Lever Time - Premium

David Sirota: [00:00:00] Hey, everyone. Welcome to this week's episode of Lever Time. I'm your host, David Sirota. On today's show, we're going to be talking about everything that has been unfolding in Israel since Hamas's horrific attack against Israeli citizens this past Saturday and now the Israeli government's violent response to those attacks.

Today, I'm going to be speaking with foreign policy experts, Matt Duss and Danny Bessner. Both of whom have been advisors to Bernie Sanders about everything that has transpired and where we can go from here for our paid subscribers. We're also always dropping bonus episodes into our lever premium podcast feed.

This past Monday, we published our interview with Nikhil Goyal about his new book, Live to See the Day, Coming of Age in American Poverty. It chronicles the lives of three teenagers growing up in one of Philadelphia's poorest neighborhoods.

And coming up next week is my interview with Allison [00:01:00] Fisher from Media Matters about Rupert Murdoch's lasting impact on the issue of climate change. Specifically, the spreading of misinformation and climate denialism narratives through the use of his hundreds of local, national, and international media outlets around the globe.

If you want access to our premium content, head over to levernews. com and click the subscribe button in the top right to become a supporting subscriber. That gives you access to the Lever Premium podcast feed, exclusive live events, even more in depth reporting, and you'll be directly supporting the investigative journalism that we do here at The Lever.

So let's get into the Israel Palestine issue. I want to start with an admission. I don't personally enjoy talking about this issue, and I certainly don't like the culture of hot takes that surrounds this entire issue. I don't like it because it's painful for me. and my family as Jews. There, yes, I said it.

Yes, [00:02:00] me and my family are Jewish.

For those of you who followed my work over the last 25 years, you'll notice that I almost never write or talk publicly about my religion or Israel. That's Because my Judaism is my personal internal creed and not some part of a public brand or a persona. But in light of all the bloodshed in Israel and Palestine over the last few days, I'm gonna break that tradition.

If you sense that I have a lot of angst over all this, you're right. In a world where we're not really allowed to admit our vulnerabilities, I'm gonna be vulnerable here. By admitting that yes, this issue is deeply difficult and painful for me. So I'm asking you to actually try to hear what I'm saying.

You don't have to agree with all of it, but I'm asking you to really listen and accept this as something from a person genuinely struggling with how to process all of this.[00:03:00] So, my family has experienced its share of anti Semitism, including our ancestors who fled the horrors of Eastern Europe in the early 20th century.

That's a familiar heritage to American Jews. My family has experienced anti Semitism in the here and now. As a radio host and journalist, for example, I get periodic anti Semitic hate mail and threats. I'm not a victim, but that's... That's just a reality. When I was on radio here in Denver, as another example, every day of those five years on the air, I walked by a photo of one of the previous hosts named Allen Berg, who was literally gunned down by Nazis in this city.

In light of that, the images of Hamas terrorism deliberately targeted at innocent Jewish civilians evoked for me all of the horrible history of my ancestors being terrorized across generations, targeted because [00:04:00] of their identity, culture, heritage, and religion. So the very first thing I want to say here Is that Hamas's terrorism is completely unacceptable.

There should be no but or justifying qualification on that statement. It's unacceptable, period, full stop. Now, through much of my childhood and early adulthood, Israel was supposed to be a stronghold against that violence and for a better future. It was seen as a beacon of democracy, and specifically, left labor social democracy in a region of autocrats and dictators. I think sometimes people forget that Israel had labor governments for quite a long time.

Israel also stood out as the only haven on earth from the anti semitism that's raged across this planet for a thousand years. Now, unfortunately, since that childhood. Israel has [00:05:00] radically changed in ways that have broken my heart and the hearts of so many Jews there and across the world. The Israel of today is governed by a far right regime that has decided upon militarism and occupation rather than peace. and some kind of two state solution.

And that far right vision has all too often been normalized by an American media and political establishment. The long history of persecution against the Jewish people plus the hostile nature of the surrounding Middle East has been the longtime rationale for Israel being a heavily armed and fortified country that zealously defends its internal security and external borders with a powerful military.

But this Israeli regime has used that military power in inhumane and indefensible ways that dishonor the Jewish based [00:06:00] principles it purports to stand for. We're now watching the U. S. armed Israeli military go way beyond defending Israeli citizens and territory, and to now bombing two million people in Gaza, half of whom Our children, this country, Israel formed in direct response to the violence of the Holocaust is now basically committing war crimes, and that's totally unacceptable, and nobody should be silent as that happens, just as nobody should be silent as Hamas terrorists killed.

The murder of Palestinian civilians is just as unacceptable as the murder of Jewish civilians. and yet somehow that basic statement of universal values is now considered outrageous or taboo in a political discourse that has been deliberately [00:07:00] manipulated and polarized into yet another you're with us or against us binary.

I reject that binary. I reject it because it's fundamentally manipulative. Partisans on both sides want us all polarized rather than unified in defense of all human lives. and the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. At this really, really dark moment, I have a few requests of you.

I want you to listen to all of them. Don't stop listening just because one or another thing that I say might make you feel uncomfortable. And let me be clear. The following points are not in any order of importance.

Okay. First request. Acknowledge that anti Semitism is real. In parts of both the right and left and try to combat it where you can right wing antisemitism is [00:08:00] obvious. It's white supremacy and Nazism. You know it when you see it. Antisemitism where it exists on the left is different. It could be cloaked in the language of social justice, but try to understand that when left affiliated groups effectively celebrate this week's Hamas attacks, or imply that all Jews support the actions of the State of Israel.

Which is an old anti Semitic trope that is painful and destructive. I think these modern iterations of this form of anti Semitism come from the old anti Semitic idea that Jews are a powerful world controlling cabal and thus the hatred of and murder of Jews is more morally justifiable in a social justice frame, especially in the context of the Israeli government's immoral occupation.

But here's the [00:09:00] thing. There's nothing righteous. There's nothing... Social justice themed about hating Jews and supporting those who murder them. That's anti Semitism. Second request. Please acknowledge that the Israeli government is run by right wing extremists whose occupation is inhumane. The Netanyahu government's actions in Gaza right now might not be called terrorism by the media and other world leaders, but it is obviously inhumane and likely war crimes.

