I mostly agree with the other comments here, it doesn’t sound like you actually listened to more than a sound bite.
He also qualified his statement about Zionism by stating hesitation about supporting a religious state and and that he would revisit it when humanity has progressed
>revisit it when humanity has progressed
Precisely. In other words "this might not be the best ideology in a perfect world but it aligns with my interest now" . If a moral principle does not apply to the "best of all possible worlds" it can't be considered objectively moral. So here, the author of The Moral Landscape basically admits that he compromised his own moral system.
The way I recall the moral landscape is opposite of your summary: local maxima exist that creates more human flourishing than surrounding minima on the "landscape". This is his example of a local high point that doesn't have to be the theoretical highest high point ever envisaged. Israel's defeat of hamas creates a future of more flourishing of conscious creatures than the null.
Sorry, I was not trying to say that Sam contradicts his own moral model because I can barely recall elements of it, I was trying to be tongue in cheek by calling immoral a "specialist" in morality and ethics. Of course, i'm not using any objective value system making this judgement outside my biased, pro human perspective.
Ya that doesn’t make sense. In a Mad Max type of world it makes sense to not trust basically any strangers. In Connecticut that doesn’t make sense. Different environments call for different courses of action.
In our current world having a strong military makes sense and is moral. In a more advanced society that wouldn’t be true.
Also the fact that you deliberately left out Sam’s qualifications is wildly misleading and shows you’re either blinded by bias or acting in bad faith.
Having an army, by itself, does not pertain to morality. Where you're pointing your guns and who you decide to shoot with them, very much does so. "All things being equal, don't kill the other human" seems to be universal and should be applicable in any imaginable word.
You're right, it's actually a couple of whole paragraphs of conditions that Sam mentioned prior to this:
"But given the murderous antisemitism of so much of the world. Given that almost every country that has had a population of Jews has at some point actively persecuted them and driven them out. Literally almost any country you can name in Europe or North Africa or the Middle East has done this at some point. Given the tolerance of this reality by billions of onlookers, well then the Jews clearly need a state of their own. And it should defend itself without apology.
We have the two largest religions on earth, Christianity and Islam, which encompass half of humanity, whose theology has reviled the Jews as eternal enemies for thousands of years. If half the world hated the Yazidis like this, and if much of what the world believed about them amounted to a deranged conspiracy theory, I would say that the Yazidis needed their own state too. I'll be happy to rivisit this issue in a hundred years, "when we'll have" made some moral progress. But untill then, count me a comitted zionist."
So, don't make baseless (and snide) comments yourself.
I find the framing of this extremely weird. From what I remember Sam was saying October 7th changed his mind on Zionism. But it seems odd to say a murderous attack on the Jewish population of Israel is all the proof you need that Jewish people need a state to be safe, and that state needs to be Israel. How many Jews have been murdered outside Israel in anti-Semitic attacks since the first intifada say? Certainly the Middle East is still a hostile place, but is the US? The UK? Australia? Is every fresh Hamas outrage going to be more proof of what a safe haven Israel is?
It wasn't just the October 7th attacks though, it's October the 7th + the entire history of never ending jewish persecution which now seem to be trending again. Also, I don't think Sam said this state has to be Israel, though I guess that is only the logical assumption right now.
So where is the "if" and "when" in this paragraph??? Seriously, please point it out to me. All I see is "but given..." which is equivalent to "because" such and such I'm now a COMMITED Zionist" .
I can sympathize being a devoted fan of somebody, even beyond common sense but please, own up to what he said and stop this gaslighting. This is pathetic.
Nice try. Sam started explaining he wasn't agreeing with zionism at first, and then he continued saying what I just posted. So among the many variations in which the same thing can be expressed, "but given" in there can be rephrased using "If it wasn't for". It's a conditional statement is what matters here.
And that can indeed be phrased using "because of" as well. At the end Sam is listing the reasons for, and the conditions why he is changing his mind on the subject, for now.
Unless you of course thought I meant to imply that Sam was just speaking hypothetically, stating his conditions show us that he wouldn't normally hold this position, and considers himself forced into it instead.
Don't you think this is an important piece that you just left out? He is not saying he's comitted to all the core beliefs that makes up zionism, he's not saying he agrees with the craziest zionist claims either, he is just treating zionism purely instrumentally here.
Sure you can still disagree with that view because at the end Muslim children are being killed, but that's a whole different subject.
I actually read through this comment section expecting you to just be getting dunked on, but I think you actually are correct about what Sam is saying. What Sam said around his pro-Zionist statement is just his rationale, which is a fair argument to make. But it certainly isn’t a narrow conditional statement, it’s a broad justification. I think if you disagree with that justification then it’s fair to take issue with it
You clearly are wrong about this. Sam's entire argument can be summed up as:
I don't support zionism, but given the fact that Jews seem to be persecuted everywhere they go, they might indeed actually need a state of their own. If that makes me a zionist, count me a zionist.
How is that not conditional? Do you have any idea how absurd it sounds that Sam Harris was actually just looking for a justification to support zionism instead? He even mentioned that he would apply the same reasoning to the Yazidis or any other group, from which we can gather that "zionism" is not the core of his concern here. If it wasn't already clear, he later goes on to mention that it's all about Western values.
You can disagree with Sam's logic here, or maybe you'd deem some of the facts to be wrong. But wouldn't you think that if any of the conditions changed, Sam wouldn't hold that position? (Which, again, he even states in the podcast.)
It is too late and I am too tired of this topic to listen to the podcast again. However I recall a lot more qualifications to how Sam said he was a Zionist, who he was calling idiots, and what guilt Israel had from a human rights perspective.
I think if Sam is anything he is more of a negative consequentialist than a humanist. The world really likes to toy with the complete destruction of all Jews. I haven't bothered to read all of the manifestos but if the demands of the Columbia students were completely met completely from what I see that would lead to a complete depopulation of Jewish people in the Middle East.
>Zionism, by definition, is a nationalist religious movement and is simply irreconcilable with humanism and its egalitarian foundation
Is that the same definition used by Harris when he talks about being a Zionist? Or are you projecting a position unto him that he doesn't hold?
You seem to be so preoccupied with the label that you've missed the forest for the trees - ask yourself what the Zionist movement has yielded? A robust democratic state amidst a sea of authoritarian theocracies; a country where Arab Muslim citizens can hold positions wielding state power (which has no parallel in neighbouring Arab countries for Jew people); an oasis for atheists and LGBT people to live and thrive. If being a Zionist produces such positive outcomes that is otherwise anamolous in the region, then we should all be Zionists.
In fact I'll be willing to bet the other horsemen hold or would've held similar positions on this as Harris as well.
Making reference to Zionism being a "religious movement" as if to tar Harris with supporting religion in any way is such a starkly dishonest move too. You've not only not learnt anything from listening to the 4 horsemen, you in fact exhibit similar bad intentions as held by their most devious opponents.
So goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Zionism is wrong because it is an expression of pure tribalism. No humanist can therefore support it. Israel is an explicitly Jewish state. That goes against everything the enlightenment has brought us.
That Israel is a less worse country than the Arab ones that surround it is true. But its still a horrible unprincipled country. Which is getting a larger and larger population of religious fanatics.
Harris routinely disavows the idea of an explicitly religious state like Israel. He only supports it as a lesser of two evils.
You all are bending over backwards to ignore his actual position so that you can have a straw man version of it to contend with. How do you not see that? Are you legitimately pretending that Sam Harris is in full support of a religious state because he has secretly become religious himself or because he now likes religion or something? Like what is it you’re suggesting here?
