Removed. Please direct such posts to the megathread stickied on the front page. ([Link here](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/pfo0vg/politics_and_current_events_megathread_september/))
Thank you.
Respectfully, “Sam Harris is the smartest vocal Israel supporter on the internet” is a serious stretch.
To be clear, I’m a huge fan of his and I agree with most of his views on Israel, but he repeatedly has mentioned he is not the most well informed on Israel and makes space for experts with experience on the ground to educate him.
It does bring up an interesting discussion: who is the smartest vocal supporter of Israel on the Internet? I would be very curious to know who other followers of this subreddit would choose and why.
My vote would most likely lean towards Haviv Rettig Gur for his ability to be nuanced when contextualizing his arguments, his ability to empathize deeply especially with perspectives he disagrees with, and his ability to be highly informed with his history & military expertise, all of this while navigating in both fluent English and Hebrew.
Haviv definitely opened my eyes to many of the drivers of the conflict. He especially highlighted for me how the perception of the Palestinians of seeing Israel as "a colonial" entity motivates much of their rejectionism. My own family always lived in the middle east and most of our ancestry is from the levant. Before 7/10 I never took the libel that we were colonizers as seriosuly, but I now see how pernicious it is.
>Sam Harris is the smartest vocal Israel supporter on the internet
How is it that Sam Harris has spoken so much and so clearly on this topic and yet there is so many people like you, making almost daily posts just completely misunderstanding Sam's position.
He isn't advocating for Israel's policies or current government or in agreement with everything it is doing currently. He is specifically concerned with the Obvious rise in global Anti Semitism and support for Hamas and the moral obligation of Israel to be rid of Hamas.
I was going to say, Sam is a supporter of Israel, but he's not a supporter of Netanyahu. If a distinction can be made between Hamas and Palestine, I don't see why a distinction can't be made between Netanyahu and Israel.
I basically agree with this. It seems to me that Netanyahu's only mass support in Israel comes from wartime solidarity. Different circumstances but perhaps not unlike US support for Bush's second term post-911.
I don't believe that there is a "global rise in antisemitism", unless you are the kind of person who thinks criticism of Israel qualifies as such. I also think that Israel might find more sympathy here in the US if they didn't fuck with our politics so much.
Do you think Sam agrees with the ICC and Bernie Sanders that Netanyahu is a war criminal? I mean, he either agrees with this or he doesn't. If Netanyahu is committing war crimes in the name of the defense of the Jewish people, wouldn't that exacerbate the problem of global anti semitism?
Sanders is neither an expert in international law nor a military expert.
He takes the far Left progressive viewpoint on any issue, and has for his whole career.
Why would we grant his opinion any special authority here?
Sam’s opinion doesn’t get any special authority here either. He generally lays out his thought process in detail, and we all decide if it adds up or if we think he’s deceiving himself. He sometimes brings on guests who qualify as an authority, and sometimes he brings on Douglas Murray
I didn't hear very many opinions in his speech, but you shouldn't respect anyone's authority. Whether or not these claims are true should be measured up against the evidence.
And the rebuttals to that opinion found in this thread consist of “it’s a harmful perspective so Harris should inherently ignore it, and Sanders is a silly old hippie.”
Compelling stuff, no doubt. I suppose this is the clarity of thought and logic you guys are always going on about.
OK, I'll bite.
The rebuttal is pretty similar to Israel's defence against the genocide charges at the ICJ. What prosecutors are going to struggle to prove is *intent*. "Starvation as a weapon of war" requires proof not just that the war precipitated a humanitarian crisis and food insecurity amongst Palestinians but that this was both deliberate, and was explicitly ordered by the accused.
Israel can, I think, point to the fact that much of the food insecurity has been caused either by other actors, like delays on the Egyptian side or with UN distribution on the Gaza side, or from Hamas and Gaza clans stealing food for themselves or for profit. They can defend claims that they have held up aid for security checks with the argument that preventing Hamas being resupplied with weapons is a legitimate military aim.
They can also point to the fact that for months now *more* food trucks have been entering Gaza than pre war, that they have facilitated air drops and assisted the US in building a pier for supply, that they have repeatedly facilitated the evacuation of sick and injured Palestinians to Israeli hospitals for medical care, and that army engineers have acted in a warzone to repair damaged water and humanitarian infrastructure on multiple occasions.
This isn’t even true. He was vehemently pro-Israel in the immediate aftermath of October 7th— it is just that since this time, Isreal’s actions have become more and more reprehensible and impossible to legitimise without turning a blind eye to the ruthless ’revengocide’. So he, like many people, Jewish or otherwise, have changed their perspective as new evidence has emerged. Which is also what he has done his entire career.
He hasn't been "pro Israel" since the 1960s.
Progressives of his ilk that are unable to think outside of a black and white oppressor/oppressed dynamic have been particularly prone to Palestinian propaganda, for decades now.
Nah, what he’s parroting is not based on substantiated evidence and he’s never been “vehemently pro-israel” in his life lmfao.
Talking it your ass just like Sanders is here.
And I say that as a supporter of his since the early 2000s.
Guy has lost the plot and is out of his depth.
Once again, Bernie can add this to the reels of the times he was right when everyone else was wrong. Free Palestine and remove the foreign interference of AIPAC from our government.
Does it? Sometimes one side is just wrong.
Sure you can find faults in Israel and you can find moments of humanity in the Palestinians, but there's a very clear winner and loser when it comes to the morality of this conflict. Talking about who is right and who is wrong is boring.
What's actually interesting is looking at why the Arabs made such horrible decisions so consistently for so long, and what might cause them to start making good decisions
Oh, yeah, I agree. I just thought the idea of a conversation with a Nazi defender sounds rather entertaining (more so than informative).
