Right? As an Israeli Antinatalist, there's no one I looked forward to hear express his thoughts about this more than David. Appreciate everybody involved
The most compassionate and rigorous analysis of this conflict I’ve ever heard. So frustrating that conversations of this calibre are so rare on social media. Marvellous work 🧠
I didn't expect that! Haven't listened yet, but thanks for bringing David back once again! And, David, if you`re reading this, please take good care of yourself, we need you!
As fan of prof. Benatar from Israel, I was hesitant to listen to this conversation because of how heated the subject is and the potential to be disappointed, but I'm glad I did. Thank you for your level headed, logical as always point of view. The world is a very scary place right now (and always..), and it's nice to know that there are people who see through all the nonsensical rage and hatred that's going on and speak actual truths. Thank you. It probably doesnt matter but I appreciate your work even more now. You're such a considerate thinker, really inspiring.
David utterly minimizes what Palestinians have to go through in the West Bank (“they have to go through some kind of check point” just like he has when he visits the US). This indicates how little he knows about how life is there: different roads for each people, arbitrary arrests, home demolitions, etc. whether we call this apartheid or not is irrelevant. It’s pretty nasty either way.
I find it very sad honestly. The structure has in the end a very similar outcome to that of an apartheid system. ( even though that it isn’t at least partially race based is questionable in my opinion)
what would you like Israel to do? open it's borders so that terrorist could come in freely and massacre Jews around Israel similarly to what happened a month ago? you are seriously so detached... a discussion about the way in which Israel should protect its borders is of course legitimate but comparing this to apartheid is utterly ignorant. Besides, the mere fact that you and other people choose to focus on this particular subject, whilst disregarding the jihadistic intentions of the Palestinian is a testament to your foolishness in the best case, and your antisemitism in a worst one.
The reason for the checkpoints is because of the high number of terrorirsts and suicide bombers who came from there during the intifiadas. You don't get a prize for sending terrorists. After 9/11, the safety protocols of airports in the US got much stricter. I don't see how it's any different to that.
David has his strengths and also his weaknesses. He is utterly incapable to cover few subjects and he should realize his limitations. I was glad how miserably he lost his legal case. In my view, he's borderline racist. Having said that he is still my go to person when I need guidance regarding his specialized expertise.
This is the first time Benatar sounds this human, I guess it stops mattering how deeply and delicately you're able to think about ethics when the tribalism in you is still strong enough that it prevents you from applying it fairly. This was especially shocking to hear knowing that Benatar is South African.
When a smart person says very stupid things, the natural response is to look for an explanation. in this sad case, I think you've hit the nail on the head: tribalism. But why tribalism? What accounts for its immense magnetism - a magnetism so strong that it turns bright, perceptive people into woeful dunces? A plausible answer is that in tribalism, people find an antidote to the very 'cosmic meaninglessness' which Benatar writes about in 'The Human Predicament.' Of course it's a sham solution. Using Benatar's own categories, going tribal is way of trying to overcome cosmic meaninglessness with social meaning. A forlorn undertaking. But then, over-conscious humans, desperate for a meaning which a coldly indifferent reality denies them, will find their comforting illusions wherever they can get them.
Thank you, I always enjoy listening to David Benatar. Maybe one day you can bring him on to speak about environmentalism, I would love to know Benatar's views on nature, ecosystems and animals.
David claims that Arab Israeli citizens are equal to their Jewish counterparts. Yes in some respects but no in others. One example is the amount of resources given to Palestinian towns compared to Jewish ones. A lot has been written on this question.
Yes, you are correct. It may be true that Arab Israelis are better off, qua ethnic minority, than any other ethnic minority in the Middle East. Yet, nonetheless there are many ways in which they are disadvantaged by their minority status in Israel. Israel as a democratic, liberal society must do better.
I don't say this as a platitude but I have always been sympathetic ( and remain so ) to the plight of the ordinary Palestinians . However , the massacre in southern Israel shook me in the sense that it had parallels in my mind to the absolutely awful ( ongoing ) treatment of the Yazidi people . Israel is faced with forces who would delight , and bring religious justification for , the wholesale genocide of the Jews . There is little restraint on the anti Israel side against this sentiment . There may be extremist views amongst some Jews against Palestinians , but they will meet opposition both from within Israel and from the western democracies . I see the USA and Europe putting restraint on Israel but will Iran restrain Hamas or Hezbollah !??? Probably not !