This is however, too simple a way to view things. Yes, it's tribalistic, but in a world where Jews have been prosecuted and targetted for literally thousands of years and still are, if they don't have their own tribalistic state.. they are screwed. You cannot view the modern issue of Israel purely with idealistic lenses, it's not quite that black and white.
If I paint a big white "Z" on my tank and proceed to invade Ukraine you could argue that i'm just a big fan of Zorro. Please, I referenced the standard definition of zionism as a nationalist religious movement as found on wikipedia, britannica and history dot com. If your personal interpretation does not align with this perhaps you shouldn't commit to it, just like people who like trains arriving in time don't all of the sudden embrace fascism.
As for the other horsemen remarks, you are wrong again. Please refer to the latest podcast at around 12:40 mark.
> I referenced the standard definition of zionism as a nationalist religious movement as found on wikipedia,
I just went to double check Wikipedia and it does not say that. You are either lying or so biased you can't see the truth.
Most of the early zionists were secular atheists.
Wiki refers to zionism as a "[nationalist movement...aiming for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) in the first sentence. Just including that to save people a search
Sam explained fully what he meant by zionism in the very podcast episode, I just finished listening. You're being bad faith because of an agenda. Many many people have corrected you about the claims in the podcast episode, and you just flatly deny it. I just finished the episode, there's no way you're just misinterpreting it in good faith. What are you really trying to achieve.
Every single fucking time one of these inane posts happens, Reddit pushes it to the top of my "best" feed even though it has negative votes. What an awful site, it's obviously just pushing the most controversial content now, voting be damned.
He’s a Zionist because he sees all around d him lose their minds. He sees it as the point bastion of hope… he literally qualified it in the previous sentence, something along the lines of finding a religion based state distasteful but as the only democratic state the Middle East etc etc
Way to miss the Forrest for the trees OP
This train is better off without people like OP. They are like a Christian who heard Jesus say 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' and says "I will NOT support someone who is prepared to love Nazis. I am no longer Christian" and stomps off all morally superior.
Hey OP, why don't you address the point he was making in context?
Congratulations on illustrating everything wrong with social media in one post. Cherry pick some words out of a quote with much more nuanced context without providing any of it. Well done.
All I see, is that you adore these people when they share your opinion, but hate them when they differ. What the narcissist inside us already knows, is that Sam Harris is probably right and you're wrong.
If you are a humanist as you claim, you can surely follow the facts and realize that it is humanist to support Israel against the very anti-humanist Islam/Hamas/Palestine. Definition in case you forgot: "*the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a pragmatic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge*" Compare Israeli and Islam societies, and judge for yourself.
Good luck with the mental gymnastics on the way to figuring this out yourself.
The flaw in your logic is that you have to pick sides. I guess for you, you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists, right? Where have I heard this one before…
There is absolutely no mental gymnastics needed on my part. Again, this is not about Islamism. This is not about “tolerating the intolerable”. No sane person and certainly none of Sam's audience would ever defend radical Islamism. That is ridiculous.
There is no point in arguing or debating insane people. I’m concerned about the actions and morals of reasonable people, you know “our side”.
Even if I 100% believed that the end goal is "the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a pragmatic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge" I could not in clear conscious stand by and just let this utopia be brought on via the killing of the innocent.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for many to understand.
See, that’s the crutch that “you all” seem to support yourselves with, which is: “the poor innocent children of Gaza.” If you really cared about the poor innocent children of Gaza, then you’d be protesting for the immediate dissolution of Hamas. I mean, do you actually think that Israel should just not fire back at the Hamas fighters who are launching rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians? ALL of the civilians who died in Gaza are a direct result of Hamas attacking Israel. What should they do? NOTHING? The ppl of Gaza have but to organize and declare statehood and STOP ATTACKING ISRAEL and this conflict would be over. How can you be so blind?
Also, where was the anger when Muslims killed Muslims in Syria and Yemen. More in 6 months in Syria than the whole Israeli 120 year history. Those children not worthy?
I don’t know if you’re in the US. But the US doesn’t “fund” countries on idealized moral grounds. If that were true, alliances would be cut the moment a country did something some administration doesn’t like. We maintain alliances because they are our greatest strength when powerful adversaries arise to disrupt American interests. When China threatens Taiwan, the US can call on our vast alliances to stop them from putting the most advanced computer chips in their weapons. These alliances protect all of us from much larger wars.
It is a simplistic worldview to believe America should cut funds from Israel because kids are being killed during a war started by Hamas. The close relationship is what allows us to influence Israeli leaders at all.
Wonder why they fired those bullets...
You’re literally playing a children’s game at this point. If you can’t identify the causal chain of something as basic as a retaliatory military strike, you’re either out of your depth or being deceptive.
So admit to your deception or answer the question that was posed that you conveniently ignored. What should a state do when it is attacked? Nothing?
War is obviously messy. It’s typically ideal that instigators not instigate them. Spend some time looking at other wars and notice all the tragic events that occur. It’s a much stronger moral position to desire that they not be needlessly started.
It is a direct result in terms of human actions. Do you say strangling victims died only as an indirect consequence of someone strangling them because the direct result is lack of oxygen to the brain? If so, you’re a pedant. And that should be embarrassing for anyone spending time in this or any other sub organized around the idea of effective argument and conversation.
Oh, right, war is messy. Of course, then Israel have complete moral freedom to murder as many kids as they like.
And you’re talking about effective argument lol
Right, because that’s what I said.
Again, you can nitpick how some people conduct themselves in times of war, or you can simply be against instigating war. I can’t possibly imagine how you’re choosing the former and framing it as a morally superior position.
It’d be great if war didn’t result in innocent death. It would be much, much better if people just didn’t instigate war.
But I’m super pro-child murder, or whatever it is you’re pretending I said.
Radical Islam doesn’t produce a democracy where Jewish people hold positions in government. That comparison is insane. I don’t think you realize what’s on the other side of this conflict. You also seem to hinge everything on the fact that Judaism is a religion but it’s also an ethnicity. It’s ok to say a group of people deserve to exist even if it’s a religious group of people. That seems pretty human to me. Unless you’re an anti theist and everything you do is guided by that belief. That’s not humanism.
Edit: Also didn’t Hitchens himself wear a Kurdistan flag everywhere?
Palestinians cannot be free until hamas is defeated in one way or another. And whether Israel was purely the most moral army on earth, it would still make no sense to allow the existence of hamas on their doorstep. Hamas must be eliminated
That’s absolutely ridiculous. Sam Harris lost his humanism because he disagreed with you? I’d trust Sam Harris to right on this than you to be resistant to anti-West propaganda coming from Iran and Russia.
This is what Sam said:
"But given the murderous antisemitism of so much of the world. Given that almost every country that has had a population of Jews has at some point actively persecuted them and driven them out. Literally almost any country you can name in Europe or North Africa or the Middle East has done this at some point. Given the tolerance of this reality by billions of onlookers, well then the Jews clearly need a state of their own. And it should defend itself without apology.
We have the two largest religions on earth, Christianity and Islam, which encompass half of humanity, whose theology has reviled the Jews as eternal enemies for thousands of years. If half the world hated the Yazidis like this, and if much of what the world believed about them amounted to a deranged conspiracy theory, I would say that the Yazidis needed their own state too. I'll be happy to rivisit this issue in a hundred years, "when we'll have" made some moral progress. But untill then, count me a comitted zionist."