Those who mindlessly cheer on Netanyahu are sowing the kind of xenophobia and Islamophobia that should have no place in this world. And sorry, if you're Jewish and you're listening to this and ready to accuse me of somehow being disloyal or a self hating Jew by saying these obvious truths, that Jedi mind trick, it doesn't work on me.

Take that bullshit [00:10:00] somewhere else. Third request. If you're cheering on Hamas's murder of Jews or you're cheering on the Israeli government's murder of Palestinians. then please go right now to LeverNews. com and unsubscribe from the Lever. I don't want you as a subscriber. I want a readership and a listenership that values humanity and human life.

Fourth request. Before you tweet, Before you post on Facebook, before you do anything on social media or elsewhere impulsively in this debate, take a deep breath and take a moment to ask yourself whether you are insensitively using the massacre of innocent people just to channel your priors and just to play politics.

Because if that's what you're doing, that's not helpful. It's part of why we're in this crisis. We've dehumanized this conflict, and so many other [00:11:00] conflicts, into just another tribal political battle, where too many pretend the issues are so simple, when I'm sorry, they are not simple. That gets to my final request.

Stop pretending this is easy, simple, or binary. one side says this is only about terrorism and security. The other side says this is only about occupation and oppression. But the Israel Palestine conflict involves all of those things and more. Occupation, oppression, militarism, identity, culture, religion, political ideology, security, anti Semitism, Islamophobia, In a society that always wants things reduced to simplicity, this is incredibly complex.

If we're ever going to forge a real solution here, it is going to require us all to grow the fuck up, [00:12:00] appreciate that complexity, and then behave not just like adults, but like human beings. I know that's asking for a lot. Neither Hamas nor many Israeli government leaders are acting with any humanity at all. But we all have to start thinking like human beings and take time to really try to understand what's actually going on and feel the pain, horror, and anguish. On both sides of this disaster.

now that's not the old both sides trope we've all gotten used to in American politics. It's not an attempt. at false equivalency.

There are very real villains in this conflict, and there is no justification for the atrocities that we've seen. What we need to internalize is that there are victims on all sides of this crisis. The people being killed and injured are all human beings. They are referred to in the media as [00:13:00] Israelis and Palestinians, but they are all people like you and me.

In this dark hour, We need to recommit ourselves to tuning out all the propaganda trying to further dehumanize this conflict. We need to really try to unpack the roots of what's going on.

So let's review the latest. This past Saturday, the Palestinian militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel as the nation was concluding the week long Jewish festival of Sukkot.

The attack involved thousands of missiles fired from Gaza, widespread destruction, and the deaths of hundreds of civilians. Simultaneously armed Hamas fighters breached fences and infiltrated Israeli towns, taking citizens hostage and unleashing chaos. The unprecedented attack prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to declare that Israel is now at war.

On Monday, Israel's defense minister ordered a [00:14:00] complete siege of the Gaza Strip, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, and electricity. The Israeli military launched a bombing campaign across Gaza, causing extensive damage and overwhelming Gaza's hospitals. The Israeli government has instructed two million Gazan civilians to flee the city, Though international human rights advocates have suggested that that warning is insufficient considering that Gaza has been under an Israeli blockade since 2007. I want At the time of this recording. Hamas assault has killed over 1, 200 Israelis, as well as non Israelis in the region, including 22 Americans, and has left at least 2, 700 Israelis wounded. And Israel's retaliation has, in turn, killed at least 1, 100 Palestinians, over 300 of whom are children, and at least 5, 300 Palestinians have been injured.

Additionally, the United Nations has tracked deaths and injuries related to this conflict since 2008 until mid-September with close to 160,000 on the Palestinian side, and about [00:15:00] 6,600 on the Israeli side.

To be clear, My personal position is that Hamas's targeting of Israeli civilians should be considered horrific war crimes that are unjustifiable in any context. At the same time, Israel's decades long occupation of Palestinian territories and the violence it has committed against Palestinians has created the conditions for violent blowback.

That's not to justify the blowback, it's only to explain the context. To try to unpack what's going on and where we go from here. I'm joined by Matt Duss, the Executive Vice President at the Center for International Policy, and Danny Bessner, a professor of international studies at the University of Washington and the co host of the foreign affairs podcast, American Prestige.

Both Matt and Danny have served as foreign policy advisors to U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who's been one of Congress's few voices of sanity. On Middle East policy.

David Sirota: Hey Matt. How you doing?

Matt Duss: Doing all right. How are you,

David Sirota: I'm okay. Danny, how you doing?[00:16:00]

Daniel Bessner: I'm doing good, David. Thanks for having me on.

David Sirota: Thank you both for, for being here. Um, a lot of reactions that we've seen to the events unfolding in Israel and Gaza are often kind of off the hip hot takes from people who don't.

necessarily seem to understand the historical context of these events. So I want to start by by asking just, you know, an open ended question. But what your response to Hamas's attack this past Saturday has been what? Thoughts you think may be missing from the conversation, uh, when it comes to either the Hamas attack or the, the, um, Israeli incursion into into Gaza.

We'll start with you, Matt. I mean, what's your reaction? What do you think has been missing from the conversation?

Matt Duss: Sure. I mean, well, my own reaction and in the statement, the Center for International Policy put out is revulsion, condemnation. I think anyone who values human life, human decency has to [00:17:00] be horrified, um, by what we've seen there, what we're still finding out, um, by these attacks. Um, that's the first thing, and that is, I think, important.

you know, I think Um, saying that is the way into the, the deeper discussion that I do think we have to have about the context here, about the history, the history of this conflict, about the situation on the ground today, which is one of occupation and blockade. Um, that is all very important. But I, again, I think the first reaction is, is just clearly revulsion and, and just, and, and shock.

Daniel Bessner: Yeah, I just have to echo precisely what Matt said. It was absolutely terrible. It was revolting and very tragically, I learned very soon after that I had a personal connection. One of my former students, a man named Chaim Katzmann, who was a peace activist, was murdered in the first wave of attacks. So it hit home very, very early on.

And I learned the next day that a childhood friend was also, um, Murdered in the, in the, in the first attack. So it was [00:18:00] a revolting and, and terrible, um, thing to witness. And, and, you know, in the United States, one of the privileges of living in the empires, you don't often have that personal connection to something like this.