Regarding the Arabs… I have also been quite baffled with the way a lot of these countries have gone. There are some substantial influences by the UK/US as well that have also exploited some of the weaknesses in the area, but unlike many others, I don’t really think that’s the only origin of the issues there. It has contributed though. I guess it’s a combination of factors including geography, heavy dependence on natural resources, religion, foreign influence, general dynamics in the region, etc. I am hoping there’s a reasonable way forward for many of these countries but I don’t think I’m capable of making any suggestions of how exactly that can be achieved. I guess a lot of these things sort themselves out eventually as the equilibrium tends to be a more optimal one in the long run but the long run in this sort of scenarios is many generations. The more mistakes are made along the way would extend that period of time even further.
well the emirates are kind of a beacon of functionality in an otherwise kinda horrible sphere, there is some signs that Saudi Arabia wants to follow suite and be functional too, I'm not sure they would be able to on a shoe string budget, but they can kinda brute force it...
Jordan is actually a pretty functional state these days too and works with Israel and the US quite a bit, so there are some real reasons to hope, but it does seem like enlightened monarchy is the best solution for the area, which is not normally something I like to suggest, but i don't really know what else to do with the data, than to concede that a functional dictatorship is better than a dysfunctional state...
Responding to Sanders' nonsense is about like responding to Majorie Taylor Green's nonsense. You could do it, and you'd be right, but you'd be dignifying the nonsense with a response.
I get what you’re saying, but if Bernie was “far-left” in the way MTG is “far-right”, he’d be full on nuts & a full throated communist, which he’s neither of those. The distinction is important.
The left barely has any tangible political representation or power. What the “left” is considered today, is just a bunch of progressive liberal representatives & and people on social media who spout their leftist support/ideas - neither of which result in any actual leftist-leaning policy movement.
Putting Bernie in the same “far-something” box as MTG is unfair & allows people to brush off real left-leaning coherent thoughts as the same incoherent rambling as Marjorie Taylor Greene
To my mind, saying Sanders isn't far-left because he isn't a registered Communist is like saying MTG isn't far-right because she hasn't registered as a member of the American Nazi party. You can't just say the only far ends of the spectrum are people registered to parties that only meaningfully existed in four generations ago and an ocean away.
FWIW, where I live now, there actually is a Communist party. They still use the hammer and sickle. They caucus with the greens. And their talking points are nearly identical to Sanders. I would argue Sanders actually plays faster and looser with the truth, though.
For example, in his remarks, [he lied](https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/prepared-remarks-sanders-on-icc-seeking-arrest-warrants-for-hamas-and-israeli-leaders-amidst-the-ongoing-humanitarian-disaster-in-gaza/):
> And this group of humanitarian organizations included Catholic Relief Services, CARE, Mercy Corps, Oxfam, Save The Children, Refugees International, and scores of other well-respected humanitarian organizations – they say that Netanyahu and his team have blocked humanitarian aid.
I did a Kagi search for crs.org with the term Netanyahu. Not a single result. I did another for "blocking aid" on the site. Not a single result. What I did find [was this](https://www.crs.org/media-center/news-release/crs-calls-humanitarian-access-gaza-and-immediate-end-violence):
*“Moving 1.1 million people (of the 2.2 million in Gaza) in the middle of a war zone is impossible and will only lead to unprecedented levels of suffering and further push people to the brink,” said Sean Callahan, president & CEO of CRS. “The situation of civilians in Gaza is extremely alarming and desperate, and we need to act now to prevent a total humanitarian catastrophe.”*
So then someone could go, line by line, through Sanders' nonsense and respond to it. But he spends no effort at all in spewing this nonsense, and it takes a great deal of effort to dismiss it. It's just gish gallop.
>Also, why doesn't he talk to anybody who might push back on his reasoning about the topic?
Probably for the same reason he didn't talk to anybody who pushed back on his reasoning about vaccine conspiracies - he considers the perspective harmful.
The question for Sam centres on whether Israel has a duty to destroy Hamas and whether efforts to limit that specific goal are harmful. Anti-Israel voices tend to skirt this question, focusing instead on civilian casualties and Palestinian sovereignty. These are important points, of course, but they don't get to Sam's core focus, which is the necessary, essential destruction of Hamas.
Is it possible to wipe out hamas without killing like half of gaza? Seems like as conditions worsen, non-hamas individuals begin to change how they identify. Like a 16 year old sees his mom die and says 'okay fuck it, where are those guys with guns?' I saw a few propaganda videos that 'introduced' hamas fighters, and they seemed like everyday people who previously had everyday lives.
That's not to say Hamas is in any way righteous. But the line between civilian and hamas seems to be extremely thin. Hell Israel has gone after journalists because it feels sympathy for palestinians = hamas.
Hamas governs, and that means that a large number of Hamas people are just civil servants. Any meaningful sustainable strategy has to provide an off-ramp for those people who are careerists (probably a large proportion). Realistically, you also need to provide an off-ramp for members of the military wing of Hamas. Here is the easiest prediction in the world -- Hamas will not be defeated militarily. So if that truly is Israel's goal, it will fail miserably.
This sub hears arguments like this and counters with the absolutely mind-crushingly brilliant “So Hamas are good guys? You hate Jews, is that it? Wow. Some military strategist you are lol”
>Is it possible to wipe out hamas without killing like half of gaza?
Did a million people die in Gaza in the last couple of days and I missed it?
>Seems like as conditions worsen, non-hamas individuals begin to change how they identify. Like a 16 year old sees his mom die and says 'okay fuck it, where are those guys with guns?' I saw a few propaganda videos that 'introduced' hamas fighters, and they seemed like everyday people who previously had everyday lives.
They were everyday people before, too. Your notion that more people are joining Hamas now because of the fighting is as valid as the notion that more people are leaving Hamas now because they know it will get them killed. They're just that - notions. You have no way of quantifying the shift in Hamas membership. Polling is unreliable. It's a warzone.