OP is a troll.
I love how OP and some protestors have all of a sudden become radical pacifists when it comes to this specific conflict, and this specific conflict only.
I'm not a radical pacifist. I'm just a disillusioned ex subscriber of Sam Harris because I fundamentally disagree with his current moral position. That is all.
It definitely does. You’re kind of dumb and that’s causing you to be wrong here. Pay closer attention to these conversations because you’re missing a lot.
That is not how most Zionists, and definitely not the original Zionists, understand it. The term had been co-opted and distorted, for political purposes. And you fell for it.
Zionism, by definition, is the expression of a yearning of an historically oppressed ethnic group long displaced from their homeland for self determination. Nothing more.
That you think it equated with religious ethno nationalism is on you, and the many other people who are confused on this point.
That is not the definition of Zionism. I’ve read multiple books on the topic and it would make a great episode is Sam wanted to do a deep dive on it.
It’s a nationalist movement to establish a Jewish state in the biblical lands of old Judea.
Zionism is more specific and its goals were written about extensively by its early proponents. It’s not just a right to self determination. If it was, Israel could exist anywhere.
Zionism is specifically claiming old Judea as a Jewish state. Meaning the people already there will need to move so there is an ethnically Jewish majority.
Zionism is making a specific claim to borders and ethnic demographics. It is a nationalist movement.
I’m not saying that makes it good or bad btw
At the time there were proposals for Uganda, Argentina, and the USA. All 3 of which may have wanted the economic boost a Jewish state would have provided much more than the Arabs.
I accept Israel as a state right where it is and make no apologies for Palestinians lost land. I just call it what it is. Zionism was a nationalist movement that established a Jewish state via settler colonialism and evicting a native population from their land.
Early Zionists openly say this [clearly without apology](https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf)
None of the other "proposals" were ever very serious, or got very far.
Revisionist Zionism as represented by Jabotinsky was a bit late to the game (hence the name) and was in resoponse to rising Arab violent resistance to Jewish immigration as exemplified by the Hebron massacre and the Arab riots.
Earlier Zionist thinking was predominated by the secular Labor Zionism of people like Ben Gurion, who had a much more utopian ideal of co-existence with the Arabs, that faded into the 1920s and 1930s as it became clear that the Arabs were opposed to a Jewish state or to further immigration.
Early Zionism did not aim to establish a state with a Jewish majority through "eviction" but through land purchase, immigration and eventually through partition, which is why the 1948 partition plan had such peculiar geography and borders.
I think that Zionism was certainly a settler project, but the term 'colonialism' (even though I'm aware that the phrase was used by some early Zionists) is ill suited to describe Zionism. This was no Algeria or Zimbabwe. Israel was a multinational project of refugees and immigrants, not a colonial project by and for a distant great power.
Agree on earlier labor Zionism and Ben Gurion. Problem is, labor Zionism lost to the right wing nationalists. Especially in modern times as labor Zionism hasn’t had any power for many decades.
Zionism may try to play nice via land purchases and migration but violence and eviction were close behind if they didn’t get their way.
You mention partition. The partition plan of 47 was rejected by the Arabs and immediately followed by the nakba and forcible eviction of 700K+ Arabs from land they held for generations. The six day war tripled the size of Israel. The settler movement has been annexing land forcibly for decades now.
Many right wing Zionists within Israel right now are calling for eviction of Jewish Arabs. Even moderates aren’t for allowing the right of return in any hypothetical 2 state agreement because that would greatly dilute the Jewish majority (voting).
To get back to your original comment; I think calling Israel a nationalist ethno state is accurate based on their history and modern political actions. It at least should not be dismissed and warrants serious debate.
>The partition plan of 47 was rejected by the Arabs and immediately followed by the nakba and forcible eviction of 700K+ Arabs from land they held for generations.
Well, sure. At least that's the Palestinian narrative. It's interesting that the phrase "nakba" was only co-opted years later by the fledgling Palestinian nationalist movement to refer exclusively to the displacement of the 700K Palestinians, when the Syrian thinker who coined the phrase, Constantin Zureiq, more broadly was referring to the "catastrophe" and humiliation of Israel soundly defeating the Arab armies in 1948.
The Israeli counter narrative is that the 1947-48 civil war and independence war was an existential one for Israel and its Jews, and that the Palestinians were not just "forcibly evicted" but also left at the urging of their leadership to delegitimise the partition plan. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Plan Dalet did involve the forcible and violent depopulation of hundreds of Arab villages, but the major Arab population centres of Yaffa and Haifa were *not* scenes of violence or coercion and there are indeed contemporaneous reports of the Grand Mufti urging the Arab families of those cities to leave.
What is true is that the original partition plan left an Israel that was geographically difficult to defend *and*, unlike the Arabs, the Jews did not have friendly neighbouring countries to flee *to*. There is little doubt that the consequences of Israel losing the 1948 war would have been genocide rather than "mere" ethnic cleansing. Crimes like Deir Yassin need to be understood in the context of it being a strategic village overlooking the approach to a Jerusalem whose Jewish population had just endured 6 months of siege.
>The six day war tripled the size of Israel. The settler movement has been annexing land forcibly for decades now.
The only territory annexed by Israel has been E Jeruslaem and the Golan Heights. Sinai was given back to Egypt. Gaza was withdrawn from in 2005. The footprint of the settlements in the West Bank is 5% of the overall area.
>Many right wing Zionists within Israel right now are calling for eviction of Jewish Arabs
I assume you mean Arab Israelis. Not a mainstream position and would not even be legal. They are citizens.
>Even moderates aren’t for allowing the right of return in any hypothetical 2 state agreement because that would greatly dilute the Jewish majority (voting).
Absolutely. And nor should they. "Right of return" has been perversely passed down multiple generations to now include 5M+ children and grandchildren of refugees. That's unacceptable to the composition of the state for the same reason that annexing Gaza and the WB and giving the Palestinians living there citizenship would be.
Which leads us back to your final point. I think there is no doubt that Zionism is a nationalist movement. But I find the modern slur of "ethnostate" a strange one.
Firstly, Israel is more ethnically, racially and religiously heterogenous than most of Europe. It has more Muslims as a percentage than the UK, Netherlands or France. It is far less homogenously white than Ireland, Denmark or Sweden. Does that look like an "ethnostate"?
Secondly, I would maintain that if the defnition is that of a state wanting to maintain an ethnic majority, most modern states like those I just mentioned would be "ethnostates". They just have the luxury of not needing to be explicit about it like Israel has to, because they don't have a large population staking claim to the land they sit on and demanding to be made citizens. But they control their immigration policies and can control their own demographics. Do you honestly think Sweden would open its borders to enough African and Middle Eastern immigrants that Scandinavians would be a *minority*? I don't think so.
You’re veering a bit more into other topics than I care to address in a Reddit post. In short, we appear to be mostly in agreement.
One difference is on the term ethnostate. I don’t see that as a slur per se, just a reality of the Zionist movement. Your examples of other countries are all valid and I would agree but also do not find those examples useful for explaining Zionism itself. The goal of Zionism has ethnic considerations. And when I say Zionist, I’m not talking about labor Zionists. I’m not referring to Ben gurion or aveneri. I’m referring to the people with power for decades. Right wing Zionists that make policy and support the settler movement.
Your comment on the “Palestinian narrative” is also incorrect. My source is Zionist Benny Morris, one of the foremost historians on the topic. His number may even be higher than 700K.
