Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/370/ Dead Ends in Israel & Palestine ft. Alex Gourevitch (Patreon)

Published:
2023-10-20 14:32:42
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Some files exceed the archive size limit and weren't saved: 1 file. Please note these limits are in place to keep this site running long term, without costing a fortune. You can favorite the creator though, certain milestones increase the limit.

Content

On violence and the lack of political resolution.

Regular guest Alex Gourevitch joins us to discuss why the Israel/Palestine conflict is so intractable – and why it draws so much attention. Alex then explains why, lamentably, there is no side worth choosing.

We also delve into various other key points: 

why Hamas was becoming irrelevant and how the 7 October attack was an attempt to combat that; 

why violence is necessary but the Palestinians are in a catch-22; 

how the West is implicated in the violence and callousness on show; 

why the Palestinians are the most oppressed and forgotten people; 

why Hamas is not an anticolonial freedom struggle; and 

what is the right way to compare this to Ukraine.

Links:

No end in sight: Israel’s search for a Gaza strategy, Lawrence Freedman, FT (attached)

The House of Zion, Perry Anderson, NLR

Whither Palestine, David Polansky, Strange Frequencies

Files

Comments

Andrew Mountford

Even if you take the contentious view that there are no sides to take, the governments we live under (UK in my case) DO take a side. Its therefore incumbent on leftists to oppose the imperialism of their own government, MIC and media.

Kenneth Smith

I think part of why the conflict seems to play an outsized role in discourse is because the extreme level of hypocrisy involved and America’s massive involvement with it. But it’s kinda funny to hear the people who come back constantly to Brexit and lockdown complaining about an outsized importance wrt Israel-Palestine lol

Sara Sg

I'll start by saying that I've only managed to listen to the first half so far, and I'm going to listen to the rest as soon as I can gather myself to sit through what felt like self-abuse again, but up to this point, this was probably the most disappointing take I have heard on your show. I have found myself agreeing with a lot of your positions on a lot of key things over time and have promoted your show in various places as unique and brilliant but the angle with which you've decided to enter this debate is far from justified to me. Let's start with your opening question about the outsized attention to the issue. You start with the unchallenged assumption that the immensity of the attention is somehow undue, but this is never questioned, explained or justified. And to then answer your own question you awkwardly seek for deep-seated and unconscious psychological roots, when very big and obvious answers are readily available to this question, that you just easily overlook. I could go on, but I shouldn't. The whole premise of your framing of the issue as a "conflict" between "Israel and Hamas" is problematic. The entire discussion seemed premised on a lot of stuff that are simply pro-israel propaganda being regarded as facts and never challenged. For instance: that Hamas is obviously worse than Israel because Israel is a "liberal democracy" and Hamas is engaged in a religious holy war, where actually Israel is the one that's built on religious extremism and naked apartheid. It seems like you're capable of recognizing religious extremism only when it's attached to Islam. (and why, oh why, do you keep referring to it as the 'jewish state' when it's most definitely the Zionist state not the Jewish state, in the sense of speaking for all Jews). and how on earth can someone call an apartheid and an active occupation a liberal democracy, but not acknowledge that Hamas's entire raison d'etre is the occupation and once that's removed, it is going to be very hard to justify the continued existence of it. To make matters worse, you do not talk about the fact that to the government of the US (and the UK and much of Europe) Israel is in fact a domestic and not foreign policy issue. Even if your argument is that you the left should prioritize domestic issues rather than engaging in a proxy war about something that's going on "over there", Israel is your domestic issue as long as your governments treat as such, spent incredible airtime justifying its war crimes and committing of genocide on live TV and as long as your tax dollars are directly funding this active occupation and ethnic cleansing. So maybe, just maybe, the reason for what you call an outsized attention is the unbearable fact of a genocide being committed very nakedly in one's name and sold to the western population as war on terror on steroids as some kind of a just and holy war against evil. The discrepancy is as jarring as the scale of injustice is. And to reduce the importance of it through whataboutism and comparison with "other conflicts" in other parts of the world as if these two things are on the same plane, is just lazy and dishonest, or at best, deeply uninformed.

Sara Sg

Just imagine if in the 1940s Britain a group of lefties got together to discuss why the "conflict" in India was getting such undue attention from the left over here when there are so many more important issues and other conflicts around the world...

Davka Smolah Collective

"The Jewish Question has been the question through which the West understands itself", and maybe they could stop that please? In case the episode fails to mention, I would like the "East" (Islamic world) to stop that too. Being used as people's prop for their narcissistic morality plays is killing us.