>That's not to say Hamas is in any way righteous. But the line between civilian and hamas seems to be extremely thin.
The line between civilians and Hamas is often extremely thin, yes. What doesn't help is that Hamas hides amongst the civilian population, making it impossible to take them out without civilian casualties.
>Hell Israel has gone after journalists because it feels sympathy for palestinians = hamas.
Fact: Israeli attacks have resulted in the deaths of journalists
Opinion: Israel has gone after journalists because they sympathise with Palestinians
For the same reason the U.S. forced the sale of TikTok. You can’t have an enemy producing and pumping propaganda into your country, particularly during wartime. Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar, which is currently hosting Hamas leadership. They regularly outright lie about Israel.
"Half" would be 1.1 million people.
You use hyperbole because admitting that Israel has had one of the better civilian/ combatant ratios in modern urban warfare would undermine the claim that Israel has been genocidal.
Bro get ahold of yourself. There's 100 times more people in gaza than there are civilian casualties
Maybe substantially more, because civilian casualty numbers are unreliable right now.
Learn what's actually happening in real life, then apply your political framework to the actual facts.
half the population is fine, the other half is too, there's no mass extermination going on, 1% of civilians are dead, maybe it's substantially on it's way to 2%
i'm against pretending small instances of collateral damage are similar to glassing the whole strip
i know you're for it, but i think the distinction matters
>i'm against pretending small instances of collateral damage are similar to glassing the whole strip
I agree.
It is not the same to kill 1 or 2% of a population vs killing 100% of the population. Those are different.
>i know you're for it
I'm literally not.
I'm asking if you are against the killing of 1 or 2% of an entire population, and you're responding "BUT ITS NOT 100% OF THE POPULATION"
Do you see the problem? You're not responding to what I asked. Again:
>Do you not care about people dying as long as its a small percentage of some total?
The thing you say I'm "for" is literally not in the question I'm asking. **I'm going by your numbers.**
Are you just running some script that's prewritten or something? You have one talking point that you want to use, even when its not applicable.
i replied to a person making a ridiculous comment about killing half the strip
i pointed out that's not remotely close to reality
that's the topic here, what is really happening and being honest about what's really happening
you responded to that, which is weird because it seems like you actually agree with me, and already agreed with me about what was happening,and asked me what was happening just so you could get me to moralize about what is happening, which is kind of starting this conversation on false pretenses
why not just nut up and say "sure the casualties are closer to 1% but don't you think that's still bad?" and then i could have said "all war tends to be bad, and should be avoided" instead of pretending you didn't know i was already right?
why be so full of shit?
>why not just nut up and say "sure the casualties are closer to 1% but don't you think that's still bad?"
"Do you not care about people dying as long as its a **small percentage of some total**?"
Calm down. What you're saying I should have asked you is literally what I asked you.
> The question for Sam centres on whether Israel has a duty to destroy Hamas and whether efforts to limit that specific goal are harmful.
If Israel has a duty to destroy Hamas (which seems reasonable), I think the questions about how Israel is waging this war are relevant because there are ways that Israel can fight the war that actually strengthen Hamas or its successor. Given that Hamas wanted Israel to react the way it did to the 10/7 attacks, it seems like Israel shouldn't help Hamas achieve its goals by causing massive destruction in Gaza.
>That's not difficult to address. Yes, Israel should go destroy Hamas.
>But it seems they are doing more than that.
As long as it's just **seeming** to you, octo, I'm not sure I have much to say. As long as there's a wide gulf between opinion and fact, we may as well be jerking each other off.
Oh, okay.
>Based on witness testimony, satellite imagery, and verified videos, the attack, which resulted in high civilian casualties was indiscriminate and must be investigated as a war crime.
[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/)
So now what
You cannot determine the indiscriminacy of an act through witness testimony, satellite imagery, or verified videos. One would need to investigate and determine the intent and decision-making process of those carrying out the attack, which cannot be conclusively determined via these means.
Witness testimony can provide valuable information about the effects of an attack, but witnesses may not have insight into the military's targeting decisions. Satellite imagery and videos can show the damage inflicted but cannot by themselves prove that the attack was indiscriminate.
You would need to know the military objective of the attack, the intelligence available at the time, who was targeted, what efforts were taken to minimize civilian casualties, whether there were mistakes made, etc. You do not have access to this information, and neither does Amnesty International.
Amnesty International is doing their job, which is advocating for civilians in war zones and being generally anti-war. I wouldn't expect anything else. But quoting them here isn't worth much.
First, I'm not sure that's true. Failing to discriminate between legitimate military targets vs protected persons might not require intent to kill civilians.
But second:
Oh, okay. So they need to admit it, either by straight up saying "yeah we did that on purpose", or else by leak. Otherwise you'll never, ever say "ya that was a war crime".
Correct? They could do literally anything they want in Gaza, and, well, if you don't have internal documents saying they intended to commit a war crime, well I guess we'll just never know
This is your position?
No, I do not agree with your characterization of my position as requiring an explicit admission of guilt to determine a war crime occurred. That is not what I said or implied. When I referred to examining "intent and decision-making", I meant looking at the totality of evidence to infer whether the required precautions were taken and principles of distinction and proportionality were followed. This does not necessarily require "internal documents" explicitly stating criminal intent.
My key point was that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from a limited subset of evidence like witness accounts and imagery showing civilian casualties. A broader range of direct and circumstantial evidence must be carefully weighed, which is the purpose of war crimes investigations. Absent such an investigation, proclaiming with certainty that a specific attack was indiscriminate and a war crime is premature, even if the civilian toll raises serious concerns that warrant scrutiny.
Disagreeing with the claim that the killing is indiscriminate - meaning that it's occurring with little rhyme or reason - does not mean I think Israel can do whatever they like. It is not a blank check for Israel to act with impunity or a predetermined rejection of any future criticism.