And just having that personal connection really struck home how. terrible it was. Um, but beyond that, you know, taking off my personal hat and putting on my more analytical or historian had, I just have to echo precisely what Matt says toe to understand the horrors. You need to understand the longer term history going back a century.

Um To, to appreciate why something terrible like this happened and, and we can't allow our particular moral revulsion at, at the instance to blind us from the larger context that Matt referenced.

David Sirota: Before we get into that history, let's just bring everyone up to speed, at least as of the time we're recording this of what's transpired since the attack as of Monday is the Israeli defense minister has ordered what's what's he's called a complete siege of Gaza, cutting off [00:19:00] food and electricity and now bombing parts of the city.

Israel calling this it's 9 11. I think it's been kind of horrifying to see, um, the response to 9 11 somehow now remembered as a, as a good response, a productive response, a constructive response. I guess we're either of you surprised by Israel's response to this. And in asking that question, I want to ask, I presume that the Israeli government I'm didn't think twice about this being the response, should there have been a different response?

Daniel Bessner: uh, it was a predictable response to a certain degree, um, given the far right nature of the Israeli government and also the securitized nature of Israeli society and, and frankly, the militarized nature. It's a nation that prides itself on, um, its military. It's a nation that prides itself on having secure, uh, So, um, this is a real humiliation militarily, um, to Israel [00:20:00] and that's coupled with Netanyahu's domestic weakness in light of recent protest events and also the fact that as far as I'm aware, his geo strategy was to focus primarily on the West Bank, which turned out to be obviously, um, from the Israeli perspective, uh, makes this response predictable.

Um, moreover, the fact that, um, from everything that I've read, most politicians in the North Atlantic world and in Europe and the United States have made clear that at this moment, at least, and things might change, um, Netanyahu and the government and the new unity government, one might say, uh, might add, um, does have, Basically, free reign to respond how it wants.

Um, and so I think this has been a tragedy decades in the making on all sides. And, um, it was a fairly predictable response.

Matt Duss: yeah, I'll just say a couple things here. I mean, I do think, I think the response, Um, I think certainly the fact that it is an extremely right wing government. you know, [00:21:00] we could potentially, I mean this is a government that has been supporting, you know, essentially militia violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

in some ways I think you would see a very similar response from any government in Israel in response to an attack like this. But interestingly, I think Danny referenced this as well, precisely because it was such a right wing pro settlement government, you had Forces that had been sent from, you know, who might have been protecting the Gaza fence line to protect settlers in the West Bank.

Others in the Israeli security system have suggested this, and that is part of what led to this being such a tragically successful... attack on on the part of Hamas because you had so many forces that had been redeployed, um, to the West Bank precisely to carry out the wishes of the settler extremists who now make up, uh, this government.

Um, and with regard to the U. S. response and the kind of allied response, you know, Joe Biden is someone whose whose view of the U. S. 's relationship is, is, is characterized as no daylight. Um, I [00:22:00] think we can have a discussion about that. My own view is that that approach is part of what got us here. Um, once again, noting that the response, responsibility for this attack lies with Hamas, but as part of the deeper context, um, U.

S. support for Israel's security, no matter how Israel goes about delivering that security, um, has, has been part of the problem. I will note, however, in, in the President's remarks yesterday, he did make public reference to the laws of war. And I do think, you know, one can ask, okay, how much pressure are they putting on the Israelis really?

And, you know, we'll find out. Maybe not much. But I do think the fact that he said that as part of his remarks is notable.

David Sirota: I want to talk about, there's been some discussion, some... I guess somewhat speculation that Egyptian intelligence, uh, reportedly tried to warn the Israeli government about a potential attack by Hamas. There's a question of whether, uh, the Israeli, Prime Minister's office and intelligence services, [00:23:00] uh, received that intelligence, uh, ignored it, uh, maybe it got lost, uh, sort of lost in the, in the bureaucracy, but there's also been speculation that maybe, uh, this is the kind of thing that Benjamin Netanyahu, Wasn't necessarily concerned about that.

It might play into his strategy. I mean, I don't, I don't know what to make of that, but I, well, actually, I'll just stop there. I mean, what do you make of that, Matt?

Matt Duss: mean, I'll say two things here. One is, I think, I cannot possibly imagine, um, and I know you weren't suggesting this, but I'll say there's no way that, you know, Netanyahu knew this was in the works and did nothing.

Daniel Bessner: Yeah, I agree. I agree. Yeah, that's conspiracy

theorizing. Yeah.

David Sirota: I mean, but let me, let me stop you there and just, just ask, is it, is it kind of like Bush got the memo before 9 11, like bin Laden determined to strike? Is that what this is?

Matt Duss: Having, yes. I mean that's possibly a good comparison given that that was fairly vague. I have not seen the memo, I don't know what the, the nature of the intelligence was. Others I've seen have suggested that, you know, because so many elements of the military have indicated support for some of the protests that [00:24:00] have been ongoing over the past months against the, you know, the so-called judicial reform effort.

Parts of this government have kind of talked themselves into this woke military bullshit. That you hear, um, even, you know, from our own government and other right wing populists around the world. The idea, oh, you know, the military Is infected by these woke leftists. And that may have been part of what made them skeptical.

I don't know. I'm seeing colleagues in Israel have suggested that. But I also want to note here... You know, Netanyahu himself, and there are, you know, quotes to this effect that came up as part of transcripts released as part of his corruption trial, where he states plainly, and this is well known, but to hear him state it so plainly that supporting Hamas in Gaza is his strategy of keeping the Palestinians divided.

you know, supporting Hamas and making, um, the Abbas led PLO and Fatah in the West Bank, uh, look weak and feckless is part of the strategy. And again, this is?

not a strategy that began with Benjamin Netanyahu. This has been an Israeli strategy going back to the 1970s, uh, when the [00:25:00] Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was created in Gaza.

The military led it. Thrive, um, with the hopes of creating an alternative to the secular nationalist Fatah. Um, And eventually that, you know, Hamas grew out of, um, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.