I commend your intelligence and interpretation on this subject. I have the exact same view as you perfectly described. What I don’t enjoy from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the psychological impediment that govern the mindset of Israel and Palestine. Both nations political bodies lean into this perpetual state of hatred, fear, and victimization of their citizens and weaponize it against the other. All it does is create mythologies from around the world, especially when many people have little to no knowledge about the history of the Levant or the conflict itself. The way that social media has evolved to its current state has greatly distorted and worsened the image of the situation which is disheartening and frustrating to witness. I want everything for the best for both peoples, but the “death to Israel” or “death to Arabs” mentality does nobody good to see an end to this issue.
You are usually good at asking your guests to clarify the terms they use, and to problematise their underlying premises. Here are a few examples where you fail at doing this, during this interview: 1. Hamas uses “human shields” . Defined how? As opposed to what? Meant to justify what? Bombing of hospitals? 2. Israel not a settler colonial state? By what definition. There are presumably different types of settler colonial states. 3. No racial segregation within the state of Israel? What about the Law of Return, housing privileges , lack of investigation of war crimes and settler crimes against Arab Israeli citizens? 3. Blockade of Gaza purely as a legitimate response to attacks from Hamas? Water, medicines, power for hospitals? 4. Intentions of Hamas clearly more sinister than the intentions of the Israeli government? Where’s the evidence for this? The historical track record? Are we supposed to just accept these statements on face value? This is a philosophy podcast!
5 minutes in and david is completely insufferable. creating some pointless, misleading, nuance free hypothetical as a “thought experiment” and then being too much of a coward to say what your point actually is is embarrassing to listen to
@@BraininaVat That’s not the point. No one denies that Israel and the early Jewish settlers brought technology with them. The point is that as a trope it’s been used to delegitimize Palestinian claims to the land, in line with the general colonial attitudes at the time toward natives.
Wow, what a letdown from someone I take to be a great thinker. Perhaps David has reconsidered since this interview took place. "There is not a moral equivalence between the attack of Hamas on Israel on 7th october and the response from Israel". Well, Israel has actually been worse than Hamas since they are not occupied, and have killed far more civilians, both % wise and in absolute numbers after oct 7th. And it's not "collateral damage" or "horror of war" when 80 % + of the killed from bombs are civilians, on top of the complete siege of no water, food, fuel and electricity which threatens the life of many more and many for instance having to undergo surgery with no anesthesia. Come on, it's not rocket science to see that what Israel is doing is in no way justifiable and in fact a genocide according to the defintion - Israel has been clear both in intent and in action.
There is footage that is unbearable to watch of a Pogrom in eastern Europe post 1945 . It was rightly said that recent events have shown even more that the Jews need a homeland . The Palestinians have suffered for 75 years ( and I pray their suffering will end ) but the Jewish people have suffered for nearly 2000 years . Have a ❤️ for these poor benighted people 🕊️
First of all I agree that the comparisons to apartheid are nonsense. It's a unique case and should be treated uniquely without summoning voodoo spirits. What does West Bank "citizenship" mean? I have no idea what Benetar is talking about here with regard to checkpoints. It's a comparison that doesn't make sense. If the comparison were to make sense, then the West Bank would have had control over its borders and have its own immigration policy. They would also have some kind of naturalization process to become a citizen of the State of the West Bank and would also have the ability to deport people. Does any of these things exist in the West Bank?
This will be interesting. Let’s see. This is definitely challenging for me but it’s important to think and reflect on one’s own biases. What I find worrying though is that you have not once mentioned that the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people the „nakba“ is a historical fact. You merely as a sidenote mentioned people „having to leave“ or „leaving“ (im paraphrasing here). But this is an essential fact and the root of many if not all the problems that sprouted out of this conflict. I am not saying that the Jewish people don’t have a right to build their own state and create a save-space for their people. What I am arguing is that the Nakba that ensued after the declaration of the Israeli state was a nessecary aspect of Israel’s enterprise. The Zionist movement and many of the founders must have been aware that the chance of a Jewish state in an area where other people already live and inhabit the land was only possible if the indigenous people were gotten rid of in some way shape or form. In Israel’s project a genocidal and colonial-type aspect is intrinsic.
