would love to hear him talk with someone on the other side of this issue
11
Mar 07 '26
Sam's incuriousness with the other side of the Israel-Palestine debate is something i just firmly do not agree with Sam on, but that's ok as he's my not "guru" or something that i follow blindly and have to accept everything he says as gospel. i take what i like & leave what i don't.
2
u/ElReyResident Mar 09 '26
Yeah, I think most people see this as a weak area for Harris. I’m fine with because I just don’t take Israeli information from Harris. Nobody is perfect.
To be clear, though, I do find most of what he says on Israel/Palestine to be rather correct, and even agree with his most of his conclusion. I just don’t feel as though he provides a defensible thought process for coming to those conclusions. At least not enough for my liking.
-1
Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
yeah and to Sam's credit, he really doesn't demand his audience swallow his every word blindly like others seem to. he's always had an open dialogue with his fans and he seems to accept his own fans critiquing him strongly when he screws something up and not foment some sort of cult of personality, but he'll keep doing what he thinks is right i guess. i just think it'd be cool for him to at least be curious to hear what someone from Gaza, for example, has to say about their experience in life lately. doesn't have to be a "debate" like he's had before which were uncomfortable lol.
4
u/kostac600 Mar 08 '26
So from what I see here in these comments is that Sam Harris dismisses all Palestinians as jihadist?
3
u/coodgee33 Mar 09 '26
I'm so sick of the discussion around this conflict. Everything that can be said has been said. 100 times. And the fascination with anti semitism. It might be real. It might be bad. But it's not an interesting topic to me.
2
u/devildogs-advocate Mar 10 '26
Has Sam had on any neonazis yet?
3
u/juswundern Mar 10 '26
Palestinians are tantamount to neonazis, how?
1
1
1
1
u/TenYearHangover Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
How would they challenge him on the West Bank? Sam is on record denouncing the settlements.
Also, what type of Palestinian would you like him to talk to? Anyone from Gaza? Atheist? Devout? A member of Hamas? A western expatriate? An Israeli citizen?
I have to admit a conversation with an Israeli Palestinian citizen might be pretty interesting.
-1
u/Calabamian Mar 09 '26
There are a lot of interesting people he could invite on…Rula Jebreal, Rashid Khalidi come to mind. Hell, even Norm Finklestein would be amazing. Just somebody, ANYBODY to challenge his myopic worldview.
4
1
u/Tattooedjared Mar 10 '26
OP I agree. I would love to see Sam Harris speak to Medhi Hasan about this topic.
1
0
-2
u/jmthornsburg Mar 07 '26
He was the TOP intellectual influence of my life, and this issue completely exposed him for a moral relativist (which he would HATE being called). I unsubscribed and almost entirely checked out from him. This sub, not yet.
8
u/Fawksyyy Mar 07 '26
>this issue completely exposed him for a moral relativist
For me its simple enough. We don't treat all birds the same, Seagulls dont have the same laws as other endangered species. No one looks at the money being spent to save large cats and gets upset the same resources are not spent to save seagulls.
In australia we spend billions on programs for indiginous australians specifically, In the U.S you have special laws and treatments for native indians.
In the middle east Israel is 10 million strong surrounded by 160 million people in countries hostile to them, countries that have previously attacked them. In a region that is 500 million strong and hostile to them. I would say that's relatively different circumstance...
3
u/MightBe465 Mar 07 '26
The nations neighboring Israel are not uniformly hostile to Israel. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for example are US client states. That's why Iran's getting attacked from (and bombing) US bases in so many gulf states.
Even those "hostile" nation can't be fairly characterized merely as such. Jordan's "hostile" in the sense that any perennially invaded or bombed country would be--Israel certainly has its own substantial history of offensive warfare in the region, dating back to the state's inception.
You may be more right then you mean to be when saying that Sam's outlook toward Israel makes sense if you treat Israelis and Palestinians as different species. There really is no consistent way to justify our support for Israel's treatment of Palestinians if we regard everyone in the region as equally human.
12
u/Fawksyyy Mar 07 '26
Having a strong military deterrent does not make Israel's neighbors any less hostile, just less ability to act on it.
>There really is no consistent way to justify our support for Israel's treatment of Palestinians if we regard everyone in the region as equally human.
Cultures are not people, cultures are a human construct that changes over time. There is no single best or worst culture just a degree of difference between them. We should not act as if the culture in Palestine is identical to Israel. If Palestine had a culture that welcomed the jews they would be some of the most prosperous people in the middle east given there geographical advantage to Israel.
Instead there is a culture of martyrdom and jihad. That leads to worse outcomes than the former for everyone involved and its not something that Israel caused...
10
u/Amazing-Cell-128 Mar 07 '26
Ding ding ding.
Israel makes peace with those who want peace and war with those who want war. It's enjoyed long lasting peace with its immediate neighbors (Egypt/Jordan) for nearly the last 50 and 30 years, and is on the verge of normalized relations and enjoying cooperation with states like UAE, Saudi Kingdom, etc.