Daniel Bessner: And just a very quickly add to that. I think it just highlights the perversities of occupation on the perversities of colonialism that that it leads to a strategy when Netanyahu, a very far right person, is supporting Hamas or states that it's a strategy, and that allows it to a larger discussion of the structures that enable something like this to happen.

The decades long structures like that was referring to Yeah. Basically, once labor loss in Likud became the de facto government of Israel, beginning with Begin in the late 1970s. This is, this is something that's been going on for decades at this point.

David Sirota: Yeah, I mean the quote, the quote from Netanyahu, again, a quote, this is his quote, 2019. Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy [00:26:00] to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.

I mean, that is a direct quote. So that's a good segue to Benjamin whole vision. Um, Haaretz journalist Giddy Weitz wrote, Here's the quote. Netanyahu's entire worldview collapsed over the course of a single day. He was convinced that he could make deals with corrupt Arab tyrants while ignoring the cornerstone of the Arab Jewish conflict, the Palestinians.

His life's work was to return the ship of state from the course steered by his predecessors, from Rabin to Olmert, to make the two state solution easier. Impossible. I want to be clear. I don't actually think that the Arab states have shown much regard for the Palestinians at all. None of them have really welcomed them into their own countries, and if they value them at all, it is seemed to be as merely a thorn in the Israeli government's side.

But, but setting that aside, let's talk about Netanyahu's whole theory. Uh, we'll start with, [00:27:00] with Danny. Is there really a way for Israel to create a lasting peace with its neighbors without the country simultaneously or even first making peace with the Palestinians and ending the occupation?

Daniel Bessner: I think it's very difficult, and I think this is what that event makes makes very clear. Um, Net whao effectively wanted Israel to be considered a normal nation within the larger regional geopolitics of the Middle East, effectively aligned with the United States and its allies, and you saw this with recent discussions about normalization.

There's already is defacto normalization between Israel and in Saudi Arabia, but making it official on And that was the strategy, and I think. When you talk to Israelis, particularly when you compare it to the 1990s or the 2000s, the era in which I became politicized, when there was a lot of discussion about Israel Palestine and the potential for a two state solution, in my own anecdotal experience as a member of the Jewish community, as someone who pays attention to these issues, that discussion has really gone away over the last 10, 15 [00:28:00] years.

There was this notion from Netanyahu and I would say other governments and amongst the general Israeli population that one would be able to to basically shunt the Palestinian issue to the side that one would be able to continue settlement in the West Bank or to have the kibbutzim that, that, um, everywhere throughout the country without solving the Palestinian issue.

And I just think that that this is a painful reminder that that's not really possible.

David Sirota: And Matt, what do you, what do you say to that strategy? I mean, and I would, I would, I want to add one other question here to that. What do you say about that strategy? And then maybe you can both weigh in on this, but where is the Israeli left, right? Where is the other side of the debate in Israel, in its government?

Daniel Bessner: The Israeli left is in the United States. I mean, there's been a lot of out migration. Sorry about please.

Matt Duss: so a couple things, one is, I mean, you know, just briefly on Netanyahu, I mean, preventing a Palestinian state, um, has essentially been one of the guiding missions of Netanyahu's entire political career. I mean, you go back to early books he's written, the way [00:29:00] he's talked about it, you know, he's part of a strain of, of Israeli politics that just simply does not recognize the Palestinians as having any legitimate claim on the land.

Um, you know, and he's made some very pragmatic slash cynical head fakes in the direction of Palestinian sovereignty. You know, the famous, I think it was 2008, Bar Ilan speech that he gave where he kind of nominally gave support to a two state solution, but then if you look what he was actually doing it on the ground, he was doing precisely the opposite as he always done, which is taking steps to physically foreclose.

The possibility of an economically viable Palestinian state. Um, so, you know, and again, his theory was always like, we will, you know, we will, we will be strong, we will make peace with the neighbors, and they will just deal with the reality. We will create the facts on the ground, and others will just have to come around to it.

You know, and this is the logic of the Abraham Accords, which is not just are we going to repress and control and imprison the Palestinians, we will make deals with regimes that are suppressing and controlling and imprisoning their own population.[00:30:00] And that is the logic of the Abraham Accords.

That is Netanyahu's theory. And unfortunately, it has also been the theory of the Biden administration, which, you know, when they came into office, their position was kind of, well, we're going to see if we can build on these accords. And then after a few months, really pivoted to just a full embrace. of the Accords as a basis for the kind of regional order, a continually U.

S. dominated regional order because, you know, their priority has been strategic competition with China. And they decided that building on these Accords, and especially this U. S. Saudi Defense Pact, which is what this really is, I want to stress that. You know, the Saudi Israeli piece of this is kind of a nice candy coating to help the U.

S. Saudi Defense Pact go down easy. And the goal here is to box, or try to box China. out of the region. And again, I think I have to note that that strategy tragically, uh, just, just, just blew up, uh, over the weekend.

David Sirota: I mean, it's basically Netanyahu's vision, uh, his theory [00:31:00] is that Israel can be a Jewish More democratic, although it's, you know, it's democratic institutions are under assault, but a Jewish, more democratic version of one of the, uh, Arab autocracies

Matt Duss: Yeah, I mean, I think that's the irony. I mean, a lot of us have, I mean, I, I support Israel being accepted in the region. It is a part of the region. I, you know, I think many of us had hoped that it would be accepted as a democracy and not just yet another repressive regime, which is, you know, what Netanyahu has in.

mind.

Daniel Bessner: I mean, I would just describe it as a post Holocaust ethno nationalism that emerges from the tragedy of European anti Semitism, and it's very informed by, of course, Netanyahu and his father, who was a scholar of the Spanish Inquisition, this idea that the Jews need an ethno national state, and that's the foundational You know, the ontological position through which Netanyahu and many others of his generation, and after, move through the world.

And you need to understand that in order to understand his policy. It's, it's his policy of fear, it's his policy that emerges from trauma and tragedy, that of course results in its [00:32:00] own traumas and tragedies and the ironies of history.

David Sirota: I mean, I have been hearing about that growing up outside of Philadelphia, uh, as a Jewish person for, for decades. I mean, Benjamin Netanyahu grew up in my town. people I, I, my, it was my parents generation, but my parents friends knew and went to school with him. And the only point in saying that is that, is that I think if you can't appreciate, and I'm not saying to, to necessarily venerate it, but if you can't appreciate that underlying, um, sense of trauma, uh, and, and, and that the ideology that it, that it, Brought into much of the Jewish community.