AfroCommie

honestly, my take-away from the analysis presented by Alex G is just more concrete reasons to oppose Israel as a side to be taken by leftists. To quote: 'We can make you feel safe by just the concerted use of force against anything and anything that makes you feel vulnerable' Alex G mentions this in a broad statement present on campuses here in the West. But I think that Israel's has the means to engage and act upon this to a much larger extent than Palestinians (as a whole) do. In fact, it is part and foundation of the Zionist project. I also think that it's unfortunate that there's zero engagement with non-Hamas Palestinian liberation movements. Or is the assumption that all of that is dead and irrelevant? Why do you engage in this flattening? Sure, Hamas' attacks are the result of their irrelevancy in the past years. But what about the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank, what about the PFLP and many other liberatory movements? Are you focusing on Hamas because they are the main perpetrators of violence? But how does Israel's reaction to Hamas' violence shape the politics of those outside of it? These are more representative of the Western's Left's concern with the politics of this situation, I find at least. In my view, the only critique of the Western left is its increased engagement with a decades long situation of oppression precisely because of Israel's retaliation in reaction Hamas, an organization that has aims which any leftist should reject. I end this comment by saying that I'm guilty of the latter myself and in these moments trying or something, to come to terms with it.

Matthew Hollinshead

Am I wrong, or is the first section (up to about 36:00) entirely speculative psychologising? I don’t think I’ve heard anything so far about the material conditions of the conflict and why that might explain its ongoing political centrality or the role of political organisation. So, no materialism at all so far? Alex H rightly said that people who argue this is the most critical global conflict must make the case or at least prove it's more important than the z y z conflict, but indeed, by the same token, you have to make the case that it's outsized, too. It felt like all four in the discussion pointed to other conflicts that might have equal *moral* rights to scrutiny or were equally vicious and intractable. Still, they didn’t bother investigating non-moral/psychological explanations for the popular focus on I/P. It’s not hard to see potential avenues for people in the West to have real material interests - albeit indirect in many cases - in Israel’s political conflicts. Explaining why people may have a rational interest in I/P. The above is only possible if you don’t begin from the conclusion that a) “Isreal the Palestine conflict takes an outsized role” and b) “The question of why it has such a large role is a moral one.” Sadly, the discussion began by presupposing both points rather than proving or arguing them. This was, I think, a problem of Phil’s framing, but Alex G also provided no insight into explanations that went beyond the minds of a Western leftist. In contrast, Isreal is fully integrated into Western economies (e.g. there is an Israeli-based arms company with its headquarters just a mile from my home in the the hub of Britain’s military-tech sector; I use Israeli software at work, and Western multinationals operate in Israel) and Western states and civil services often work alongside Isreals to develop new services or practices in both directions and ensure close relations in terms of tax, trade etc. in fact the USA is pursuing Vesa-free movement between Isreal and the US (scuppered by Israeli opposition to visa-free access from Palestinian-Americans, according to US Ambassador to Isreal) If we are part of imbricated economies, so are Israeli and Western civil societies - many organisations are tightly linked in many ways - none of which is so for Sudan to use Phil’s strange parallel. If Israel is part of our objective political, economic and social lives, why would our relations to its conflicts not warrant political and economic explanations rather than cod psychology?

Ran Heilbrunn

Very refreshing to hear a discussion on the topic that actually tries to produce some insights. As 99% of leftwing media use the occasion to once again rehash 1970s anti-imperialism language, your podcast really shines through. I wanted to make two points, apologies for the lengthiness. With respect to the exaggerated attention question, I agree with Alex H’s explanation, but I’d change it somewhat. After the cultural turn of the late 20th century, the left found itself in a difficult situation. First, the issues it now embraced were not as serious and profound as the transformation of society's economic structure (thus in the class vs. identity debates of the 1990s, Judith Butler and her ilk try to convince the Marxists that gender can actually be the object of serious politics). Second, these struggles did not evoke the same level of political urgency and commitment, since society was already progressing in terms of racial, sexual, and gender equality. Against this backdrop, ironically, the cultural left developed a thirst for non-cultural leftism. Israel-Palestine provides exactly that. Unlike identity topics, the situation in Israel-Palestine actually deteriorates. Here, the left doesn't need to fabricate oppressive authority structures to position itself against in an attempt to stay relevant, e.g., white supremacy or the patriarchy. In that sense, it’s not zombie politics, it’s the last real grievance that the cultural left can attach itself to after its betrayal of the working class. With respect to Alex G’s critique of denunciations of violence, it seems to me that he is committing a mistake that Hannah Arendt described as “deducing the unprecedented from precedents,” a strategy whose purpose is “denying the outrageous.” In this entire section of the interview, Alex G describes the moralistic “border police” as a permanent feature of the debate on Israel-Palestine. Now, maybe it is, but the overemphasis on discursive continuities obscures the fact that something radically new just occurred on the ground. The October 7th attack is entirely unprecedented, a total watershed moment in post-Holocaust Jewish history, as Eva Illouz explained recently in Le Monde. Because violence on this scale against Israeli citizens is unprecedented, the left’s refusal to condemn it is also unprecedented. I’m not saying it’s surprising, only that it never happened before. When Alex G grounds the left’s moral apathy in complaints about annoying patterns of public discourse or in a generalized position regarding the legitimacy of anti-colonial violence, he disguises moral immaturity as intellectual consistency. He is denying the outrageous. To me, there is an irreducible gap between political arguments and historical analyses, however compelling, and indifference toward human suffering on such an extreme scale. I think we should be more honest about this. People on the left did not excuse, justify, or affirm atrocities as a reaction to moralistic blackmail. They did that because they are intellectually rigid, politically reckless, and morally numb. And George, with respect to the three Hs, that’s easy: Hitler, Henry, Herzl.