Benatar either dissembling or unaware of the basic history. Israel has consistently rejected the two-state solution and responded to Palestinian 'Peace Offensives' (Avner Yaniv) and ceasefires with military provocations. This was true of the PLO in 1982 and of Hamas in 2008. On the eve of operation 'Cast Lead' Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni concluded that an extended truce by Hamas 'harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognises the movement.' In other words recognising Hamas's pragmatic approach to a two-state solution increases pressure on Israel to lift the siege and negotiate a diplomatic settlement that would end the occupation.
there's several things wrong with benatar's charactrrization of the situation. israel wasn't just founded like the other countries in the region like jordan. it was founded on ethnic cleansing of its indigenous population. there were already people there. hundreds of thousands. these people were given two choices: leave or be killed. 2. the jews that settled in israel are mostly europeans, not local people. they have no rightfull claim. a palestinian living in the west or as a refugee in palestine who has generations from israel has far more claim than a pole or ukrainian or american from brooklyn. 3. israel is taking people's land and houses away, not just "settling" near them and building their own houses. 4. I agree with benatar that what palestinians experience is not the same as south african apartheid. it's way worse. even mandela and desmond tutu said this as well as scholars of apartheid. 5. israel does not want a 2 state solution. that is why they helped hamas become what it is today by funding them. they did not want palestine to have a unified voice in a 2 state solution so they funded hamas in its infancy to combat those who sought 2 state. but now even hamas has said they are willing to accept the 2 state solution along 67 borders. israel will never accept anything but the status quo unless it is compelled by a powerful resistance from outside.
There are some things wrong with Benatar's narrative that show a pro-Israel bias. For example, he claims that there was always a Jewish presence in Palestine. This might be true but the historical evidence is incomplete so historians are not really sure. What we do know is that there were roughly 25,000 Jews living in Palestine in 1880 before any Zionist immigration started. These were mostly orthodox Jews who were there for religious reasons. We also know that most of these 25,000 came from earlier immigration to Palestine in the previous 200 years. What we don't know is whether there were an even smaller number of Jews living in Palestine prior to the 17th century. So, Benatar should be more objective and keep his bias in check. By contrast, the talking points you present are massively biased in a pro-Palestinian direction. No reputable historian would accept any of the things you say. The history is much more complicated and multi-faceted then the story that you find ideologically convenient. So, if you are a person who aspires to objectivity and is willing to put truth ahead of ideology then please go educate yourself on the history and be willing to discover facts that conflict with the narrative you have previously accepted. If you are not such a person then a philosophy podcast is not the right place for you, so please take your ideology elsewhere.
You can’t relocate people who are living there for generations! It would help, if Israel could stop shelling Gaza. If Israel could allow movement to the Palestinians and not cut off food and water to the Gaza Strip. Relocating generations of Israeli people is a disaster out idea.
several founding zionist leaders literally, proudly, repeatedly stated that zionism is settler-colonialism. this is not some goofy argument. it's an established historical fact. what does he mean that he doesn't think that this is not a colonial endeavour at all? sophistry.
32:58 exactly so! Unexpected podcast and I am glad to listen to it! I was a bit scared by Benatar's opinion on the current conflict however, I am happy to find out, as I listen to the podcast, that he is still this objective, nonbiased personality that never disappoints. Great content! in the meantime, Palestinians scream and understand nothing, even worse, they spread more hatred and chaos, i cry with all the children that got born then died in this war while their adult parents did absolutely nothing to avoid the children's unfortunate end. I still believe that one does not need superior studies to understand the importance of not procreating - and then really do something about it - in a country that is so unstable and already in big trouble. To hope only that the same country those adults lived in and fought for a living as they say, could have given their children a better life is outrageous and in the end adults did what they felt, not what they should have think! i say these words because, if the statistics are indeed accurate, that most deaths are those of children, and youth is a significant percentage in the Palestine s population, then omg what those adults did to those children..... arabs, sex and multiple children/fam., that's power, that s allah ..........that s what they mostly do. the rest of their purpose on this earth are just a way to keep being busy with sth, but sex , women and children is what they do
Dr.Benatar i used to appreciate your logic and transparency in your works, but now, you're obviously biased, and kind of trying to reduce the conflict into a story of evil people vs good people(Israeli). you didn't bother mentioning the extent of oppression Palestinians have been going through since establishment of Israel. Sadly, Disappointing.
It’s obviously not enough. People are horrified by what’s happened and happening in Israel and Gaza! Perhaps a further emphasis on how devastating the loss of life is would be more in line with the temperature of the current events.