It's hard to understand Benjamin Netanyahu, and I want to be clear. I think Benjamin Netanyahu has been an entirely destructive force in the region I basically don't agree with him on anything. But the point is you have to understand That to understand what's going on. So I want to turn to to the question of Hamas Talked a second [00:33:00] Let's talk about Hamas's connections to Iran. Is Hamas basically a proxy for the Iranian regime? And if they are, should the actions of Hamas be seen as an act of war against Israel by Iran?

Matt Duss: I would just is necessarily venerated. Part of Palestinian politics. It's not a movement I like or support. I find their views reprehensible. Obviously, I find their actions reprehensible. This is, you know, a Right, wing, very politically conservative, religious, fundamentalist, militant group. they have a relationship with Iran 90s. Um, that has ebbed and flowed. I mean, there was a break, um, when, when, when the Hamas leadership, which had been based in Syria, broke with Assad over Assad's, uh, brutal suppression of the revolution in Syria. Um, and that, you know, again, that, that kind of chilled relations between Iran and, and Hamas. Um, at that time, Iran kind of started to [00:34:00] build relations with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is another, um, extremist organization in Gaza.

Um, So, I mean, again, these words, proxies, you know, you know, Hamas has independence. Do they

take guidance? Do they agency, Exactly. They take, they are, they, do they get resources? Do they take, do they engage with and talk to Iran? I think certainly, um, but they are not simply a pawn of Iran, despite, I think, the efforts of some to present it that way in order to gin up a war with Iran that they've wanted for years.

David Sirota: Okay, so Danny, I want to, I want to pivot to a question that's, that's about this, which is knowing what Matt just said. Do you believe an entity like Hamas, with popular support, among the Palestinian people. do you believe an entity like Hamas can ever be a legitimate negotiating partner in any kind of a peace deal, not just a ceasefire, but a long lasting peace deal or a so called two state solution?

Daniel Bessner: [00:35:00] So I think there's a philosophical element and a practical element. Philosophically, of course, Sinn Fein. I mean, you know, there are other moments when radical groups are able to deal with the politics, with mainstream, or to become mainstreamified. Like, philosophically, that is something that is theoretically possible.

I think given the current material realities of the Israel Gaza relationship and the history of the past three decades, four decades, I think it's almost impossible that, that, that that is likely. I mean, everything that has happened in Gaza has pointed away from normalization. The Israeli government has really shown no real interest, or at least the far right elements of Israeli politics when they have ruled had shown no real interest in reaching an agreement.

So I would say that. In terms of empirical reality. No, Hamas cannot serve that function. But philosophically, you have to say yes. Otherwise, you just give up on on normal, normal politics. If it happened in Ireland, which had a similar history of colonial oppression and took decades and also was [00:36:00] defined by civilian casualties committed by both sides.

You have to hope that there's a there's a path for radical groups to become normal in this situation. I do not think it is likely or really possible in 2023.

David Sirota: Okay. So Matt, Matt, if you, if you agree with that, and I'm, I don't know if you do, but if you agree with that, who could or should. If there was a movement in Israel to create some kind of, uh, longer lasting two state solution, quote unquote, uh, to this situation, who should Israel be talking to?

Matt Duss: So I think there's a great question. I mean, and I would add to just very quickly to Danny's point, I mean, first, I think in the wake of this, what we've seen this weekend, I, I think any kind of agreement with Hamas is, is off the table for a,

for

a long time. This is, I think, this is a generational event, what we've seen.

Um, now it's, you know, just as a matter of history, we don't have to look very far for terrorist leaders joining government. Israel has had two prime ministers itself. It's Akshomir and Menachem Begin, who were leaders of terrorist groups. [00:37:00] Who eventually, you know, made their way into politics. It took some time.

Um, but these are terrorist groups that carried out multiple atrocities. Um, or in the conflicts that led to, you know, the creation of Israel. But yeah, given what we saw this week, and I think that will not be the case with Hamas for a while now. To your question, yeah, that's, that's part of the problem.

And again, this goes to Netanyahu's strategy of keeping the Palestinians divided, is that there is no one person, there is no one movement that can actually speak for and make commitments on behalf of the Palestinian people or the Palestinian movement. Keeping it fractured has been, you know, a strategy of the Israeli government and a tragically successful one.

Daniel Bessner: And can I just add very quickly to that? I think this is where our language actually fails us, because when we talk about this conflict we act as if it's a state to state interaction on some level, but it's really not. There, there's one state and there's a divided people. So it's very difficult to, to use the language of diplomacy or the language of international engagement.

to describe this conflict, even though we don't [00:38:00] really have a better language, because the language actually occludes the reality that Matt was just referring

Matt Duss: And also just want to.

add here, this is not to, to, to let, you know, the PA, the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas off the hook. These are a bunch of corrupt, old, tired, you know, cronies. I mean, I think Mahmoud Abbas like takes naps, wakes up to smoke and say something offensive about the Holocaust. Um, who knows what, you know, and he has prevented any successors.

from really coming up. He's constantly guarded his own power and his privileges. Um, you do have this kind of coterie of, of, of guys, you know, running the, you know, parts of the West Bank. Let's note that Israel controls the entirety. But in these little enclaves, the Palestinian Authority is allowed to exercise, uh, some control and they, and they suppress protests.

They suppress free speech and activism and civil society in these territories just as other authoritarian regimes do. But again, I think Danny is right. Let's not pretend we're talking about a state to state interaction. We are talking about an occupation.

David Sirota: So, many [00:39:00] who sympathize with the Palestinian plight have, have, have... Insinuated, or there is an insinuation underneath that Hamas's actions were justified in the context of the occupation. Now, I find that insinuation, disgusting and grotesque. I believe Hamas's violence was, was... Perhaps inevitable blowback from Israel running an inhumane open air prison in Gaza, but I don't believe it is justified.

There's a difference between inevitability and justified. I don't believe any kind of terrorism is morally acceptable, but I want to ask... Both of you your opinion on that. We'll start with Matt. Matt, what do you say to those who suggest explicitly say or insinuate that Hamas has a right to do what it did as a response to Israel's occupation?