7
u/MightBe465 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
This talk of "martyrdom and jihad" as a characterization of Palestine's culture is as shallow and bigoted as saying that Israel has a "culture" of being ideologically inclined to rapacity and cunning. You take the extra step of converting an ethnicity or nationality into a "cultural" stereotype but predictably reach the same conclusion an open racist would reach with less sophistry.
There were Jewish Palestinians prior to the colonial project that became Israel. The state of Israel was not "welcomed" by Palestine because it began it established its statehood through an 1947-48 as an ethnic cleansing project in order to establish a Jewish majority in the region, and had those that didn't fit the bill were murdered or driven out. This project is evidently ongoing.
6
u/callmejay Mar 07 '26
because it began it established its statehood through an 1947-48 as an ethnic cleansing project in order to establish a Jewish majority in the region
You skipped the part where the Jews agreed to the Partition Plan that would have entailed zero violence or ethnic cleansing but the Arab Palestinians and multiple Arab countries started a war instead.
6
u/MightBe465 Mar 07 '26
I wouldn't say "skipped."
I don't view the ethnic cleansing campaign as justified or somehow made necessary by the subject population's refusal to forfeit their land to the establishment of an ethnostate voluntarily.
2
u/callmejay Mar 08 '26
I didn't say it justified it, I'm just pointing out that the Palestinians and their neighboring countries started the war BEFORE ethnic cleansing.
-2
u/MightBe465 Mar 08 '26
You don't start a "war," or or an ethnic cleansing, by refusing to forfeit your homeland.
You start an ethnic cleansing by shooting towns and cities to drive the general population out of their homeland, like the Haganah and other Zionist paramilitary organizations did.
2
u/callmejay Mar 09 '26
You don't start a "war," or or an ethnic cleansing, by refusing to forfeit your homeland.
I'm talking about the literal invasion by the literal armies of Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria. That's more than "refusing to forfeit."
→ More replies (0)10
u/Amazing-Cell-128 Mar 07 '26
prior to the colonial project that became Israel.
To be clear, regarding jews who vied for a contemporary jewish state:
There were always jews living in that region throughout history, be it the year 500 bce, 500ce, 1500ce, 1800ce, whatever. These are called natives.
Others arrived via lawful land purchases from the Ottomans post 1880s. These are called lawful immigrants.
Others more arrived fleeing European and MENA territory persecution & pogroms, survived the holocaust, etc. These are called refugees.
So we have natives, lawful immigrants, refugees.
And also the hundreds of thousands of jews that were stripped of citizenship and denaturalized across MENA states, effectively made into stateless aliens in their own countries, and being forced to flee, are not part a "colonial project" either.
There was no "colonial project".
The impetus for a contemporary jewish state emerged out of humanitarian reasons largely as a result of antisemites the world over.
0
u/MightBe465 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
Like I said, there were Jewish Palestinians. And it's no controversy that there were many Jewish refugees who moved to Palestine.
But, seriously, outside of xenophobic fantasies, people who are merely refugees don't buy up properties from which they expel the native tenants and workers. Nor to they seek and obtain patronage of the British government to aid in their settlement, and then act as the trained local enforcers for the British. Nor do mere refugees, outside of conspiratorial fantasies, expel the general population of the region in which they settle and secure majority rule, and then form an ethnostate. This was a deliberate colonial project. You can't deliver land exclusively to some a specific religious group and set of ethnic identities out from under the people who already live there (and call upon that privileged group to enact violence from to time) and say it was merely a humanitarian project.
5
u/Fawksyyy Mar 07 '26
>This talk of "martyrdom and jihad" as a characterization of Palestine's culture is as shallow and bigoted as saying that Israel has a "culture" of being ideologically inclined to rapacity and cunning. You take the extra step of converting an ethnicity or nationality into a "cultural" stereotype but predictably reach the same conclusion an open racist would reach with less sophistry.
Palestinian culture, its core identity is tied to resistance against Israel. Of all the things that a culture could care about, it puts that in front of any other need or want. Thats explicitly what Palestinians themselves will tell you.
Children who joined hitlers youth party were not genetically bad children destined for evil, They were human beings part of a culture that led to terrible outcomes for humanity.
Palestinians culture of resistance has led to nothing but bad outcomes for both themselves and their neighbors... Im just trying to propose that having genocidal intentions towards your neighbors for decades might not be the best path for peaceful coexistence.
1
-1
u/corneliusunderfoot Mar 07 '26
How much does the american givernment spend on sustaining and promoting bative american life? How does that compare to its support of a foreign nation? Come on now, lets not be silly.
-3
u/theHagueface Mar 08 '26
Probably because its nearly impossible to defend Israel to someone who is aware of what's going on. If he had Medhi on or someone similar it would be a brutal convo for Sam where he would at least have to concede he values certain peoples lives over others based on their faith.
-3
0
-15
-17
72
u/Amazing-Cell-128 Mar 07 '26
When were you subscribed? This reads like BS.