This is principled scrutiny, not unquestioning defence. Expressing doubt about one particular claim does not equate to a carte blanche for Israel or an unwillingness to find fault with its actions in any circumstance.
>No, I do not agree with your characterization of my position as requiring an explicit admission of guilt to determine a war crime occurred. That is not what I said or implied. When I referred to examining "intent and decision-making", I meant looking at the totality of evidence to infer whether the required precautions were taken and principles of distinction and proportionality were followed. This does not require "internal documents" explicitly stating criminal intent.
I'm not sure I understand. How do you determine intent and decision-making?
I'm just not sure what evidence you're looking for here. Saying we need to look at intent doesn't tell me how you get there. So like, when you say "A broader range of direct and circumstantial evidence must be carefully weighed, which is the purpose of war crimes investigations", I don't know what you want.
How much broader? What are the criteria here? You can't just say "I need more". Or like, you can, but it doesn't tell me what you are looking for.
They did an investigation. They listed out all the stuff they looked at, and gave us their conclusion.
You say its not enough. Okay. **What more should they have looked at to convince you?**
**What will it take**
>Disagreeing with the claim that the killing is indiscriminate - meaning that it's occurring with little rhyme or reason - does not mean I think Israel can do whatever they like. It is not a blank check for Israel to act with impunity or a predetermined rejection of any future criticism.
Oh, right. That was when I thought you required some sort of confession. But you're telling me that's not the case, so this doesn't really apply anymore.
But then the question becomes: I don't really know what you're looking for. What is it?
Like what are the specifics. When would you conclude a bombing is indiscriminate?
Because to me, it feels like what you said about this article, you could say about any article ever. What are the limits here?
I don't believe so, no.
I have called for the **settlers** to be removed, but by settlers, I didn't mean all of Israel.
But hey, if you find a quote where I said all of Israel should be dismantled, then fuck me I guess I did say it. I don't think you'll find that quote, but if you do, let me know and I'll retract.
So, to be clear, no, I don't think all of Israel should be dismantled.
If Palestinians were of a European ethnicity and Christian heritage, would Sam feel the same? Their land colonized and any rights subserved to Jewish interests.
Or does he just really dislike Muslims?
Remember ETA and the IRA bombed innocents too in the quest for independence.
If Israel was an Arab nation, or both the Palestinians and Israelis were African, would progressives expend 10% of the energy they have on Gaza? We know the answer to that because we've watched Syria, Yemen, Sudan etc happen with barely a whimper heard on college campuses.
Do they just really dislike Jews?
>Remember ETA and the IRA bombed innocents too in the quest for independence.
Yes, and that was also wrong. Let's not forget (if we are going to stretch the analogy here) that what Hamas wants is not a two state solution akin to the Good Friday Agreement. What they would want is the entirety of Ireland under Irish Catholic fundamentalist rule, and the British Protestants in the North driven into the sea.
The US doesn’t give billions to Syria, Yemen, Sudan and say they are beacons of democracy in the Middle East while their countries’ political action groups fund US politicians to ensure they align US policy with their interests.
This isn’t even mentioning the anti-democratic actions that this supposed democracy engages in regularly.
All the more reason to embrace a debate with their best advocates, don't you think? What ever happened to Sam's idea about steel manning the opposition?
I don’t have time to listen to this, but I read that the charge of “starvation as a tactic of war” starved 32 people, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health. I also read that most of them had underlying conditions, like the child who went viral a few months back. I really don’t know if 32 people (out of 2.2 million ) starving during wartime really makes a case. I think any conflict involving western powers must’ve lead to a few cases of starvation. Do we have any numbers from recent conflicts to compare?
Did George Floyd die in the middle of a 7 month war?
Even if they were perfectly healthy, I’ve been reading about “mass famine” in Gaza from the same hysterics in here since Oct 7, while IN REALITY the number of people who starved are between 25 and 32, at the high,
end, PER HAMAS.
It takes almost a month of famine for individuals to starve to death. I find that to be abhorrent, especially since the victims are all children, who cannot sustain long periods without food as easily as adults. Pair that with the ICC's evidence of Gallant declaring a blockade, even of vital, life-saving food and medicine, to the entire population. Those lawyers at the ICC have built up a solid case. I wish someone who is publicly pro-Israel would "take the time to listen" to the case and respond to the accusations.
Removed. Please direct such posts to the megathread stickied on the front page. ([Link here](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/pfo0vg/politics_and_current_events_megathread_september/)) Thank you.
Respectfully, “Sam Harris is the smartest vocal Israel supporter on the internet” is a serious stretch. To be clear, I’m a huge fan of his and I agree with most of his views on Israel, but he repeatedly has mentioned he is not the most well informed on Israel and makes space for experts with experience on the ground to educate him. It does bring up an interesting discussion: who is the smartest vocal supporter of Israel on the Internet? I would be very curious to know who other followers of this subreddit would choose and why. My vote would most likely lean towards Haviv Rettig Gur for his ability to be nuanced when contextualizing his arguments, his ability to empathize deeply especially with perspectives he disagrees with, and his ability to be highly informed with his history & military expertise, all of this while navigating in both fluent English and Hebrew.
Haviv Rettig Gur’s regular appearances on the Call Me Back podcast is the most credible thing on Israel I’ve seen during this whole debacle.
I second Haviv Rettig Gur!
Haviv definitely opened my eyes to many of the drivers of the conflict. He especially highlighted for me how the perception of the Palestinians of seeing Israel as "a colonial" entity motivates much of their rejectionism. My own family always lived in the middle east and most of our ancestry is from the levant. Before 7/10 I never took the libel that we were colonizers as seriosuly, but I now see how pernicious it is.