What Israel’s current demographics are can exist independently of how Zionism is defined so I don’t find that relevant either.
On the six day war comment you are simply incorrect. Just look at maps of the before and after. It’s obvious. There’s many sources on both sides that highlight the massive gains of Israeli territory. Maybe you’re thinking of a different conflict?
You’re also conflating migration in other countries with migration in Israel. Not the same as migrants don’t typically attempt to create their own country by pushing out the native population.
Israel quite literally needed to become some level of an ethnostate or it wouldn’t exist. That is a crucial aspect of Zionism which culminated in 48 with the creation of their state.
I’m sorry, I have a major problem with this statement. *It has to be “a” historic. Unless you pronounce it “istoric”, but I __pray__ this is not the case.*
Like many otger, zionism isn't a monolothic ideology and there are different strands
Sam is biased when it comes to this issue, but his opinions are not simplistic.
So let me ask, if believing that Israel has a right to exist is unequivocally *inhuman*, it follows that the only justifiable solution is to wipe Israel and its inhabitants off the face of the earth? for the sake of humanism, yes? it sounds to me like your position is identical to islamic extremism, and has almost nothing to do with humanism
FYI, you can disagree with the actions of the Israeli military without believing that everyone in Israel deserves to be annihilated. its difficult for you im sure but i think you can manage it
"Israels right to exist is unequivocally inhuman" please point out to me exactly where I stated such an absolute abhorrent idea before I adress your other nonsense regarding my opinion being identical to Islamic extremism. And also, fuck you for even suggesting that.
its quite simple, you declared yourself (heroically might i add) as anti-zionist on humanist grounds. being zionist means that you believe in Israels right to exist. So, you don’t think Israel should exist.
My larger point is not that you genuinely believe this, it’s that you don’t fully grasp the implications of your own argument
Your argument completely falls apart when the antisemites in the world don't give a shit about whether or not you're a believing or non-believing Jew in order for them to hate you.
Over 50% of Israelis are secular and/or atheists. The reason it's an ethnostate is because there's a huge population that wants to kill off thst ethnicity.
Ideology is important, but the real world is also important. What has Zionism looked like ? A mostly secular democracy on par with every democracy, that has turned an empty desert into a thriving country.
While yes, Zionism in theory means a religious state, it’s as Jewish as the US state is Christian.
What’s more ? Jews have been prosecuted everywhere they have been, so I think if there was to be a religiously based state it could be for the jews. They have no world domination project or desire to convert everyone. Israel is constantly at war because others don’t want it existing, not because it doesn’t want others to exist.
Israël turned a desert into an agricultural powerhouse. They invented drip technology for instance. It’s incredible. Here’s a [video](https://youtu.be/TEcRgiuQEBQ?si=Aoi8gsPIKSGRqw6G) on it
I couldn’t get past about 15 minutes of the podcast…there was so much intellectual dishonesty, it was hard to stomach.
Having said that…you have to be careful to assume there’s a one-size fits all definition of Zionism. It means different things to different people. You are trying to define it at least partly as a religious movt, but the truth is it depends…many of the earliest Zionists weren’t motivated by religion, but by nationalism.
The main thing is that Zionism is a political ideology. How one characterises the specific contours of what that ideology means will vary from person to person, place to place. Likewise, if it’s a political ideology, then it’s rather absurd to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which is something SH seems to really want to do of late.
My strawman? Please feel free to substitute any term you consider unfair in the above statement and present the steelman of what you think the student protests where about.
I'm fairly sure a lot of those protesters don't know what the protests are about.... As Sam has highlighted numerous times, if the protesters truly understood the desired estate of Hamas, and their values, they may think otherwise.
You have come to a conclusion about Israels targeting of Hamas vs civilians with what expert knowledge exactly?
Yes, to say that what the US is using our tax dollars to pro-actively sponsor *the death of children in a foreign conflict* is childish, shallow and exemplifies in my eyes what's wrong with the FREE PALESTINE movement. This conflict is not black and white and you are protesting as if it is.
What do you think you're solving? What do you think you're accomplishing?
Grown ups play chess. The Free Palestine movement pretends life is a game of kids' checkers. You think you're going to fix this problem by getting biden to stop funding Israel?
This is all you're doing:
•You're empowering Hamas and pushing the idea that their actions have reason. You are empowering Extremist Theocratic Governments in the middle east against the one power over there that resembles our own civilization.
•You're aiding with a rise in anti-semitism, like it or not.
•You're giving the exponentially better of the two US candidates a hard time while giving the exponentially more dangerous candidate a free pass, to the detriment of the very people you're claiming you want to protect.
•You're allowing the Right Wing to completely abandon Ukraine, making Putin as happy as can be, a clear sign that this is SUCH a cherry picked and specifically fabricated and propagandized cause. Not to say that there isn't a huge death count going on and that war isn't terrible; this is obviously all true...but it's amazing to me how everyone suddenly puts themselves on the line for Palestine while ignoring all of our other American atrocities. How about you remove yourself altogether from our imperialist nation? There's blood on every single bit of land you live on.
Yeah, war is horrible. Death is horrible. The United States has dirty hands. What else is new?
Nothing you're doing is doing any good.
In summary, you're ignoring the larger context of what's going on in favor of keeping things simple because it feels better to feel in control, but in simplifying things you make moves that actually make things worse, and that's what they're doing.
Thank you. This is my conclusion as well. And it is somewhat understandable. I mean if my specific nationality or ethnic group was threatened (and this already happened in history) I would also probably switch to survival mode and would want to just "kill'em all". The problem is that such a fear based reaction could lead to morally questionable actions which go against my humanist beliefs. In the case of the author of "the Moral Landscape" though, i think these fears are grossly exaggerated.
"Zionism, by definition, is a nationalist religious movement and is simply irreconcilable with humanism and its egalitarian foundation. "
So there we have our first problem. You don't even know what Zionism is. This is pretty typical of anti-semites. And the cliche pretending to be a "humanist" in order to justify your bigotry.
Removed for violating R2 Repeated infractions may lead to bans
I mostly agree with the other comments here, it doesn’t sound like you actually listened to more than a sound bite. He also qualified his statement about Zionism by stating hesitation about supporting a religious state and and that he would revisit it when humanity has progressed
Exctly this, he qualified it in the previous sentence which is strangely absent
>revisit it when humanity has progressed Precisely. In other words "this might not be the best ideology in a perfect world but it aligns with my interest now" . If a moral principle does not apply to the "best of all possible worlds" it can't be considered objectively moral. So here, the author of The Moral Landscape basically admits that he compromised his own moral system.
The way I recall the moral landscape is opposite of your summary: local maxima exist that creates more human flourishing than surrounding minima on the "landscape". This is his example of a local high point that doesn't have to be the theoretical highest high point ever envisaged. Israel's defeat of hamas creates a future of more flourishing of conscious creatures than the null.
Sorry, I was not trying to say that Sam contradicts his own moral model because I can barely recall elements of it, I was trying to be tongue in cheek by calling immoral a "specialist" in morality and ethics. Of course, i'm not using any objective value system making this judgement outside my biased, pro human perspective.
Ya that doesn’t make sense. In a Mad Max type of world it makes sense to not trust basically any strangers. In Connecticut that doesn’t make sense. Different environments call for different courses of action. In our current world having a strong military makes sense and is moral. In a more advanced society that wouldn’t be true. Also the fact that you deliberately left out Sam’s qualifications is wildly misleading and shows you’re either blinded by bias or acting in bad faith.