Matt Duss: I would say that I would ask you not to call yourself a progressive. Um, because you're [00:40:00] something else. I mean, progressives, I think, believe in human dignity and solidarity. And if you can't be in solidarity with Israelis as well as Palestinians, and again, not making an equivalence here of what these people endure day to day, but if you can't show solidarity and care and basic human feeling for what we saw, Um, being done to Israeli families, to kids, to babies.

Um, and you're defending that as righteous in any way. I, I just find that absolutely disgusting and I completely reject it.

Daniel Bessner: Yeah, very similar. It's explicable, but not justifiable morally, and it's not justifiable according to international law or any humanistic perspective that someone on the left should, should have. Um, I, I think there was this sort of, Giddiness or excitement amongst some members of the progressive community because they saw an oppressed population do something that they, you know, sticking it in the eye of their oppressor.

But, [00:41:00] but I do have to say, I think very, very quickly, even after those initial responses, once, once everything came out, the, the progressive left really condemned the horrors because you just can't kill civilians. It's not justifiable in any way, shape, or form. Um, From any left wing perspective, um, there, there are questions, you know, you'd look at someone like Frantz Fanon about how to resist colonization and how to resist settlements, um, so it's not an easy thing, but I think the condemnation by almost all quarters of the left makes clear that it's not justifiable and really no one thinks it is.

Matt Duss: And I would just add to that point about, you know, international law. There are laws relating to the protection of civilians. That applies to Hamas, it applies to Israel. Um, Hamas egregiously violated. Um, those rules, those laws, as we saw, I, I think Israel, um, is, is violating them as well and has done So uh, multiple times in, in, in, in, in the past.

Um, and I think as progressives, we want a world [00:42:00] of rules and not a world of might makes right. And I think that's a key principle. Um, if I could just follow up really briefly, I mean, you asked about, you know, again, not to justify it, but, you know, understanding the environment from which this violence arose.

I mean, that was just, you know, I noted earlier today a letter that Senator Sanders sent in 2018 with 12 other senators. It was, I think, May 2018, a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, um, urging greater aid to Gaza, citing Israeli security officials who were saying if this crisis continues, we could see a mass war.

We could see an all out war between Gaza factions and Israel. This was 2018. These were, we were citing Israeli security officials and also citing, obviously, other humanitarian organizations about the deepening humanitarian crisis and the pressure, um, that Palestinians in Gaza were enduring. People have been warning about this.

David Sirota: let's turn to the American response. The Biden administration response, as you alluded to, has been basically unequivocal support for [00:43:00] Israel, although, uh, I guess in the last 24, 36 hours, a, a, also a request, for Israel to honor international law when it comes to, you know, uh, War crimes and the like. Um, but overall, um, the U.

S. Government continues its support and military support of Israel. What is a rational response to the crisis from the U. S. Government? Uh, and is the Biden administration's response? That rational response. We're separating out morality for a second. What is the U. S. interest here?

What should U. S. policymakers be prioritizing in the American interest? And is that what Biden is doing?

Daniel Bessner: Well, I think the perceived U. S. interest is that the United States needs to remain regionally hegemonic in the Middle East for a variety of reasons. Um, the famous one being oil and particularly oil resources that go to Europe, but also geostrategically. This is a region of [00:44:00] incredible geostrategic importance in the context of the grand strategy of primacy.

It's a region that's situated in the middle of things. It provides a lot of, um, pathways to various countries. And I think that's... basically what's going on. The United States, the de facto position is that the United States should be the world leader or world empire or world hegemon or the primus nation.

And given that it makes sense for the United States to be involved heavily in the region. Um, as, as Matt knows, and David, you might know, I disagree with that, that ontological position. I think it is materially not realistic. It When the United States made the choice to become the prime power in the world during World War II, it was very, very powerful.

Um, you know, it was responsible for half of the world's exports, and that's a situation where you could genuinely dominate the world. I don't think that's the world we live in any longer, so I think materially it's kind of a fantasy at this point. Um, but also ideologically, I don't think it's good for the United States or its society to...

To run a global [00:45:00] empire, it contributes to militarization domestically. We see that very much in the police. We see that in the rise of hyper partisanship. We see that in the distrust that Americans have for one another. So I think it's also internally corrosive. So I don't think there's any real U. S.

interest in remaining regionally hegemonic. And from there you have to reassess the United States's relationship with Israel, which has not always been as close or as friendly as it was historically in the past. In particular, Harry Truman and Richard Nixon have been more skeptical of the U. S. Israel relationship.

But for the past 30 or so years, it's basically been a blank check in the idea of no daylight between the nations. And I think that that's from an American perspective. I think it's time to reassess that strategic Um, relationship.

Matt Duss: Um, I mean, just starting at that last point, I mean, I think, you know, what, what I would like and what I think a lot of progressives like what Senator Sanders has talked about is, you know, there are, we need to kind of apply similar principles to our relationship with Israel that we apply, that we [00:46:00] want to see applied across the board.

Americans, we, we know based on recent polling, and this has been developing for a long time, Democrats in particular, I think a majority of Democrats now support, you know, an even handed position with Israel and Palestine, recognizing that Israelis, recognizing that Israelis have rights, Palestinians have rights.

Um, the goal of the U. S. should be help to broker and create a situation where these people can share this land, um, with, with security for all. I mean, I think there are elements of, uh, in American politics and in the Democratic Party, um, that see this as a threat. Um, they, they cannot countenance any kind of sympathy for the Palestinians and they see that as de facto anti Israel.

I reject that characterization. So I think that if we're just looking at Israel, I think, yes, I think we have to ask some pretty hard questions about, you know, what is our strategy for the region? Uh, what, what kind of role do we want the United States to play in the world? Um, and if it is going to continue to be like kind of global hegemony and primacy, you know, let's look [00:47:00] at the record of the past 20, 30, 40 years about the cost and benefits.

I do not think that that, that, that, that, you know, that sheet works out very well.

David Sirota: Someone I know said to me in the last few days that even if Israel conceded everything to the Palestinians, ended the occupation, conceded major demands, now granted we've just mentioned that it's not really a state to state conversation, but even if they conceded everything, ended the occupation, the Arab world, the Muslim world, would still aim for the destruction of the state of Israel and the genocide or extermination of the Jews.