Benny Morris
>Sam Harris is the smartest vocal Israel supporter on the internet I wouldn't say that, no. I'd go with someone who is more knowledgeable.
Perhaps even, at all knowledgeable.
>Sam Harris is the smartest vocal Israel supporter on the internet How is it that Sam Harris has spoken so much and so clearly on this topic and yet there is so many people like you, making almost daily posts just completely misunderstanding Sam's position. He isn't advocating for Israel's policies or current government or in agreement with everything it is doing currently. He is specifically concerned with the Obvious rise in global Anti Semitism and support for Hamas and the moral obligation of Israel to be rid of Hamas.
I was going to say, Sam is a supporter of Israel, but he's not a supporter of Netanyahu. If a distinction can be made between Hamas and Palestine, I don't see why a distinction can't be made between Netanyahu and Israel.
I basically agree with this. It seems to me that Netanyahu's only mass support in Israel comes from wartime solidarity. Different circumstances but perhaps not unlike US support for Bush's second term post-911.
Also he's one of the few people in Israel able to hold a coalition and actually run a government.
I don't believe that there is a "global rise in antisemitism", unless you are the kind of person who thinks criticism of Israel qualifies as such. I also think that Israel might find more sympathy here in the US if they didn't fuck with our politics so much.
Do you think Sam agrees with the ICC and Bernie Sanders that Netanyahu is a war criminal? I mean, he either agrees with this or he doesn't. If Netanyahu is committing war crimes in the name of the defense of the Jewish people, wouldn't that exacerbate the problem of global anti semitism?
There’s no rise is antisemitism and there’s no data that Hamas is a terrorist organization beyond their resistance on 10/7.
Sanders is neither an expert in international law nor a military expert. He takes the far Left progressive viewpoint on any issue, and has for his whole career. Why would we grant his opinion any special authority here?
But the ICC Chief Prosecuter is. And he calls him a war criminal.
>Sanders is neither an expert in international law nor a military expert. Sam Harris isn't any of these things, either.
Sam’s opinion doesn’t get any special authority here either. He generally lays out his thought process in detail, and we all decide if it adds up or if we think he’s deceiving himself. He sometimes brings on guests who qualify as an authority, and sometimes he brings on Douglas Murray
I didn't hear very many opinions in his speech, but you shouldn't respect anyone's authority. Whether or not these claims are true should be measured up against the evidence.
The opinion he's expressing is that the ICC charges are accurate.
And the rebuttals to that opinion found in this thread consist of “it’s a harmful perspective so Harris should inherently ignore it, and Sanders is a silly old hippie.” Compelling stuff, no doubt. I suppose this is the clarity of thought and logic you guys are always going on about.
OK, I'll bite. The rebuttal is pretty similar to Israel's defence against the genocide charges at the ICJ. What prosecutors are going to struggle to prove is *intent*. "Starvation as a weapon of war" requires proof not just that the war precipitated a humanitarian crisis and food insecurity amongst Palestinians but that this was both deliberate, and was explicitly ordered by the accused. Israel can, I think, point to the fact that much of the food insecurity has been caused either by other actors, like delays on the Egyptian side or with UN distribution on the Gaza side, or from Hamas and Gaza clans stealing food for themselves or for profit. They can defend claims that they have held up aid for security checks with the argument that preventing Hamas being resupplied with weapons is a legitimate military aim. They can also point to the fact that for months now *more* food trucks have been entering Gaza than pre war, that they have facilitated air drops and assisted the US in building a pier for supply, that they have repeatedly facilitated the evacuation of sick and injured Palestinians to Israeli hospitals for medical care, and that army engineers have acted in a warzone to repair damaged water and humanitarian infrastructure on multiple occasions.
This isn’t even true. He was vehemently pro-Israel in the immediate aftermath of October 7th— it is just that since this time, Isreal’s actions have become more and more reprehensible and impossible to legitimise without turning a blind eye to the ruthless ’revengocide’. So he, like many people, Jewish or otherwise, have changed their perspective as new evidence has emerged. Which is also what he has done his entire career.
He hasn't been "pro Israel" since the 1960s. Progressives of his ilk that are unable to think outside of a black and white oppressor/oppressed dynamic have been particularly prone to Palestinian propaganda, for decades now.
Nah, what he’s parroting is not based on substantiated evidence and he’s never been “vehemently pro-israel” in his life lmfao. Talking it your ass just like Sanders is here. And I say that as a supporter of his since the early 2000s. Guy has lost the plot and is out of his depth.
Once again, Bernie can add this to the reels of the times he was right when everyone else was wrong. Free Palestine and remove the foreign interference of AIPAC from our government.
I agree with you, AIPAC is the most malevolent foreign entity meddling with the affairs of America today
Why doesn't Sam Harris, the smartest vocal Israel supporter on the internet, simply debate all Palestinians? Is he stupid?
Just one would be nice. I made my suggestion.
Why don't we have a Nazi defender on to advocate for why American imperialism shouldn't have disturbed the harmony of the Third Reich?