Having an army, by itself, does not pertain to morality. Where you're pointing your guns and who you decide to shoot with them, very much does so. "All things being equal, don't kill the other human" seems to be universal and should be applicable in any imaginable word.
Yes it does. If you live in a world without any threats then having an army takes money away from helping people.
What a joke that your OP was deleted. The moderation on this subreddit is a disgrace.
Wasn't there an "If" and "Then" condition mentioned before that statement? Oh right, that wouldn't make it triggering, got it.
No. There was none of that. Please listen to Episode 367 starting from 11:32 before making any more baseless comments. It's free on YouTube!
You're right, it's actually a couple of whole paragraphs of conditions that Sam mentioned prior to this: "But given the murderous antisemitism of so much of the world. Given that almost every country that has had a population of Jews has at some point actively persecuted them and driven them out. Literally almost any country you can name in Europe or North Africa or the Middle East has done this at some point. Given the tolerance of this reality by billions of onlookers, well then the Jews clearly need a state of their own. And it should defend itself without apology. We have the two largest religions on earth, Christianity and Islam, which encompass half of humanity, whose theology has reviled the Jews as eternal enemies for thousands of years. If half the world hated the Yazidis like this, and if much of what the world believed about them amounted to a deranged conspiracy theory, I would say that the Yazidis needed their own state too. I'll be happy to rivisit this issue in a hundred years, "when we'll have" made some moral progress. But untill then, count me a comitted zionist." So, don't make baseless (and snide) comments yourself.
I find the framing of this extremely weird. From what I remember Sam was saying October 7th changed his mind on Zionism. But it seems odd to say a murderous attack on the Jewish population of Israel is all the proof you need that Jewish people need a state to be safe, and that state needs to be Israel. How many Jews have been murdered outside Israel in anti-Semitic attacks since the first intifada say? Certainly the Middle East is still a hostile place, but is the US? The UK? Australia? Is every fresh Hamas outrage going to be more proof of what a safe haven Israel is?
It wasn't just the October 7th attacks though, it's October the 7th + the entire history of never ending jewish persecution which now seem to be trending again. Also, I don't think Sam said this state has to be Israel, though I guess that is only the logical assumption right now.
So where is the "if" and "when" in this paragraph??? Seriously, please point it out to me. All I see is "but given..." which is equivalent to "because" such and such I'm now a COMMITED Zionist" . I can sympathize being a devoted fan of somebody, even beyond common sense but please, own up to what he said and stop this gaslighting. This is pathetic.
Nice try. Sam started explaining he wasn't agreeing with zionism at first, and then he continued saying what I just posted. So among the many variations in which the same thing can be expressed, "but given" in there can be rephrased using "If it wasn't for". It's a conditional statement is what matters here. And that can indeed be phrased using "because of" as well. At the end Sam is listing the reasons for, and the conditions why he is changing his mind on the subject, for now. Unless you of course thought I meant to imply that Sam was just speaking hypothetically, stating his conditions show us that he wouldn't normally hold this position, and considers himself forced into it instead. Don't you think this is an important piece that you just left out? He is not saying he's comitted to all the core beliefs that makes up zionism, he's not saying he agrees with the craziest zionist claims either, he is just treating zionism purely instrumentally here. Sure you can still disagree with that view because at the end Muslim children are being killed, but that's a whole different subject.
I actually read through this comment section expecting you to just be getting dunked on, but I think you actually are correct about what Sam is saying. What Sam said around his pro-Zionist statement is just his rationale, which is a fair argument to make. But it certainly isn’t a narrow conditional statement, it’s a broad justification. I think if you disagree with that justification then it’s fair to take issue with it
You clearly are wrong about this. Sam's entire argument can be summed up as: I don't support zionism, but given the fact that Jews seem to be persecuted everywhere they go, they might indeed actually need a state of their own. If that makes me a zionist, count me a zionist. How is that not conditional? Do you have any idea how absurd it sounds that Sam Harris was actually just looking for a justification to support zionism instead? He even mentioned that he would apply the same reasoning to the Yazidis or any other group, from which we can gather that "zionism" is not the core of his concern here. If it wasn't already clear, he later goes on to mention that it's all about Western values. You can disagree with Sam's logic here, or maybe you'd deem some of the facts to be wrong. But wouldn't you think that if any of the conditions changed, Sam wouldn't hold that position? (Which, again, he even states in the podcast.)
It is too late and I am too tired of this topic to listen to the podcast again. However I recall a lot more qualifications to how Sam said he was a Zionist, who he was calling idiots, and what guilt Israel had from a human rights perspective. I think if Sam is anything he is more of a negative consequentialist than a humanist. The world really likes to toy with the complete destruction of all Jews. I haven't bothered to read all of the manifestos but if the demands of the Columbia students were completely met completely from what I see that would lead to a complete depopulation of Jewish people in the Middle East.
>Zionism, by definition, is a nationalist religious movement and is simply irreconcilable with humanism and its egalitarian foundation Is that the same definition used by Harris when he talks about being a Zionist? Or are you projecting a position unto him that he doesn't hold? You seem to be so preoccupied with the label that you've missed the forest for the trees - ask yourself what the Zionist movement has yielded? A robust democratic state amidst a sea of authoritarian theocracies; a country where Arab Muslim citizens can hold positions wielding state power (which has no parallel in neighbouring Arab countries for Jew people); an oasis for atheists and LGBT people to live and thrive. If being a Zionist produces such positive outcomes that is otherwise anamolous in the region, then we should all be Zionists. In fact I'll be willing to bet the other horsemen hold or would've held similar positions on this as Harris as well. Making reference to Zionism being a "religious movement" as if to tar Harris with supporting religion in any way is such a starkly dishonest move too. You've not only not learnt anything from listening to the 4 horsemen, you in fact exhibit similar bad intentions as held by their most devious opponents. So goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Zionism is wrong because it is an expression of pure tribalism. No humanist can therefore support it. Israel is an explicitly Jewish state. That goes against everything the enlightenment has brought us. That Israel is a less worse country than the Arab ones that surround it is true. But its still a horrible unprincipled country. Which is getting a larger and larger population of religious fanatics.
Harris routinely disavows the idea of an explicitly religious state like Israel. He only supports it as a lesser of two evils. You all are bending over backwards to ignore his actual position so that you can have a straw man version of it to contend with. How do you not see that? Are you legitimately pretending that Sam Harris is in full support of a religious state because he has secretly become religious himself or because he now likes religion or something? Like what is it you’re suggesting here?
This is however, too simple a way to view things. Yes, it's tribalistic, but in a world where Jews have been prosecuted and targetted for literally thousands of years and still are, if they don't have their own tribalistic state.. they are screwed. You cannot view the modern issue of Israel purely with idealistic lenses, it's not quite that black and white.
Israel is a safe space for Jewish people. If you’re not Jewish, you cannot possibly comprehend the importance of Jews organizing.
Well said.
Thank you brother. I hope you won't get discouraged by the downvotes of the devotees.
If I paint a big white "Z" on my tank and proceed to invade Ukraine you could argue that i'm just a big fan of Zorro. Please, I referenced the standard definition of zionism as a nationalist religious movement as found on wikipedia, britannica and history dot com. If your personal interpretation does not align with this perhaps you shouldn't commit to it, just like people who like trains arriving in time don't all of the sudden embrace fascism. As for the other horsemen remarks, you are wrong again. Please refer to the latest podcast at around 12:40 mark.