This fear is rooted in the thousand year history of Jews being targeted. for extermination.

Daniel Bessner: Ironically, not in the Muslim world, , the Jews, uh, had their best experiences in, in, in the Muslim world and, and under the Ottoman Empire and other, uh, under various Cates. I mean, I think it's, it's a, that's a post Holocaust perspective. Um, there was more truth to it in the [00:48:00] forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, and even into the eighties.

But I don't think the last 30 years of, of geopolitics suggests that, that, that this is the case any longer. Um, I think it's an understandable, again, response to the. Ironically, the history of European anti Semitism primarily, not the history of anti Semitism in the Arab world. Um, but I think that we need to get past that, that mindset and look at the actual geopolitical realities, which Israel is a nuclear armed state.

It's incredibly powerful, and I don't think the Jews are under existential threat. Um, I think the Jews were under existential threats at numerous points in their history. I, I, I think it's foolish. To not acknowledge that and and I sometimes I see today something that really annoys me is like when people refer to Jews in 1930s as white, you know, or to refer to the Holocaust as white on white violence.

It's just not accurate. It's not historically accurate. Um, but things are different today. Um, and I think it's very difficult to move past the traumas, particularly because the Holocaust is still in living memory or it's becoming less and less true. But we have to look at the [00:49:00] reality on the ground today and we can't let the trauma.

I mean, now I'm just saying this as a Jew. We can't let the trauma define what it is to be a Jew. In my opinion, the greatest thing the Jews gave to the world was cosmopolitan humanism, and it's not necessarily other forms of identity. And we think we need to move past. The tragedy that lack what? What?

What? A great historian once called, I think, Salah Baran, the lack for most conception of U. S. History of Jewish history. Sorry, where it goes from tragedy to tragedy to tragedy. I don't think that's a historical reality, and I don't think it reflects the position of Jews in the world in

David Sirota: yeah,

well, Matt, Matt, I, and I want to build on that because it, because what Danny said raises an interesting question. Uh, there's this question of, is the Israeli government's fear for the country's long term existence, uh, legitimate in the context of anti Semitism? And Danny kind of raises the idea that perhaps, I mean, it's hard to dis separate out these things, but the question becomes, does the, Anti Semitism that you see from some [00:50:00] Arab leaders, Arab factions, Muslim countries and the like, is it rooted in, anti religious anti Semitism, or is it rooted in, An opposition to the actions of the state of Israel, right?

I mean, I don't know how you exactly set those Pull those things apart. But but what's your what's your

thoughts on

Matt Duss: I mean, it's an interesting question. It's an interesting debate. I think in, in the briefest terms, it's like there was, as, as Danny said, I mean, there was really no kind of historical equivalent to European antisemitism in the Middle East. Um, for a number of reasons, but I think we've seen in propaganda over the years, over the past decades.

You know it has cropped up. you can find it. They're horrible, you know, using horrible stereotypes of Jews and cartoons and all this stuff. So it is there. Now, again, Israel is a regional military superpower. I mean, it is, it has enormous freedom of action. We've seen it has the ability to reach inside Iran [00:51:00] and take out nuclear scientists.

It is not under existential threat from any regional army. Um, but again, the horrible attacks we saw over the weekend. Do trigger, and I think are of course intended to trigger, some of the very worst memories and traumas. And I would, even more recently than the Holocaust, I think it's very important to remember the Second Intifada.

Understanding how we got to this situation. is, you know, you know, toward the end of the, of the 1990s and the early 2000s. you know, there was a period, the Oslo period, when people thought that a two state solution was within reach. Um, you saw a number of extremist spoilers on both sides, uh, Netanyahu being one, Hamas being another, um, taking steps, um, Hamas carrying out you know, terror attacks, bombs, cafes.

Um, and it... It so, you know, you know, just shocked the Israeli public that it became a situation where they're like, just do whatever you need to, to keep us safe. Just do whatever you need to do, lock the Palestinians up [00:52:00] so I can put my child on a school bus and not be terrified all day. And I think that is a very human reaction.

and understanding that, um, is, is really important to understanding how we got here.

David Sirota: I've seen some folks on social media, by the way, on both sides, who kind of insist that the Israel Palestine conflict isn't complex, it's simple.

Some folks sort of say it's a straight up example of oppression from an American armed ally, Israel. Others say it's a straight up example of the region's only democracy defending itself from terrorism. I know this is a kind of an open ended question, but we'll start with Matt. What do you say to folks on both sides of these issues?

Who insist, it's so simple. I mean, is this so simple? Like, do those frames even work in the context of something like this?

Matt Duss: Well, and again, I'll say, I'll punt and say in some ways it isn't. In some ways it isn't. I mean, you know, but I, what I, how I would say it is like, listen, I, I seek to have two people's Jews and Palestinians who [00:53:00] have legitimate historical claims in this land.

Um, and they are not going anywhere. I mean, whatever you wanna argue about in history, about who did what to whom and what came first, the bottom line. is you have two peoples that are going to have to share this land. The question of in, in, in what situation, will it be a system of equality, or will it be a system of one people dominating another?

As a progressive, I think it should be a situation of equality. Now some, it's possible to create a system of equality in the context of two states. I think that has become increasingly difficult, perhaps impossible. Others have suggested a situation of, of confederation. Um, where, you know, essentially you have, you know, overlapping, you know, people can live wherever they want, but Palestinians, you know, vote for the, you know, control their communities, and, and, and, and Jewish Israelis control.

There's others, there are a lot of projects to develop a solution, but I think the, the goal needs to be ultimately these peoples need to share this land. And I think there are examples of them doing it. Um, unfortunately we [00:54:00] have a situation right now that empowers the worst elements in both societies and amongst both peoples.

ultimately I, I, I do think, you know, you have a mass of people, Jews and Palestinians. who just want to carry on with their lives. Um, they just want to be able to have a future for their kids, to live in safe communities. Um, and I think that's possible. I refuse to believe it isn't.

Daniel Bessner: I would say again, kind of like Matt, the actual history is incredibly complex. When you look into the actual agreements and the political coalitions and the various regional and international and local factors that go into shaping the historical reality of the Israel Palestine relationship, it's incredibly complex.