I agree with nearly everything Prof Benatar says here, but I don’t agree with him that Israel couldn’t withdraw from the West Bank. It can and I think it should. It’s wrong to rule over a people without their consent or ability to participate in government. Making them a sovereign state is no doubt dangerous. October 7 proves that. But it’s ethically necessary. That being said, I think he does a great job of dismantling the ridiculous notions of Israeli “settler colonialism” and genocide. He’s also right that what Israel is doing in the West Bank can’t be apartheid by definition because Israel doesn’t practice racial discrimination against Arabs. But I fail to see the ethical difference between racial apartheid and national apartheid. They’re both wrong and should be condemned. Now Israel’s critics don’t have any sympathy at all for the terrible position it’s in. Allowing a Palestinian state on its eastern border is an existential risk. But it’s one I think Israel is morally obligated to take, even if the agony of that choice makes it someone excusable that they haven’t yet.
Not all Jews who went to Palestine before 1900 did so solely out of religious reasons, as David claims (8:50). Some did so out of nationalist aspirations.
I think you misheard David. He was talking about immigration between 1840 and 1880 (i.e., before the Zionist movement). This immigration was for religious reasons.
Mark’s question (at 7:16) repeats the tired old narrative that the Arab states were hostile, that Arab Jews were driven out of Arab states, and that Palestinians were not welcomed in Arab lands. None of this os fully true and I’m glad that David acknowledged this. One example: Israel did a number of missions to lift Arab Jews out of places in Yemen in stealth. The Mossad was also complicit in making things worse for Arab Jews. Of course, there were hostilities toward them in Arab countries, but that was owing to the creation of Israel (I’m explaining the hostility not justifying it). Mark knows about this because it was in the essay response to Benatar’s essay in Quillette, so I’m surprised he didn’t ask the question in a nuanced way. And Palestinians were welcome in Arab states and some even gave them citizenship. But Palestine is their land, so why should they be absorbed in other Arab countries. Perhaps we’re all the same!
You say "none of this is true". This is your bias coming through. What you should have said is that "this is only partially true". Jews who lived in the Middle East and North Africa did face various forms of discrimination and persecution. However, you are right that various factors contributed to them immigrating to Israel and it was more complicated than a simple narrative about them being driven out.
I fully agree with David about the horrors of war, though it’s clear that Israel’s massive bombardment is, to put it mildly, overboard. But this can have all been avoided had Israel been willing to allow Palestinians to have a functioning state. None of the accords do far have done this.
@@confrontingcapital5080 Hamas Principles and Policies: May 2017 article 20: " However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
@@confrontingcapital5080 Also Khaled Meshaal in 2007 interview: " We are demanding a Palestinian state on the 1967 border including Jerusalem and the right of return. Israel has to say yes I agree and withdraw."
The Legend has finally come to speak again...
Thank you for bringing Prof. Benatar!
Right? As an Israeli Antinatalist, there's no one I looked forward to hear express his thoughts about this more than David.
Appreciate everybody involved
The most compassionate and rigorous analysis of this conflict I’ve ever heard. So frustrating that conversations of this calibre are so rare on social media. Marvellous work 🧠
I didn't expect that! Haven't listened yet, but thanks for bringing David back once again! And, David, if you`re reading this, please take good care of yourself, we need you!
Thanks for having him again.
As fan of prof. Benatar from Israel, I was hesitant to listen to this conversation because of how heated the subject is and the potential to be disappointed, but I'm glad I did.
Thank you for your level headed, logical as always point of view.
The world is a very scary place right now (and always..), and it's nice to know that there are people who see through all the nonsensical rage and hatred that's going on and speak actual truths.
Thank you. It probably doesnt matter but I appreciate your work even more now.
You're such a considerate thinker, really inspiring.
David utterly minimizes what Palestinians have to go through in the West Bank (“they have to go through some kind of check point” just like he has when he visits the US). This indicates how little he knows about how life is there: different roads for each people, arbitrary arrests, home demolitions, etc. whether we call this apartheid or not is irrelevant. It’s pretty nasty either way.
This is a fair comment!
I find it very sad honestly. The structure has in the end a very similar outcome to that of an apartheid system. ( even though that it isn’t at least partially race based is questionable in my opinion)
what would you like Israel to do? open it's borders so that terrorist could come in freely and massacre Jews around Israel similarly to what happened a month ago? you are seriously so detached... a discussion about the way in which Israel should protect its borders is of course legitimate but comparing this to apartheid is utterly ignorant. Besides, the mere fact that you and other people choose to focus on this particular subject, whilst disregarding the jihadistic intentions of the Palestinian is a testament to your foolishness in the best case, and your antisemitism in a worst one.