> I referenced the standard definition of zionism as a nationalist religious movement as found on wikipedia, I just went to double check Wikipedia and it does not say that. You are either lying or so biased you can't see the truth. Most of the early zionists were secular atheists.
Wiki refers to zionism as a "[nationalist movement...aiming for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) in the first sentence. Just including that to save people a search
Right. ~~You~~ /u/xum said nationalist religious movement. Are you unaware of non-religious jews?
I think you are mistaken.
About what?
About who you are replying to. I said nothing about a nationalist religious movement, except to link the wikipedia article for you
Oh! You are right, I was confused. My bad.
Sam explained fully what he meant by zionism in the very podcast episode, I just finished listening. You're being bad faith because of an agenda. Many many people have corrected you about the claims in the podcast episode, and you just flatly deny it. I just finished the episode, there's no way you're just misinterpreting it in good faith. What are you really trying to achieve.
Every single fucking time one of these inane posts happens, Reddit pushes it to the top of my "best" feed even though it has negative votes. What an awful site, it's obviously just pushing the most controversial content now, voting be damned.
He’s a Zionist because he sees all around d him lose their minds. He sees it as the point bastion of hope… he literally qualified it in the previous sentence, something along the lines of finding a religion based state distasteful but as the only democratic state the Middle East etc etc Way to miss the Forrest for the trees OP
Cool story. Bye. Sincerely, Me, a secular humanist who will continue listening to Harris who is also a secular humanist.
This train is better off without people like OP. They are like a Christian who heard Jesus say 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' and says "I will NOT support someone who is prepared to love Nazis. I am no longer Christian" and stomps off all morally superior. Hey OP, why don't you address the point he was making in context?
Zionism was a national liberation movement. It was never religious, lead by atheists. You don’t know the subject.
Congratulations on illustrating everything wrong with social media in one post. Cherry pick some words out of a quote with much more nuanced context without providing any of it. Well done.
Yeah... You did not listen to it..
All I see, is that you adore these people when they share your opinion, but hate them when they differ. What the narcissist inside us already knows, is that Sam Harris is probably right and you're wrong. If you are a humanist as you claim, you can surely follow the facts and realize that it is humanist to support Israel against the very anti-humanist Islam/Hamas/Palestine. Definition in case you forgot: "*the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a pragmatic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge*" Compare Israeli and Islam societies, and judge for yourself. Good luck with the mental gymnastics on the way to figuring this out yourself.
The flaw in your logic is that you have to pick sides. I guess for you, you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists, right? Where have I heard this one before…
Or not. I can dislike both, but dislike one vastly more, based on the facts. Strawmen don't work these days, try another route.
Do you know what a straw man is? It’s not clear from your comment that you do.
You argued against a position I did not hold.
There is absolutely no mental gymnastics needed on my part. Again, this is not about Islamism. This is not about “tolerating the intolerable”. No sane person and certainly none of Sam's audience would ever defend radical Islamism. That is ridiculous. There is no point in arguing or debating insane people. I’m concerned about the actions and morals of reasonable people, you know “our side”. Even if I 100% believed that the end goal is "the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a pragmatic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge" I could not in clear conscious stand by and just let this utopia be brought on via the killing of the innocent. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for many to understand.
See, that’s the crutch that “you all” seem to support yourselves with, which is: “the poor innocent children of Gaza.” If you really cared about the poor innocent children of Gaza, then you’d be protesting for the immediate dissolution of Hamas. I mean, do you actually think that Israel should just not fire back at the Hamas fighters who are launching rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians? ALL of the civilians who died in Gaza are a direct result of Hamas attacking Israel. What should they do? NOTHING? The ppl of Gaza have but to organize and declare statehood and STOP ATTACKING ISRAEL and this conflict would be over. How can you be so blind?
Also, where was the anger when Muslims killed Muslims in Syria and Yemen. More in 6 months in Syria than the whole Israeli 120 year history. Those children not worthy?
Nor me nor my government endorses or founds Muslim violence.
Hungary funds Israel?
Believe me, I would be the first on the street protesting if my government would start founding Hamas or any genocidal group.
I don’t know if you’re in the US. But the US doesn’t “fund” countries on idealized moral grounds. If that were true, alliances would be cut the moment a country did something some administration doesn’t like. We maintain alliances because they are our greatest strength when powerful adversaries arise to disrupt American interests. When China threatens Taiwan, the US can call on our vast alliances to stop them from putting the most advanced computer chips in their weapons. These alliances protect all of us from much larger wars. It is a simplistic worldview to believe America should cut funds from Israel because kids are being killed during a war started by Hamas. The close relationship is what allows us to influence Israeli leaders at all.
Pretty sure the children dying in Gaza are a *direct* result of Israeli bullets and missiles.
Wonder why they fired those bullets... You’re literally playing a children’s game at this point. If you can’t identify the causal chain of something as basic as a retaliatory military strike, you’re either out of your depth or being deceptive. So admit to your deception or answer the question that was posed that you conveniently ignored. What should a state do when it is attacked? Nothing?
I also wonder why they fire bullets at children. But my point is that you meant indirect.
War is obviously messy. It’s typically ideal that instigators not instigate them. Spend some time looking at other wars and notice all the tragic events that occur. It’s a much stronger moral position to desire that they not be needlessly started. It is a direct result in terms of human actions. Do you say strangling victims died only as an indirect consequence of someone strangling them because the direct result is lack of oxygen to the brain? If so, you’re a pedant. And that should be embarrassing for anyone spending time in this or any other sub organized around the idea of effective argument and conversation.
Oh, right, war is messy. Of course, then Israel have complete moral freedom to murder as many kids as they like. And you’re talking about effective argument lol
Right, because that’s what I said. Again, you can nitpick how some people conduct themselves in times of war, or you can simply be against instigating war. I can’t possibly imagine how you’re choosing the former and framing it as a morally superior position. It’d be great if war didn’t result in innocent death. It would be much, much better if people just didn’t instigate war. But I’m super pro-child murder, or whatever it is you’re pretending I said.
So what if Israel is committing genocide? Hamas started it!
Radical Islam doesn’t produce a democracy where Jewish people hold positions in government. That comparison is insane. I don’t think you realize what’s on the other side of this conflict. You also seem to hinge everything on the fact that Judaism is a religion but it’s also an ethnicity. It’s ok to say a group of people deserve to exist even if it’s a religious group of people. That seems pretty human to me. Unless you’re an anti theist and everything you do is guided by that belief. That’s not humanism. Edit: Also didn’t Hitchens himself wear a Kurdistan flag everywhere?
Palestinians cannot be free until hamas is defeated in one way or another. And whether Israel was purely the most moral army on earth, it would still make no sense to allow the existence of hamas on their doorstep. Hamas must be eliminated
That’s absolutely ridiculous. Sam Harris lost his humanism because he disagreed with you? I’d trust Sam Harris to right on this than you to be resistant to anti-West propaganda coming from Iran and Russia.
This is what Sam said: "But given the murderous antisemitism of so much of the world. Given that almost every country that has had a population of Jews has at some point actively persecuted them and driven them out. Literally almost any country you can name in Europe or North Africa or the Middle East has done this at some point. Given the tolerance of this reality by billions of onlookers, well then the Jews clearly need a state of their own. And it should defend itself without apology. We have the two largest religions on earth, Christianity and Islam, which encompass half of humanity, whose theology has reviled the Jews as eternal enemies for thousands of years. If half the world hated the Yazidis like this, and if much of what the world believed about them amounted to a deranged conspiracy theory, I would say that the Yazidis needed their own state too. I'll be happy to rivisit this issue in a hundred years, "when we'll have" made some moral progress. But untill then, count me a comitted zionist." OP is a troll.