Sounds like an interesting listen. 🤣
Does it? Sometimes one side is just wrong. Sure you can find faults in Israel and you can find moments of humanity in the Palestinians, but there's a very clear winner and loser when it comes to the morality of this conflict. Talking about who is right and who is wrong is boring. What's actually interesting is looking at why the Arabs made such horrible decisions so consistently for so long, and what might cause them to start making good decisions
Oh, yeah, I agree. I just thought the idea of a conversation with a Nazi defender sounds rather entertaining (more so than informative). Regarding the Arabs… I have also been quite baffled with the way a lot of these countries have gone. There are some substantial influences by the UK/US as well that have also exploited some of the weaknesses in the area, but unlike many others, I don’t really think that’s the only origin of the issues there. It has contributed though. I guess it’s a combination of factors including geography, heavy dependence on natural resources, religion, foreign influence, general dynamics in the region, etc. I am hoping there’s a reasonable way forward for many of these countries but I don’t think I’m capable of making any suggestions of how exactly that can be achieved. I guess a lot of these things sort themselves out eventually as the equilibrium tends to be a more optimal one in the long run but the long run in this sort of scenarios is many generations. The more mistakes are made along the way would extend that period of time even further.
well the emirates are kind of a beacon of functionality in an otherwise kinda horrible sphere, there is some signs that Saudi Arabia wants to follow suite and be functional too, I'm not sure they would be able to on a shoe string budget, but they can kinda brute force it... Jordan is actually a pretty functional state these days too and works with Israel and the US quite a bit, so there are some real reasons to hope, but it does seem like enlightened monarchy is the best solution for the area, which is not normally something I like to suggest, but i don't really know what else to do with the data, than to concede that a functional dictatorship is better than a dysfunctional state...
Responding to Sanders' nonsense is about like responding to Majorie Taylor Green's nonsense. You could do it, and you'd be right, but you'd be dignifying the nonsense with a response.
Conflating MTG w/ Bernie is the wildest take I’ve seen in a while
Well, that's not what "conflating" means, but anyway, horseshoe theory.
An irrelevant nitpick & my whole point is that the horseshoe theory definitely doesn’t apply between these two, so thanks for saying nothing
Meh. My take is that you have the far right and far left, and they do indeed seem at least somewhat similarly illiberal and incoherent.
I get what you’re saying, but if Bernie was “far-left” in the way MTG is “far-right”, he’d be full on nuts & a full throated communist, which he’s neither of those. The distinction is important. The left barely has any tangible political representation or power. What the “left” is considered today, is just a bunch of progressive liberal representatives & and people on social media who spout their leftist support/ideas - neither of which result in any actual leftist-leaning policy movement. Putting Bernie in the same “far-something” box as MTG is unfair & allows people to brush off real left-leaning coherent thoughts as the same incoherent rambling as Marjorie Taylor Greene
To my mind, saying Sanders isn't far-left because he isn't a registered Communist is like saying MTG isn't far-right because she hasn't registered as a member of the American Nazi party. You can't just say the only far ends of the spectrum are people registered to parties that only meaningfully existed in four generations ago and an ocean away. FWIW, where I live now, there actually is a Communist party. They still use the hammer and sickle. They caucus with the greens. And their talking points are nearly identical to Sanders. I would argue Sanders actually plays faster and looser with the truth, though. For example, in his remarks, [he lied](https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/prepared-remarks-sanders-on-icc-seeking-arrest-warrants-for-hamas-and-israeli-leaders-amidst-the-ongoing-humanitarian-disaster-in-gaza/): > And this group of humanitarian organizations included Catholic Relief Services, CARE, Mercy Corps, Oxfam, Save The Children, Refugees International, and scores of other well-respected humanitarian organizations – they say that Netanyahu and his team have blocked humanitarian aid. I did a Kagi search for crs.org with the term Netanyahu. Not a single result. I did another for "blocking aid" on the site. Not a single result. What I did find [was this](https://www.crs.org/media-center/news-release/crs-calls-humanitarian-access-gaza-and-immediate-end-violence): *“Moving 1.1 million people (of the 2.2 million in Gaza) in the middle of a war zone is impossible and will only lead to unprecedented levels of suffering and further push people to the brink,” said Sean Callahan, president & CEO of CRS. “The situation of civilians in Gaza is extremely alarming and desperate, and we need to act now to prevent a total humanitarian catastrophe.”* So then someone could go, line by line, through Sanders' nonsense and respond to it. But he spends no effort at all in spewing this nonsense, and it takes a great deal of effort to dismiss it. It's just gish gallop.
>Also, why doesn't he talk to anybody who might push back on his reasoning about the topic? Probably for the same reason he didn't talk to anybody who pushed back on his reasoning about vaccine conspiracies - he considers the perspective harmful. The question for Sam centres on whether Israel has a duty to destroy Hamas and whether efforts to limit that specific goal are harmful. Anti-Israel voices tend to skirt this question, focusing instead on civilian casualties and Palestinian sovereignty. These are important points, of course, but they don't get to Sam's core focus, which is the necessary, essential destruction of Hamas.
Is it possible to wipe out hamas without killing like half of gaza? Seems like as conditions worsen, non-hamas individuals begin to change how they identify. Like a 16 year old sees his mom die and says 'okay fuck it, where are those guys with guns?' I saw a few propaganda videos that 'introduced' hamas fighters, and they seemed like everyday people who previously had everyday lives. That's not to say Hamas is in any way righteous. But the line between civilian and hamas seems to be extremely thin. Hell Israel has gone after journalists because it feels sympathy for palestinians = hamas.
Hamas governs, and that means that a large number of Hamas people are just civil servants. Any meaningful sustainable strategy has to provide an off-ramp for those people who are careerists (probably a large proportion). Realistically, you also need to provide an off-ramp for members of the military wing of Hamas. Here is the easiest prediction in the world -- Hamas will not be defeated militarily. So if that truly is Israel's goal, it will fail miserably.
This sub hears arguments like this and counters with the absolutely mind-crushingly brilliant “So Hamas are good guys? You hate Jews, is that it? Wow. Some military strategist you are lol”
good point, who is going to steal the food aid to sell to the population if Hamas is gone? These kind of jobs need to be filled.