The reason for the checkpoints is because of the high number of terrorirsts and suicide bombers who came from there during the intifiadas.
You don't get a prize for sending terrorists.
After 9/11, the safety protocols of airports in the US got much stricter. I don't see how it's any different to that.
David has his strengths and also his weaknesses.
He is utterly incapable to cover few subjects and he should realize his limitations.
I was glad how miserably he lost his legal case.
In my view, he's borderline racist.
Having said that he is still my go to person when I need guidance regarding his specialized expertise.
It would have been good to have someone on discussion that is not partial to Israel and or the Zionist movement.
We have. Look for our episode with Raja Halwani.
@@BraininaVat is that upcoming or already posted?
@@mikealms2162 ua-cam.com/video/u17jOiGHWVI/v-deo.htmlsi=kC9RaQE2P92J0ijs
@@BraininaVatI meant also with David.
This is the first time Benatar sounds this human, I guess it stops mattering how deeply and delicately you're able to think about ethics when the tribalism in you is still strong enough that it prevents you from applying it fairly. This was especially shocking to hear knowing that Benatar is South African.
When a smart person says very stupid things, the natural response is to look for an explanation. in this sad case, I think you've hit the nail on the head: tribalism. But why tribalism? What accounts for its immense magnetism - a magnetism so strong that it turns bright, perceptive people into woeful dunces? A plausible answer is that in tribalism, people find an antidote to the very 'cosmic meaninglessness' which Benatar writes about in 'The Human Predicament.' Of course it's a sham solution. Using Benatar's own categories, going tribal is way of trying to overcome cosmic meaninglessness with social meaning. A forlorn undertaking. But then, over-conscious humans, desperate for a meaning which a coldly indifferent reality denies them, will find their comforting illusions wherever they can get them.
In addition to which, someone has chosen to censor my rebuttal.
I think we are seeing who Benatar truly is here!
Could you explain where exactly Benatar is wrong? And why?
Thank you, I always enjoy listening to David Benatar. Maybe one day you can bring him on to speak about environmentalism, I would love to know Benatar's views on nature, ecosystems and animals.
Always good to hear from David Benatar
David claims that Arab Israeli citizens are equal to their Jewish counterparts. Yes in some respects but no in others. One example is the amount of resources given to Palestinian towns compared to Jewish ones. A lot has been written on this question.
Yes, you are correct. It may be true that Arab Israelis are better off, qua ethnic minority, than any other ethnic minority in the Middle East. Yet, nonetheless there are many ways in which they are disadvantaged by their minority status in Israel. Israel as a democratic, liberal society must do better.
David talks about the Palestinians in the same vein that anti-semites speak of Jews!
Certainly not. He even criticized Israel in certain aspects, and he acknowledged the severe suffering of Palestinensians.
I don't say this as a platitude but I have always been sympathetic ( and remain so ) to the plight of the ordinary Palestinians . However , the massacre in southern Israel shook me in the sense that it had parallels in my mind to the absolutely awful ( ongoing ) treatment of the Yazidi people .
Israel is faced with forces who would delight , and bring religious justification for , the wholesale genocide of the Jews . There is little restraint on the anti Israel side against this sentiment .
There may be extremist views amongst some Jews against Palestinians , but they will meet opposition both from within Israel and from the western democracies .
I see the USA and Europe putting restraint on Israel but will Iran restrain Hamas or Hezbollah !??? Probably not !
I commend your intelligence and interpretation on this subject. I have the exact same view as you perfectly described. What I don’t enjoy from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the psychological impediment that govern the mindset of Israel and Palestine. Both nations political bodies lean into this perpetual state of hatred, fear, and victimization of their citizens and weaponize it against the other. All it does is create mythologies from around the world, especially when many people have little to no knowledge about the history of the Levant or the conflict itself. The way that social media has evolved to its current state has greatly distorted and worsened the image of the situation which is disheartening and frustrating to witness. I want everything for the best for both peoples, but the “death to Israel” or “death to Arabs” mentality does nobody good to see an end to this issue.