I think when people say that it's simple, they're referring to Uh, in effect structuring conditions, which is that there is a very powerful states, um, the state that some people would define as settler colonial and ethno national, dominating a group of people that is kept in confined territories on one [00:55:00] hand and is kept in a subordinate position within the domestic context in the other hand.

As many scholars have shown. Um, so I think it's both. There is a moral clarity that could be had, which is that civilians shouldn't be killed on either side. And there's the complex issue, which is this history of incredible negotiations and going back and forth, um, etc. So I'd say yes and, it's both.

David Sirota: Let me let me ask this question. I want to go back to this question. I sort of flicked out a little bit about about an Israeli left. I asked the question, what happened to the Israeli left? Where is it? Why does it seem to not exist anymore? And I'm talking about when I grew up, there was the kind of the labor governments of Israel.

Um,

These were not perfect, but, but let me ask the, let me ask, I want to know where it is, and then I want to know, can there be a piece in the region without a real left of center pole [00:56:00] in Israeli politics? Like if, if, if Israeli politics is just going to be like Netanyahu politics or whoever succeeds him, does that?

Fundamentally, beyond everything else, preclude a real peace, Danny.

Daniel Bessner: So I've thought about this a lot because I grew up in a very liberal Zionist household, conservative movement all the way down. I think that there might be ineluctable tensions between liberalism and ethno nationalism that go to basically the heart of the matter of the state of Israel or really any state that it, that, Defines itself according to an ethnos through rules like the right of return.

Like I could go and become an Israeli citizen, but someone whose family was dispersed in the Nakba can't. Um, so I think that's really what it goes to. Is that this fundamental tension between liberal ideals of civil liberties and democracy and legal proceduralism. on one hand, which is what, like, a Ben Gurion might have wanted, or early labor government might have wanted, and the structuring condition [00:57:00] of an ethno national state that is defined by literal blood ties or religious ties.

Um, so I think what we've seen over the last 30 years is the failure of the liberal Zionist project to transcend that internal tension and dialectic from a very large perspective. Now, having said that, Labor Zionists really began to lose the 73 war and you lead to Bagan.

I believe he gets elected in 77. but, um, this might be a turning point for Likud because this is such a failure in a political party that has. Based its legitimacy on securitization and development that we might, this might provide apertures that weren't available beforehand in a hopeful direction on the Israeli side.

Now, if I, if someone, you know, made me bet, I would say that's probably not what's going to happen, but stranger things have occurred in history. So this might be a moment for slight hope to put a nice spin on it, but probably not.

David Sirota: And Matt, what do you say to that same question, where is the left, and can there be a peace? Between the Israelis and Palestinians if, if [00:58:00] essentially there is nothing other than La COism

Netanyahu is

Matt Duss: I mean, I think, you know, the, the, the left, the pro peace movement, um, and the labor party took an enormous hit with the collapse of, you know, the Oslo process, Camp David and the second Intifada. I mean, they had made a claim as the Israeli public saw it. They had made a claim that we will sign these agreements.

We will empower the Palestinian leadership. Now one can criticize those deals as, as people like Edward Said, I think quite presciently did. But I think this is understand this is the claim that the labor government, the pro peace government made to the Israeli people and as far as Israeli voters saw, it resulted in restaurants blowing up and buses blowing up.

and it empowered, you know, the Israeli right which is essentially dominated. Um, Israeli politics since then, although it is, it is worth remembering that, um, actually Tzipi Livni won the election in 2008, but could not form a government. I think that alternate history of, of, of, of Barack Obama having to, you know, do his [00:59:00] peace initiative dealing with a Prime Minister Livni might've been quite different.

Although I don't know, cause I think some of the structural issues that, that Danny brings up are quite relevant and important as well. Um, so where is the left? I think, you know, I'm in touch with. You know, quite a few left activists. I think some of the most important work that is being done is in the realm of a shared future between Jews and Arabs, Jews and Palestinians.

There's an organization called Standing Together, which I would encourage folks to check out. They've been very active in these mass protests that have been ongoing for some months. I think, you know, again, it's a small movement. It's frustrating. I would love to see it grow. And I, you know, I'm very engaged with my Israeli and Palestinian colleagues to give whatever support I can, uh, to help it grow because ultimately I agree with you, building that movement and building a real constituency for a shared future is absolutely essential for a real and durable peace, not just in Israel Palestine, but enabling, you know, building those relationships with other [01:00:00] activists and civil society throughout the region.

David Sirota: Matt Dust is the Executive Vice President at the Center for International Policy, which you can find@internationalpolicy.org. Danny Bessner is currently an associate professor in international studies at the University of Washington and the co-host of the Foreign Affairs Podcast, American Prestige, I mentioned it at the top.

Matt and Danny were both advisors to US Senator. Bernie Sanders,

Daniel Bessner: Matt was the real advisor. I played a small, small part in the campaign. Matt

David Sirota: well, it gives people a sense of, of sort of where you come

from.

Daniel Bessner: yes.

David Sirota: yeah, is what I'm trying to say. Exactly. Matt and Danny, thank you both.

Daniel Bessner: Thank you for having us.

Matt Duss: is the

That's it for today's show. As a reminder, our paid subscribers who get lever time premium, you get to hear next week's bonus episode, my interview with Alison Fisher from media matters about Rupert Murdoch's lasting impact on the issue of climate change. Possibly one of the single most influential people in the spreading of climate [01:01:00] misinformation and denial.

David Sirota: To listen to Lever Time Premium, just head over to levernews. com to become a supporting subscriber. When you do, you get access to all of Lever's premium content, including our weekly newsletters and our live events. And that's all for just 8 a month or 70 for the year. One last favor. Please be sure to like, subscribe, and write a review for Lever Time on your favorite podcast app.

The app you are listening to right now, take 10 seconds and give us a positive review in that app. And make sure to check out all of the incredible reporting our team has been doing over at levernews. com. Until next time, I'm David Sirota. Rock the boat.

The Lever Time Podcast is a production of the Lever and the Lever Podcast Network. It's hosted by me, David Sirota. Our producer is Frank Capello with help from Lever producer, Jared Jacang Mayor.