C

What exactly are either Norman Finkelstein or Tariq Ali wrong about? I’m just not clear on this argument…

Jack F

As picked up on in some of the other comments, Alex G's main claim, that ‘there is no side worth supporting’ in the conflict, from which the rest of his theses unfurl, rests on the totally unsupported and quite absurd idea that there are only two potential sides to take in the issue: Hamas or the State of Israel (as opposed to Israel as an internally diverse polity). In contrast, in my experience and observation, most leftists in the west who are engaged in campaigns/action in support of Palestine tend to take the position that the Israeli state needs to end its brutal system of oppression so that Palestinians are able to self determine. This position is long-established and precedes Hamas's founding and later political dominance in Gaza. Hamas is typically viewed as the unfortunate, though understandable (and perhaps inevitable), product of decades of repression and de-development at the hands of Israeli state. To acknowledge this is not to ‘side with' Hamas. In effect, then, Alex G’s argument rests on a very childish binary that few leftists, in my experience and observation at least, buy into or promote. So who is this argument actually directed at? If it’s leftists in the West then it is a largely irrelevant argument, because only a small minority stupidly boil the issue down to that of taking sides between Israel and Hamas. This makes the whole convo read like another case of the Bunga boys setting up a straw-man left to critique in an attempt to be edgy. The increasing tendency to do this is making Bungacast increasingly less interesting.

Lee Jones

Thank you for this episode, which was a desperately needed political analysis of the conflict in contrast to the predominant brain-dead moralising of right and left. It cements my view of Alex Gourevitch as one of the sharpest thinkers of his generation. A couple of thoughts on the worthwhile question of why there is disproportionate attention to Israel/ Palestine that I think you missed. First, there is Western complicity. The UK is complicit from the Balfour Declaration onwards, and the US props up Israel to the tune of billions of dollars annually. That distinguishes it from a lot of other horrible conflicts that are more remote. Second, path dependency: from the 1970s (when Palestine was seen as being at the forefront of third world national liberation struggles) there have been large Palestinian solidarity movements in the West. That legacy matters. Third, Israeli Jews are held to a higher standard than are ethnocratic forces in other states. This is surely a Holocaust legacy. Morally, most people feel Jews should remember how they were treated and not treat others horribly (ironically Zionists use the same argument to justify violent treatment of Palestinians). Call it displaced guilt if you want, but it seems Israeli Jews are held to a higher standard than, say, the Bamar rulers of Burma. I disagreed with almost nothing Alex G said, except his comments about what a valid national liberation struggle would look like. He seemed to say that, since a two-state solution is unthinkable, a dead end, only actions aimed at a one-state solution would be commendable. That seems to me a dangerous line of thinking: we judge a political action's validity purely by its likely efficacy. Surely there are many unlikely or even doomed struggles that we would still want to consider legitimate; equally, who are we to tell Palestinians that they are not allowed to struggle for their own state just because the circumstances aren't propitious? Moreover, the circumstances are hardly propitious for a one-state solution, given strong Israeli Jewish commitment to ethnocracy, and where does that leave the Palestinians? It seems like an extension of the moralistic condemnation of violence which, in a context where all other routes are closed off, leaves Palestinians with no valid way to behave except to accept their fate. Surely not what Alex G intended. It is more consistent with his latter parallel on Palestine/ Ukraine - that it is for the nation in question to decide on how violence is used in its own liberation struggle - to say that this is fundamentally a question for Palestine. Certainly they should consider questions of efficacy, likelihood of success, appropriate strategy, etc. But if outsiders condition their normative support on empirical probability of success, that gives the upper hand to the powerful who can close off the avenues to success.