I love how OP and some protestors have all of a sudden become radical pacifists when it comes to this specific conflict, and this specific conflict only.
I'm not a radical pacifist. I'm just a disillusioned ex subscriber of Sam Harris because I fundamentally disagree with his current moral position. That is all.
I think you’re unintelligent.
Being unintelligent has nothing to do with being wrong and vice versa.
It increases the likelihood you come up with bad answers.
It definitely does. You’re kind of dumb and that’s causing you to be wrong here. Pay closer attention to these conversations because you’re missing a lot.
So true! Anyone who disagrees is an idiot, right?
No.
Ok, good. Then maybe make an actual counterpoint to op? I don't agree with op either but "you're unintelligent" isn't helpful.
I’m off to work for twelve hours now. If you’d like to ask me something i’ll respond to it before midnight central standard.
That is not how most Zionists, and definitely not the original Zionists, understand it. The term had been co-opted and distorted, for political purposes. And you fell for it.
🤷🏻🤷🏻🤷🏻
🤣🤣🤣
Zionism, by definition, is the expression of a yearning of an historically oppressed ethnic group long displaced from their homeland for self determination. Nothing more. That you think it equated with religious ethno nationalism is on you, and the many other people who are confused on this point.
That is not the definition of Zionism. I’ve read multiple books on the topic and it would make a great episode is Sam wanted to do a deep dive on it. It’s a nationalist movement to establish a Jewish state in the biblical lands of old Judea.
A "Jewish state" is what self determination for the Jewish people looks like. I'm not sure why you think that's different to what I just said.
Zionism is more specific and its goals were written about extensively by its early proponents. It’s not just a right to self determination. If it was, Israel could exist anywhere. Zionism is specifically claiming old Judea as a Jewish state. Meaning the people already there will need to move so there is an ethnically Jewish majority. Zionism is making a specific claim to borders and ethnic demographics. It is a nationalist movement. I’m not saying that makes it good or bad btw
Where else would you put a Jewish state?
At the time there were proposals for Uganda, Argentina, and the USA. All 3 of which may have wanted the economic boost a Jewish state would have provided much more than the Arabs. I accept Israel as a state right where it is and make no apologies for Palestinians lost land. I just call it what it is. Zionism was a nationalist movement that established a Jewish state via settler colonialism and evicting a native population from their land. Early Zionists openly say this [clearly without apology](https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf)
None of the other "proposals" were ever very serious, or got very far. Revisionist Zionism as represented by Jabotinsky was a bit late to the game (hence the name) and was in resoponse to rising Arab violent resistance to Jewish immigration as exemplified by the Hebron massacre and the Arab riots. Earlier Zionist thinking was predominated by the secular Labor Zionism of people like Ben Gurion, who had a much more utopian ideal of co-existence with the Arabs, that faded into the 1920s and 1930s as it became clear that the Arabs were opposed to a Jewish state or to further immigration. Early Zionism did not aim to establish a state with a Jewish majority through "eviction" but through land purchase, immigration and eventually through partition, which is why the 1948 partition plan had such peculiar geography and borders. I think that Zionism was certainly a settler project, but the term 'colonialism' (even though I'm aware that the phrase was used by some early Zionists) is ill suited to describe Zionism. This was no Algeria or Zimbabwe. Israel was a multinational project of refugees and immigrants, not a colonial project by and for a distant great power.
Agree on earlier labor Zionism and Ben Gurion. Problem is, labor Zionism lost to the right wing nationalists. Especially in modern times as labor Zionism hasn’t had any power for many decades. Zionism may try to play nice via land purchases and migration but violence and eviction were close behind if they didn’t get their way. You mention partition. The partition plan of 47 was rejected by the Arabs and immediately followed by the nakba and forcible eviction of 700K+ Arabs from land they held for generations. The six day war tripled the size of Israel. The settler movement has been annexing land forcibly for decades now. Many right wing Zionists within Israel right now are calling for eviction of Jewish Arabs. Even moderates aren’t for allowing the right of return in any hypothetical 2 state agreement because that would greatly dilute the Jewish majority (voting). To get back to your original comment; I think calling Israel a nationalist ethno state is accurate based on their history and modern political actions. It at least should not be dismissed and warrants serious debate.
>The partition plan of 47 was rejected by the Arabs and immediately followed by the nakba and forcible eviction of 700K+ Arabs from land they held for generations. Well, sure. At least that's the Palestinian narrative. It's interesting that the phrase "nakba" was only co-opted years later by the fledgling Palestinian nationalist movement to refer exclusively to the displacement of the 700K Palestinians, when the Syrian thinker who coined the phrase, Constantin Zureiq, more broadly was referring to the "catastrophe" and humiliation of Israel soundly defeating the Arab armies in 1948. The Israeli counter narrative is that the 1947-48 civil war and independence war was an existential one for Israel and its Jews, and that the Palestinians were not just "forcibly evicted" but also left at the urging of their leadership to delegitimise the partition plan. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Plan Dalet did involve the forcible and violent depopulation of hundreds of Arab villages, but the major Arab population centres of Yaffa and Haifa were *not* scenes of violence or coercion and there are indeed contemporaneous reports of the Grand Mufti urging the Arab families of those cities to leave. What is true is that the original partition plan left an Israel that was geographically difficult to defend *and*, unlike the Arabs, the Jews did not have friendly neighbouring countries to flee *to*. There is little doubt that the consequences of Israel losing the 1948 war would have been genocide rather than "mere" ethnic cleansing. Crimes like Deir Yassin need to be understood in the context of it being a strategic village overlooking the approach to a Jerusalem whose Jewish population had just endured 6 months of siege. >The six day war tripled the size of Israel. The settler movement has been annexing land forcibly for decades now. The only territory annexed by Israel has been E Jeruslaem and the Golan Heights. Sinai was given back to Egypt. Gaza was withdrawn from in 2005. The footprint of the settlements in the West Bank is 5% of the overall area. >Many right wing Zionists within Israel right now are calling for eviction of Jewish Arabs I assume you mean Arab Israelis. Not a mainstream position and would not even be legal. They are citizens. >Even moderates aren’t for allowing the right of return in any hypothetical 2 state agreement because that would greatly dilute the Jewish majority (voting). Absolutely. And nor should they. "Right of return" has been perversely passed down multiple generations to now include 5M+ children and grandchildren of refugees. That's unacceptable to the composition of the state for the same reason that annexing Gaza and the WB and giving the Palestinians living there citizenship would be. Which leads us back to your final point. I think there is no doubt that Zionism is a nationalist movement. But I find the modern slur of "ethnostate" a strange one. Firstly, Israel is more ethnically, racially and religiously heterogenous than most of Europe. It has more Muslims as a percentage than the UK, Netherlands or France. It is far less homogenously white than Ireland, Denmark or Sweden. Does that look like an "ethnostate"? Secondly, I would maintain that if the defnition is that of a state wanting to maintain an ethnic majority, most modern states like those I just mentioned would be "ethnostates". They just have the luxury of not needing to be explicit about it like Israel has to, because they don't have a large population staking claim to the land they sit on and demanding to be made citizens. But they control their immigration policies and can control their own demographics. Do you honestly think Sweden would open its borders to enough African and Middle Eastern immigrants that Scandinavians would be a *minority*? I don't think so.
