Green Perspectives on the Invasion of Israel
A Review of Podcasts of Various Left-leaning Viewpoints
In the political compass test, I show up as a Green. I believe each of us, if we’re making critiques, gains credibility if we first acknowledge shortcomings of ourselves and our own tribe. I am primarily interested in this post to write to Greens about Greens.
Allsides Versus Bothsiderism
Allsides writes on How to Avoid Manipulation When Reading Coverage of Hamas Attacks on Israel. Allsides seems a good source for balancing information sources. The term bothsiderism seems to be a disparagement of a stance of not wanting to take a stance, with connotations of a neutral wimpiness based on wanting to avoid being a target of either side. Having been a court-rostered mediator for 5 years, I respect the stance of neutrality. I don’t believe it’s helpful to demand, “You’re either for us or against us.” I also respect the equal opportunity insulter. Why not try to counter one’s biases by looking at a variety of perspectives?
This writing is not intended to support either side’s military tactics. Hamas was brutal and does not pretend to respect international law. Israeli fighters have violated international law, according to the Israel-Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. This writing is not intended to support either side more than the other as a culture or religion. Personally, I know and respect both Muslims and Jews. I have a friend Maryam who is Muslim and one of the most charitable persons I know. She yearly heads efforts to serve the homeless in a major U.S. city, by organizing blanket drives in the winter and hand-delivering cookies in tent cities for Valentine’s Day. She is also a public works engineer and a college professor. I note this to point out that, while it’s evident that some branches of Islam promote Jihad, I have personally experienced that there are also branches that are not militant. I also have friends of Jewish background who I greatly respect and who selflessly serve the larger communities where they live.
Two Underdog Stances
My main point is to promote one of two underdog perspectives: the stance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. over the stance of Malcolm X. Dr. King promoted a stance of building on common values to appeal to the better nature of the offender, rather than preaching of the White devil, a stance linked to the current issue by the fact of Malcolm X embracing the Islamic faith.
I ask fellow Greens to consider which of these two perspectives is more likely to lead toward peace, a value held strongly by some Greens but not others. If peace seems unreachable, which approach might at least minimize bloodshed and suffering, most importantly over the long term? Is it more important to understand the current situation and discuss a way forward, or to blame and catalog grievances of the past with a one-sided story that serves to continue a blood feud?
Why U.S. Protestors’ Simplistic Story Doesn’t Fit
The following is from an interview with Israeli journalist and writer Aviv Reek Gore.
We're a kind of syncretism of the West. We have the gay Pride parade in Tel Aviv. It’s just the biggest annual party of Tel Aviv. Everybody loves it and everybody thinks it should be there. Jerusalem is a much more conservative town and it's a much more fraught question. And in a sense, the gay pride parade in Jerusalem is a statement, and it's a statement because in Jerusalem there are large conservative Jewish and conservative Muslim communities that disagree with it. In Tel Aviv, everyone agrees. And so it's no longer a statement, it's just a street party. Both of those are Israel and they're about 45 minute drive from each other, and we all live in all these worlds all at once. And so we are absolutely liberal westerners. (16:03)
The anti-imperialist impulse, the anti, you know, the powerful versus the powerless, all of these constructs that they borrow from Marxist thinking, and…the Frankfurt school and all of that. And then they apply it willy nilly to everything.…If all you have is a hammer, everything's a nail.…Everything is power structure that they think they understand from other places. And so they look at the Muslim world and if they decide that you are the powerless or brown versus white, that's how the Americans frame it.
Certainly because America has this racial divide that Israelis don't entirely understand. We are capable of every human vice and marginalizing minorities and everything, but it just doesn't follow race in that way. So to us it's a little bit weird to call Yemeni Jews white for the purposes of your politics. But nevertheless, these very simplistic moral cartoons in American progressive minds are applied to us. It's something that, you know, used to talk about a male gaze. There's a liberal gaze and there's a progressive gaze. (36:08)
They use us to tell themselves stories about their own anxieties and then they accuse us of not playing the proper role in their own moral cartoon. I happen to think Israel does quite a few things wrong. In Hebrew I'm constantly berating Israelis about everything we're doing wrong. I just don't think that what is seen from the outside is serious because it's mostly ways that we run against the grain of their morality and their moral emotions. And it has nothing to do with the realities that actually live here on the ground. One of the things that surprise almost every observer of October 7th….