S P

Phil is insufferable in this interview - he frequently is, but this is insufferable on steroids. There is very little substantive engagement with the guest or even his own fellow panelists. He Has That Half Thing to Say and Darnit He Is Going To Say It Whatever It Is That You Are Talking About. Obviously facile questions about Israel being a liberal democracy (that are easily and correctly countered by Alex) give it the unfortunate ring of a Piers Morgan interview, where the tactic is to pose an obviously facile question with a faulty premise, just to see how the guest responds - and if they submit to your premise and answer, you have made your point. Ungenerous and unbecoming. And Alex Hochuli's counterpoint to him about the real European philosemitism is just dismissed with some quip about the point he already made in the context of the Baader-Meinhof Complex episode (never mind that RAF was in the 70s and Germany was not exactly known for their Erinnerungskultur just yet, or that the movie is already 15 years old). It is almost like nothing has happened since, that the almost obsessively philosemitic behavior of Ursula von der Leyen and aggressive policing in Berlin of protests by Palestinian supporters do not exist (imagine that happening to a pro-Israel protest?) May be there was a time when the German left was expressing severe disapproval of Israeli or Serbian atrocities as a way to expiate their past, but if you have lived through the past 15-20 years (post Iraq, post Arab-spring, post 2015-immigration, post AfD being a real threat) and observed anything, you have to be wilfully ignorant to miss that displacement of WWII guilt doesn't just work by leveling excessive criticisms at Israel. It also works by performatively cracking down on anti-zionist or pro-Palestinian protests and this is the current form it is taking. But if you are Phil, you can stop at 1970s Germany or 1990s Balkans because you are keen on making half-arguments. This interview is happening now for a reason - but you would not know that by listening to Phil.

Maria

The idea that Hamas should have focused on military and police targets, rather than settlers and ravers partying on the border of Gaza (which Gourevich rightly identifies as an “open air prison”) seems an odd retort, to say the least. If Hamas had followed that path, no one, as always, would have cared. The world would not have stopped in its daily whirl-a-gig of attention to this, then that, then this. Moreover, this “break out” was not a strategic military maneuver- there are no strategic military maneuvers for Hamas or the Palestinians against the far more powerful and weaponized Israel. Spectacle violence, as an act of desperation, is not a novel approach of a less-powerful people completely out-gunned, out-manned, and out-monied. There would have been no global gasp, nor would Bunga cast have taken up this subject with such urgency, if Hamas had done that. On the idea of blame, the position that there is no side to take seems an over-abstraction to say the least. Moreover, the constant evocation of Hamas’ evilness and terroristic qualities really distracts from larger question of the repressive occupation of millions of humans. Maybe Hamas is a political dead end, but that doesn’t address the core question of what to do about the occupation and the cycles of violence in Palestine/Israel. Because the US and Western Europe are too historically and economically committed to supporting Israel, there really is no way out. There is no way to think oneself to a better outcome. Bungacast’s mental gymnastics, in regard to avoiding sides, and all that nonsense, seems to be proof of this dead end. Maybe there are bigger geo-political things to read here, beyond a critique of knee-jerk leftist identity politics. In the podcast’s microscopic fixation on sides in this moment in the conflict, the usual attention to macro analysis has gone missing.

C

Why is it not the case that, as I see it, the merely ethical as opposed to political solidarity with Palestinians does indeed contain an inherently political dimension in America: we cannot have “nice things” like healthcare a welfare state etc while also funding full spectrum military domination of the globe, with Israel being a crucial imperial outpost. Would it not be a properly political program for the American working class to demand the money going Raytheon etc, is this not an interest of the working class for itself? Does this not make it easy to choose the side of both Palestine and the working classes of empire?

James Foley

Sounds like the ground invasion is happening - really hope the lads realise they can still reverse their succession of wild takes on this topic…There is time to make fun of Owen Jones et al at a later date. Now is the time to just admit you called it wrong

Patrick Link

Is the Left more relevant than Israel-Palestine?

Ribo Kader

Amazing that even the Bungacast audience shares the most retarded and at the same time most undisputedly shared consensus of the anglosaxon left, which is that a literally fascist militia with the declared goal and every day praxis of murdering jews somehow deserves our understanding and even sympathy whereas the jewish state is fundamentally illegitimate.