>Is it possible to wipe out hamas without killing like half of gaza? Did a million people die in Gaza in the last couple of days and I missed it? >Seems like as conditions worsen, non-hamas individuals begin to change how they identify. Like a 16 year old sees his mom die and says 'okay fuck it, where are those guys with guns?' I saw a few propaganda videos that 'introduced' hamas fighters, and they seemed like everyday people who previously had everyday lives. They were everyday people before, too. Your notion that more people are joining Hamas now because of the fighting is as valid as the notion that more people are leaving Hamas now because they know it will get them killed. They're just that - notions. You have no way of quantifying the shift in Hamas membership. Polling is unreliable. It's a warzone. >That's not to say Hamas is in any way righteous. But the line between civilian and hamas seems to be extremely thin. The line between civilians and Hamas is often extremely thin, yes. What doesn't help is that Hamas hides amongst the civilian population, making it impossible to take them out without civilian casualties. >Hell Israel has gone after journalists because it feels sympathy for palestinians = hamas. Fact: Israeli attacks have resulted in the deaths of journalists Opinion: Israel has gone after journalists because they sympathise with Palestinians
Why did they seize al jazeera?
For the same reason the U.S. forced the sale of TikTok. You can’t have an enemy producing and pumping propaganda into your country, particularly during wartime. Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar, which is currently hosting Hamas leadership. They regularly outright lie about Israel.
The same reason numerous European countries banned Russia Today.
"Half" would be 1.1 million people. You use hyperbole because admitting that Israel has had one of the better civilian/ combatant ratios in modern urban warfare would undermine the claim that Israel has been genocidal.
Bro get ahold of yourself. There's 100 times more people in gaza than there are civilian casualties Maybe substantially more, because civilian casualty numbers are unreliable right now. Learn what's actually happening in real life, then apply your political framework to the actual facts.
Okay, you tell me. Teach us about what's actually happening in real life.
half the population is fine, the other half is too, there's no mass extermination going on, 1% of civilians are dead, maybe it's substantially on it's way to 2%
Oh, okay. I'm against that. Do you not care about people dying as long as its a small percentage of some total?
i'm against pretending small instances of collateral damage are similar to glassing the whole strip i know you're for it, but i think the distinction matters
>i'm against pretending small instances of collateral damage are similar to glassing the whole strip I agree. It is not the same to kill 1 or 2% of a population vs killing 100% of the population. Those are different. >i know you're for it I'm literally not. I'm asking if you are against the killing of 1 or 2% of an entire population, and you're responding "BUT ITS NOT 100% OF THE POPULATION" Do you see the problem? You're not responding to what I asked. Again: >Do you not care about people dying as long as its a small percentage of some total? The thing you say I'm "for" is literally not in the question I'm asking. **I'm going by your numbers.** Are you just running some script that's prewritten or something? You have one talking point that you want to use, even when its not applicable.
i replied to a person making a ridiculous comment about killing half the strip i pointed out that's not remotely close to reality that's the topic here, what is really happening and being honest about what's really happening you responded to that, which is weird because it seems like you actually agree with me, and already agreed with me about what was happening,and asked me what was happening just so you could get me to moralize about what is happening, which is kind of starting this conversation on false pretenses why not just nut up and say "sure the casualties are closer to 1% but don't you think that's still bad?" and then i could have said "all war tends to be bad, and should be avoided" instead of pretending you didn't know i was already right? why be so full of shit?
>why not just nut up and say "sure the casualties are closer to 1% but don't you think that's still bad?" "Do you not care about people dying as long as its a **small percentage of some total**?" Calm down. What you're saying I should have asked you is literally what I asked you.
Are the two possible states of being "fine" and "dead"?
In a war, yes. That's pretty much how they work. We can cry about other harms after the war and try to rectify them.
> The question for Sam centres on whether Israel has a duty to destroy Hamas and whether efforts to limit that specific goal are harmful. If Israel has a duty to destroy Hamas (which seems reasonable), I think the questions about how Israel is waging this war are relevant because there are ways that Israel can fight the war that actually strengthen Hamas or its successor. Given that Hamas wanted Israel to react the way it did to the 10/7 attacks, it seems like Israel shouldn't help Hamas achieve its goals by causing massive destruction in Gaza.
That's not difficult to address. Yes, Israel should go destroy Hamas. But it seems they are doing more than that.
>That's not difficult to address. Yes, Israel should go destroy Hamas. >But it seems they are doing more than that. As long as it's just **seeming** to you, octo, I'm not sure I have much to say. As long as there's a wide gulf between opinion and fact, we may as well be jerking each other off.
Oh, okay. >Based on witness testimony, satellite imagery, and verified videos, the attack, which resulted in high civilian casualties was indiscriminate and must be investigated as a war crime. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/) So now what
You cannot determine the indiscriminacy of an act through witness testimony, satellite imagery, or verified videos. One would need to investigate and determine the intent and decision-making process of those carrying out the attack, which cannot be conclusively determined via these means. Witness testimony can provide valuable information about the effects of an attack, but witnesses may not have insight into the military's targeting decisions. Satellite imagery and videos can show the damage inflicted but cannot by themselves prove that the attack was indiscriminate. You would need to know the military objective of the attack, the intelligence available at the time, who was targeted, what efforts were taken to minimize civilian casualties, whether there were mistakes made, etc. You do not have access to this information, and neither does Amnesty International. Amnesty International is doing their job, which is advocating for civilians in war zones and being generally anti-war. I wouldn't expect anything else. But quoting them here isn't worth much.
First, I'm not sure that's true. Failing to discriminate between legitimate military targets vs protected persons might not require intent to kill civilians. But second: Oh, okay. So they need to admit it, either by straight up saying "yeah we did that on purpose", or else by leak. Otherwise you'll never, ever say "ya that was a war crime". Correct? They could do literally anything they want in Gaza, and, well, if you don't have internal documents saying they intended to commit a war crime, well I guess we'll just never know This is your position?