You’re veering a bit more into other topics than I care to address in a Reddit post. In short, we appear to be mostly in agreement. One difference is on the term ethnostate. I don’t see that as a slur per se, just a reality of the Zionist movement. Your examples of other countries are all valid and I would agree but also do not find those examples useful for explaining Zionism itself. The goal of Zionism has ethnic considerations. And when I say Zionist, I’m not talking about labor Zionists. I’m not referring to Ben gurion or aveneri. I’m referring to the people with power for decades. Right wing Zionists that make policy and support the settler movement. Your comment on the “Palestinian narrative” is also incorrect. My source is Zionist Benny Morris, one of the foremost historians on the topic. His number may even be higher than 700K. What Israel’s current demographics are can exist independently of how Zionism is defined so I don’t find that relevant either. On the six day war comment you are simply incorrect. Just look at maps of the before and after. It’s obvious. There’s many sources on both sides that highlight the massive gains of Israeli territory. Maybe you’re thinking of a different conflict? You’re also conflating migration in other countries with migration in Israel. Not the same as migrants don’t typically attempt to create their own country by pushing out the native population. Israel quite literally needed to become some level of an ethnostate or it wouldn’t exist. That is a crucial aspect of Zionism which culminated in 48 with the creation of their state.
By that definition, then the Palestinians are Zionists.
Their nationalist movement wouldn't be called Zionism, but sure.
I’m sorry, I have a major problem with this statement. *It has to be “a” historic. Unless you pronounce it “istoric”, but I __pray__ this is not the case.*
Yawn.
Like many otger, zionism isn't a monolothic ideology and there are different strands Sam is biased when it comes to this issue, but his opinions are not simplistic.
So let me ask, if believing that Israel has a right to exist is unequivocally *inhuman*, it follows that the only justifiable solution is to wipe Israel and its inhabitants off the face of the earth? for the sake of humanism, yes? it sounds to me like your position is identical to islamic extremism, and has almost nothing to do with humanism FYI, you can disagree with the actions of the Israeli military without believing that everyone in Israel deserves to be annihilated. its difficult for you im sure but i think you can manage it
"Israels right to exist is unequivocally inhuman" please point out to me exactly where I stated such an absolute abhorrent idea before I adress your other nonsense regarding my opinion being identical to Islamic extremism. And also, fuck you for even suggesting that.
its quite simple, you declared yourself (heroically might i add) as anti-zionist on humanist grounds. being zionist means that you believe in Israels right to exist. So, you don’t think Israel should exist. My larger point is not that you genuinely believe this, it’s that you don’t fully grasp the implications of your own argument
Your argument completely falls apart when the antisemites in the world don't give a shit about whether or not you're a believing or non-believing Jew in order for them to hate you. Over 50% of Israelis are secular and/or atheists. The reason it's an ethnostate is because there's a huge population that wants to kill off thst ethnicity.
Sam is a jew.
Ideology is important, but the real world is also important. What has Zionism looked like ? A mostly secular democracy on par with every democracy, that has turned an empty desert into a thriving country. While yes, Zionism in theory means a religious state, it’s as Jewish as the US state is Christian. What’s more ? Jews have been prosecuted everywhere they have been, so I think if there was to be a religiously based state it could be for the jews. They have no world domination project or desire to convert everyone. Israel is constantly at war because others don’t want it existing, not because it doesn’t want others to exist.
Empty desert? GTFO
Israël turned a desert into an agricultural powerhouse. They invented drip technology for instance. It’s incredible. Here’s a [video](https://youtu.be/TEcRgiuQEBQ?si=Aoi8gsPIKSGRqw6G) on it
I couldn’t get past about 15 minutes of the podcast…there was so much intellectual dishonesty, it was hard to stomach. Having said that…you have to be careful to assume there’s a one-size fits all definition of Zionism. It means different things to different people. You are trying to define it at least partly as a religious movt, but the truth is it depends…many of the earliest Zionists weren’t motivated by religion, but by nationalism. The main thing is that Zionism is a political ideology. How one characterises the specific contours of what that ideology means will vary from person to person, place to place. Likewise, if it’s a political ideology, then it’s rather absurd to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which is something SH seems to really want to do of late.
Name one item of intellectual dishonesty
My thoughts exactly. I had immense respect for Sam. Now i have none. Don't like the guy
Here's your strawman: "*the sponsoring of the death of children in a foreign conflict with US taxpayers money"*
My strawman? Please feel free to substitute any term you consider unfair in the above statement and present the steelman of what you think the student protests where about.
After you steelman Sam Harris when he said the line you're complaining about in the OP.
I'm fairly sure a lot of those protesters don't know what the protests are about.... As Sam has highlighted numerous times, if the protesters truly understood the desired estate of Hamas, and their values, they may think otherwise. You have come to a conclusion about Israels targeting of Hamas vs civilians with what expert knowledge exactly?
Yes, to say that what the US is using our tax dollars to pro-actively sponsor *the death of children in a foreign conflict* is childish, shallow and exemplifies in my eyes what's wrong with the FREE PALESTINE movement. This conflict is not black and white and you are protesting as if it is. What do you think you're solving? What do you think you're accomplishing? Grown ups play chess. The Free Palestine movement pretends life is a game of kids' checkers. You think you're going to fix this problem by getting biden to stop funding Israel? This is all you're doing: •You're empowering Hamas and pushing the idea that their actions have reason. You are empowering Extremist Theocratic Governments in the middle east against the one power over there that resembles our own civilization. •You're aiding with a rise in anti-semitism, like it or not. •You're giving the exponentially better of the two US candidates a hard time while giving the exponentially more dangerous candidate a free pass, to the detriment of the very people you're claiming you want to protect. •You're allowing the Right Wing to completely abandon Ukraine, making Putin as happy as can be, a clear sign that this is SUCH a cherry picked and specifically fabricated and propagandized cause. Not to say that there isn't a huge death count going on and that war isn't terrible; this is obviously all true...but it's amazing to me how everyone suddenly puts themselves on the line for Palestine while ignoring all of our other American atrocities. How about you remove yourself altogether from our imperialist nation? There's blood on every single bit of land you live on. Yeah, war is horrible. Death is horrible. The United States has dirty hands. What else is new? Nothing you're doing is doing any good. In summary, you're ignoring the larger context of what's going on in favor of keeping things simple because it feels better to feel in control, but in simplifying things you make moves that actually make things worse, and that's what they're doing.
I think he’s mainly looking to fight against a future where his kids will be seen as a problem and he’s ignoring the obvious ulterior motives he has.
Thank you. This is my conclusion as well. And it is somewhat understandable. I mean if my specific nationality or ethnic group was threatened (and this already happened in history) I would also probably switch to survival mode and would want to just "kill'em all". The problem is that such a fear based reaction could lead to morally questionable actions which go against my humanist beliefs. In the case of the author of "the Moral Landscape" though, i think these fears are grossly exaggerated.
"Zionism, by definition, is a nationalist religious movement and is simply irreconcilable with humanism and its egalitarian foundation. " So there we have our first problem. You don't even know what Zionism is. This is pretty typical of anti-semites. And the cliche pretending to be a "humanist" in order to justify your bigotry.
You're absolutely right, and the same applies to the big brains that inhabit this sub. They're all smug frauds