@@exempligratia101 let's hope 🤞that somehow rational minds and loving hearts can find a peaceful way forward in that benighted land 🙏🕊️
Here comes legend ...want him more often on your channel
You are usually good at asking your guests to clarify the terms they use, and to problematise their underlying premises. Here are a few examples where you fail at doing this, during this interview: 1. Hamas uses “human shields” . Defined how? As opposed to what? Meant to justify what? Bombing of hospitals? 2. Israel not a settler colonial state? By what definition. There are presumably different types of settler colonial states. 3. No racial segregation within the state of Israel? What about the Law of Return, housing privileges , lack of investigation of war crimes and settler crimes against Arab Israeli citizens? 3. Blockade of Gaza purely as a legitimate response to attacks from Hamas? Water, medicines, power for hospitals? 4. Intentions of Hamas clearly more sinister than the intentions of the Israeli government? Where’s the evidence for this? The historical track record? Are we supposed to just accept these statements on face value? This is a philosophy podcast!
5 minutes in and david is completely insufferable. creating some pointless, misleading, nuance free hypothetical as a “thought experiment” and then being too much of a coward to say what your point actually is is embarrassing to listen to
Your problem with Benatar is simple, he's not saying what you want to hear.
@@Johnathonswift that’s funny considering chris cutrone completely changed my mind on this topic since then lol
Ah, I see David got a new microphone!
I wish Mark wouldn’t repeat the silly claim that the Jews made the dessert bloom (at 15:00). Palestine had an entire people and culture.
thejudean.com/index.php/opinions/featured-editorials/1053-the-jews-did-make-the-desert-bloom-and-the-proof-is-irrefutable
@@BraininaVat That’s not the point. No one denies that Israel and the early Jewish settlers brought technology with them. The point is that as a trope it’s been used to delegitimize Palestinian claims to the land, in line with the general colonial attitudes at the time toward natives.
@@BraininaVat classic imperialist supremacist rhetoric right there, even more vapid and cruel when used in light of ethnic cleansing
foul
Wow, what a letdown from someone I take to be a great thinker. Perhaps David has reconsidered since this interview took place. "There is not a moral equivalence between the attack of Hamas on Israel on 7th october and the response from Israel". Well, Israel has actually been worse than Hamas since they are not occupied, and have killed far more civilians, both % wise and in absolute numbers after oct 7th. And it's not "collateral damage" or "horror of war" when 80 % + of the killed from bombs are civilians, on top of the complete siege of no water, food, fuel and electricity which threatens the life of many more and many for instance having to undergo surgery with no anesthesia. Come on, it's not rocket science to see that what Israel is doing is in no way justifiable and in fact a genocide according to the defintion - Israel has been clear both in intent and in action.
Check out this episode for more on the topic.
ua-cam.com/video/8DNTlHgTrAw/v-deo.htmlsi=lzgCWjMU7rNApzlh
There is footage that is unbearable to watch of a Pogrom in eastern Europe post 1945 . It was rightly said that recent events have shown even more that the Jews need a homeland .
The Palestinians have suffered for 75 years ( and I pray their suffering will end ) but the Jewish people have suffered for nearly 2000 years . Have a ❤️ for these poor benighted people 🕊️
First of all I agree that the comparisons to apartheid are nonsense. It's a unique case and should be treated uniquely without summoning voodoo spirits.
What does West Bank "citizenship" mean? I have no idea what Benetar is talking about here with regard to checkpoints. It's a comparison that doesn't make sense. If the comparison were to make sense, then the West Bank would have had control over its borders and have its own immigration policy. They would also have some kind of naturalization process to become a citizen of the State of the West Bank and would also have the ability to deport people. Does any of these things exist in the West Bank?
Is David working on a book?
This is not aging well
Like all intellectuals even David is to some extent an idealist. I don’t fully agree with David on this topic but David still is a Chad!
This will be interesting. Let’s see. This is definitely challenging for me but it’s important to think and reflect on one’s own biases.
What I find worrying though is that you have not once mentioned that the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people the „nakba“ is a historical fact. You merely as a sidenote mentioned people „having to leave“ or „leaving“ (im paraphrasing here). But this is an essential fact and the root of many if not all the problems that sprouted out of this conflict. I am not saying that the Jewish people don’t have a right to build their own state and create a save-space for their people. What I am arguing is that the Nakba that ensued after the declaration of the Israeli state was a nessecary aspect of Israel’s enterprise. The Zionist movement and many of the founders must have been aware that the chance of a Jewish state in an area where other people already live and inhabit the land was only possible if the indigenous people were gotten rid of in some way shape or form. In Israel’s project a genocidal and colonial-type aspect is intrinsic.