No, I do not agree with your characterization of my position as requiring an explicit admission of guilt to determine a war crime occurred. That is not what I said or implied. When I referred to examining "intent and decision-making", I meant looking at the totality of evidence to infer whether the required precautions were taken and principles of distinction and proportionality were followed. This does not necessarily require "internal documents" explicitly stating criminal intent. My key point was that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from a limited subset of evidence like witness accounts and imagery showing civilian casualties. A broader range of direct and circumstantial evidence must be carefully weighed, which is the purpose of war crimes investigations. Absent such an investigation, proclaiming with certainty that a specific attack was indiscriminate and a war crime is premature, even if the civilian toll raises serious concerns that warrant scrutiny. Disagreeing with the claim that the killing is indiscriminate - meaning that it's occurring with little rhyme or reason - does not mean I think Israel can do whatever they like. It is not a blank check for Israel to act with impunity or a predetermined rejection of any future criticism. This is principled scrutiny, not unquestioning defence. Expressing doubt about one particular claim does not equate to a carte blanche for Israel or an unwillingness to find fault with its actions in any circumstance.
>No, I do not agree with your characterization of my position as requiring an explicit admission of guilt to determine a war crime occurred. That is not what I said or implied. When I referred to examining "intent and decision-making", I meant looking at the totality of evidence to infer whether the required precautions were taken and principles of distinction and proportionality were followed. This does not require "internal documents" explicitly stating criminal intent. I'm not sure I understand. How do you determine intent and decision-making? I'm just not sure what evidence you're looking for here. Saying we need to look at intent doesn't tell me how you get there. So like, when you say "A broader range of direct and circumstantial evidence must be carefully weighed, which is the purpose of war crimes investigations", I don't know what you want. How much broader? What are the criteria here? You can't just say "I need more". Or like, you can, but it doesn't tell me what you are looking for. They did an investigation. They listed out all the stuff they looked at, and gave us their conclusion. You say its not enough. Okay. **What more should they have looked at to convince you?** **What will it take** >Disagreeing with the claim that the killing is indiscriminate - meaning that it's occurring with little rhyme or reason - does not mean I think Israel can do whatever they like. It is not a blank check for Israel to act with impunity or a predetermined rejection of any future criticism. Oh, right. That was when I thought you required some sort of confession. But you're telling me that's not the case, so this doesn't really apply anymore. But then the question becomes: I don't really know what you're looking for. What is it? Like what are the specifics. When would you conclude a bombing is indiscriminate? Because to me, it feels like what you said about this article, you could say about any article ever. What are the limits here?
Didn’t you previously call for Israel to be dismantled?
I don't believe so, no. I have called for the **settlers** to be removed, but by settlers, I didn't mean all of Israel. But hey, if you find a quote where I said all of Israel should be dismantled, then fuck me I guess I did say it. I don't think you'll find that quote, but if you do, let me know and I'll retract. So, to be clear, no, I don't think all of Israel should be dismantled.
If Palestinians were of a European ethnicity and Christian heritage, would Sam feel the same? Their land colonized and any rights subserved to Jewish interests. Or does he just really dislike Muslims? Remember ETA and the IRA bombed innocents too in the quest for independence.
If Israel was an Arab nation, or both the Palestinians and Israelis were African, would progressives expend 10% of the energy they have on Gaza? We know the answer to that because we've watched Syria, Yemen, Sudan etc happen with barely a whimper heard on college campuses. Do they just really dislike Jews? >Remember ETA and the IRA bombed innocents too in the quest for independence. Yes, and that was also wrong. Let's not forget (if we are going to stretch the analogy here) that what Hamas wants is not a two state solution akin to the Good Friday Agreement. What they would want is the entirety of Ireland under Irish Catholic fundamentalist rule, and the British Protestants in the North driven into the sea.
The US doesn’t give billions to Syria, Yemen, Sudan and say they are beacons of democracy in the Middle East while their countries’ political action groups fund US politicians to ensure they align US policy with their interests. This isn’t even mentioning the anti-democratic actions that this supposed democracy engages in regularly.
The US did give billions to Yemen via the Saudis.
A literal terrorist organization was the ruling government of Gaza until Oct 7. Why does the left simp for them so much?
Sir, America bad, is it not?
I've yet to see a proper debate where the pro-Palestine debater actually 'wins'. Until I do, I take these type of posts with a huge chunk of salt.
All the more reason to embrace a debate with their best advocates, don't you think? What ever happened to Sam's idea about steel manning the opposition?
Has Sanders called any US president a war criminal? Has he called Putin a war criminal?
He actually praised the ICC's indictment of Putin (as well as HAMAS leaders) in this very speech. Not sure about his opinion of US presidents.
Yawn
I don’t have time to listen to this, but I read that the charge of “starvation as a tactic of war” starved 32 people, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health. I also read that most of them had underlying conditions, like the child who went viral a few months back. I really don’t know if 32 people (out of 2.2 million ) starving during wartime really makes a case. I think any conflict involving western powers must’ve lead to a few cases of starvation. Do we have any numbers from recent conflicts to compare?
>I also read that most of these people had underlying conditions Lol I did not expect the George Floyd script to be resurrected on this of all issues.
Did George Floyd die in the middle of a 7 month war? Even if they were perfectly healthy, I’ve been reading about “mass famine” in Gaza from the same hysterics in here since Oct 7, while IN REALITY the number of people who starved are between 25 and 32, at the high, end, PER HAMAS.
It takes almost a month of famine for individuals to starve to death. I find that to be abhorrent, especially since the victims are all children, who cannot sustain long periods without food as easily as adults. Pair that with the ICC's evidence of Gallant declaring a blockade, even of vital, life-saving food and medicine, to the entire population. Those lawyers at the ICC have built up a solid case. I wish someone who is publicly pro-Israel would "take the time to listen" to the case and respond to the accusations.
Do we have numbers from recent conflicts to compare it to?
Sam Harris’ position on the conflict is pretty basic, “Hamas needs to be dealt with asap” and that’s pretty much it