In fact they regurgitated Israeli propoganda that it was the neighboring Arab States that told them to leave, absolutely shameful.
What sources did you use?
[29:33] Freedom
[34:56] Oppression
[38:02] Great barbarity
47:13 by any measure wrong.... is it David
Is it not?
Benatar either dissembling or unaware of the basic history. Israel has consistently rejected the two-state solution and responded to Palestinian 'Peace Offensives' (Avner Yaniv) and ceasefires with military provocations. This was true of the PLO in 1982 and of Hamas in 2008. On the eve of operation 'Cast Lead' Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni concluded that an extended truce by Hamas 'harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognises the movement.'
In other words recognising Hamas's pragmatic approach to a two-state solution increases pressure on Israel to lift the siege and negotiate a diplomatic settlement that would end the occupation.
there's several things wrong with benatar's charactrrization of the situation. israel wasn't just founded like the other countries in the region like jordan. it was founded on ethnic cleansing of its indigenous population. there were already people there. hundreds of thousands. these people were given two choices: leave or be killed. 2. the jews that settled in israel are mostly europeans, not local people. they have no rightfull claim. a palestinian living in the west or as a refugee in palestine who has generations from israel has far more claim than a pole or ukrainian or american from brooklyn. 3. israel is taking people's land and houses away, not just "settling" near them and building their own houses. 4. I agree with benatar that what palestinians experience is not the same as south african apartheid. it's way worse. even mandela and desmond tutu said this as well as scholars of apartheid. 5. israel does not want a 2 state solution. that is why they helped hamas become what it is today by funding them. they did not want palestine to have a unified voice in a 2 state solution so they funded hamas in its infancy to combat those who sought 2 state. but now even hamas has said they are willing to accept the 2 state solution along 67 borders. israel will never accept anything but the status quo unless it is compelled by a powerful resistance from outside.
There are some things wrong with Benatar's narrative that show a pro-Israel bias. For example, he claims that there was always a Jewish presence in Palestine. This might be true but the historical evidence is incomplete so historians are not really sure. What we do know is that there were roughly 25,000 Jews living in Palestine in 1880 before any Zionist immigration started. These were mostly orthodox Jews who were there for religious reasons. We also know that most of these 25,000 came from earlier immigration to Palestine in the previous 200 years. What we don't know is whether there were an even smaller number of Jews living in Palestine prior to the 17th century.
So, Benatar should be more objective and keep his bias in check. By contrast, the talking points you present are massively biased in a pro-Palestinian direction. No reputable historian would accept any of the things you say. The history is much more complicated and multi-faceted then the story that you find ideologically convenient. So, if you are a person who aspires to objectivity and is willing to put truth ahead of ideology then please go educate yourself on the history and be willing to discover facts that conflict with the narrative you have previously accepted. If you are not such a person then a philosophy podcast is not the right place for you, so please take your ideology elsewhere.
Then noone in America has a rightful claim either. Do you suggest everyone in America pack up and leave except for the "natives"?
@@bismillah5060 where did I say israelis should pack up and leave?
I will say it, relocate the Israeli state
You can’t relocate people who are living there for generations! It would help, if Israel could stop shelling Gaza. If Israel could allow movement to the Palestinians and not cut off food and water to the Gaza Strip. Relocating generations of Israeli people is a disaster out idea.
several founding zionist leaders literally, proudly, repeatedly stated that zionism is settler-colonialism. this is not some goofy argument. it's an established historical fact. what does he mean that he doesn't think that this is not a colonial endeavour at all? sophistry.
32:58 exactly so!
Unexpected podcast and I am glad to listen to it!
I was a bit scared by Benatar's opinion on the current conflict however, I am happy to find out, as I listen to the podcast, that he is still this objective, nonbiased personality that never disappoints.
Great content! in the meantime, Palestinians scream and understand nothing, even worse, they spread more hatred and chaos, i cry with all the children that got born then died in this war while their adult parents did absolutely nothing to avoid the children's unfortunate end.
I still believe that one does not need superior studies to understand the importance of not procreating - and then really do something about it - in a country that is so unstable and already in big trouble. To hope only that the same country those adults lived in and fought for a living as they say, could have given their children a better life is outrageous and in the end adults did what they felt, not what they should have think! i say these words because, if the statistics are indeed accurate, that most deaths are those of children, and youth is a significant percentage in the Palestine s population, then omg what those adults did to those children.....
arabs, sex and multiple children/fam., that's power, that s allah ..........that s what they mostly do. the rest of their purpose on this earth are just a way to keep being busy with sth, but sex , women and children is what they do
Dr.Benatar i used to appreciate your logic and transparency in your works, but now, you're obviously biased, and kind of trying to reduce the conflict into a story of evil people vs good people(Israeli). you didn't bother mentioning the extent of oppression Palestinians have been going through since establishment of Israel.
Sadly, Disappointing.
What are you talking about? Did you watch the same video? He repeatedly mentioned the how terrible and horrible it is for the Palestinians?
It’s obviously not enough. People are horrified by what’s happened and happening in Israel and Gaza! Perhaps a further emphasis on how devastating the loss of life is would be more in line with the temperature of the current events.
David tells the truth. Handle it!
Outrageous censorship.
We didn't censor any of your comments. Sometimes UA-cam removes comments automatically.
I agree with nearly everything Prof Benatar says here, but I don’t agree with him that Israel couldn’t withdraw from the West Bank. It can and I think it should. It’s wrong to rule over a people without their consent or ability to participate in government. Making them a sovereign state is no doubt dangerous. October 7 proves that. But it’s ethically necessary. That being said, I think he does a great job of dismantling the ridiculous notions of Israeli “settler colonialism” and genocide.
He’s also right that what Israel is doing in the West Bank can’t be apartheid by definition because Israel doesn’t practice racial discrimination against Arabs. But I fail to see the ethical difference between racial apartheid and national apartheid. They’re both wrong and should be condemned.
Now Israel’s critics don’t have any sympathy at all for the terrible position it’s in. Allowing a Palestinian state on its eastern border is an existential risk. But it’s one I think Israel is morally obligated to take, even if the agony of that choice makes it someone excusable that they haven’t yet.
Disappointing David.
Because he made fair observations and not all in on one side?
Because he isn't antisemetic?
I'm sure your great mind has a better perspective on the conflict. 😅
What did you find disappointing?
@@Bhuyakasha we will never know apparently
Not all Jews who went to Palestine before 1900 did so solely out of religious reasons, as David claims (8:50). Some did so out of nationalist aspirations.
I think you misheard David. He was talking about immigration between 1840 and 1880 (i.e., before the Zionist movement). This immigration was for religious reasons.
YHWH BOG ISUS KRIST MIHAEL GAVRIEL WIN SOTONA AMEN
Mark’s question (at 7:16) repeats the tired old narrative that the Arab states were hostile, that Arab Jews were driven out of Arab states, and that Palestinians were not welcomed in Arab lands. None of this os fully true and I’m glad that David acknowledged this. One example: Israel did a number of missions to lift Arab Jews out of places in Yemen in stealth. The Mossad was also complicit in making things worse for Arab Jews. Of course, there were hostilities toward them in Arab countries, but that was owing to the creation of Israel (I’m explaining the hostility not justifying it). Mark knows about this because it was in the essay response to Benatar’s essay in Quillette, so I’m surprised he didn’t ask the question in a nuanced way. And Palestinians were welcome in Arab states and some even gave them citizenship. But Palestine is their land, so why should they be absorbed in other Arab countries. Perhaps we’re all the same!
You say "none of this is true". This is your bias coming through. What you should have said is that "this is only partially true". Jews who lived in the Middle East and North Africa did face various forms of discrimination and persecution. However, you are right that various factors contributed to them immigrating to Israel and it was more complicated than a simple narrative about them being driven out.
I fully agree with David about the horrors of war, though it’s clear that Israel’s massive bombardment is, to put it mildly, overboard. But this can have all been avoided had Israel been willing to allow Palestinians to have a functioning state. None of the accords do far have done this.
Do you have any reasons to be so sure?
Israel did this in 2005 and how did that turn out?
Hamas said they'll recognize the state of Israel if they get a state with 1967 borders
Bullshit.
Where did they say that?
thats a lie
@@confrontingcapital5080 Hamas Principles and Policies: May 2017 article 20:
" However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
@@confrontingcapital5080 Also Khaled Meshaal in 2007 interview:
" We are demanding a Palestinian state on the 1967 border including Jerusalem and the right of return. Israel has to say yes I agree and withdraw."