These are very layered identities. If you're a Palestinian Arab Israeli, you live in a very complicated network of webs of identities. Their identification with Israel is higher than it has ever been. There are dozens of stories of Arab Israelis rescue Jews, of Arab Israelis helping out soldiers, cooking for soldiers as they go to the front, begging to see Hamas destroyed some of them, because they want a Palestinian future of freedom and independence, and are deeply critical of Israel. And nothing moves until Hamas is uncorked from the Palestinian Israeli conflict. And so all of these things are all happening at once. And if you look at me from your little narrow moral cartoon on the Columbia campus, you miss all the human story. (38:10)
Placement of Two Podcasts on the Political Compass
In the following sections are quotes from two podcast episodes about the recent invasion of Israel, both from the progressive left, one with more of a retributive stance and the other more nuanced. Both are by millennial generation hosts. These two seem rated as having about the same amount of bias overall. This is shown by the charts that follow, created by an app published by ad fontes Media, which allows input of what the reader is interested to view. The first chart below shows the spectrum of left-biased media sources.
Source: Interactive Media Bias Chart (showing left side of chart)
The next graph shows most of the news outlets above as dots. This graph below shows the location in the graph of the two podcasts/producers that will be quoted at length below. Truthout is displayed as a title in text to the right of the Pod Save America icon. The Movement Memos podcast is produced by Truthout. Pod Save America is produced by Crooked Media. Both Movement Memos and Crooked Media were not an available option for the graph display, so we are left with the not-quite-equivalent presentation of a podcast name and a podcast producer name.
Source: Interactive Media Bias Chart (showing left side of chart). One can enter media sources into search fields, and they will show on the graph.
At the links provided below, the transcript text can be verified by a word search (control-F or command-F).
Pod Save America Podcast
The first is is from hosts that would not describe themselves as from a green quadrant perspective, but they fit in many ways with the strident left counterculture, as indicated in the graphs above. Wikipedia refers to this podcast as progressive. The New York Times states, “Pod Save America is an authentic partisan response to the perceived failings of the mainstream media,” indicating it is dissatisfied with the establishment media institutions. Yet, as former Obama aides, the two hosts seem to represent somewhat Pew’s political grouping termed establishment left.
The podcast notes from the episode that aired October 10, 2023 begin with the following, by hosts John Favre and Jon Lovett:
Israel is engaged in a full scale siege of the Gaza Strip after Hamas launched a surprise attack on Saturday that led to what one Israeli military leader called the worst day in Israeli history…. hostages are being held in Gaza, including elderly Israelis, women, children, and babies. At least 400 Palestinians have also been killed and thousands more have been injured so far.
The following are quotes from various segments of the podcast.
We know that short-term political incentives often are more about feelings of revenge than fixing the underlying problems….That feeling is understandable, but I worry it's gonna lead to these hostages dying. I think it's gonna lead to a humanitarian catastrophe….no electricity, food, water, or fuel would be allowed in….The Gaza Strip is home to 2 million people….Half the population is kids. There's nowhere to go….The water's undrinkable. Unemployment is at like 50%. So there's no way for Israel to conduct a military campaign in Gaza that is targeted at just Hamas. Hamas lives in and among the people by design, this will be urban combat….
The Biden team. I mean, I think they’re right to support Israel in this horrific moment for the country. But I also hope that behind the scenes Biden is pushing Netanyahu to urge some restraint to try to limit civilian casualties. And then long term we have to get back to a process to fix the underlying political problems.
….The intractability and the way in which the evil and darkness of what's unfolding puts even further away any possibility of a positive political solution. I think that that leads people to not say what a solution might be….There can be no end as long as there is no hope for people who live in Palestine. And the, the thing I found really sort of depraved in watching it unfold is in the absence of any space for any kind of positive dialogue or any way to talk about what a solution might be. You see right wingers going right to attacking of the Biden administration and misinformation and propaganda. You see a ton of just virulent antisemitism. And then at the same time, I think on, in some corners of the left, you see a more subtle version of anti-Semitism in which there is a leap made from legitimate fair deserved criticism of Israel's abuses and cruelty in Gaza to the belief that in order to demonstrate your understanding of that, it is somehow wrong to acknowledge or even look at the horrors and evil that Hamas is inflicting.
And there is an instinct that I think is really toxic, which is to believe you can provide context to the murder of children and elderly people and innocent civilians.…as if compassion towards those people is some kind of a limited resource….
And it's not just because it is evil….This will lead to more horrible abuses and more cruelty and more, more violence in Gaza. And so just being willing to step back and just say, this is a moral abomination, full stop.…because Hamas is responsible for what happened Saturday. Like it was a terrorist attack. There's no defense for massacring….but we have to try to understand how the average Palestinian feels, how little hope they have, and how that context under occupation can fuel an armed resistance. It can fuel terrorist groups like Hamas and that we need some sort of political track for a two-state solution to solve the underlying problems. There's no military response that's gonna fix this.
I think Bibi's promise right, has been that his right-wing government can keep Israelis safe through force and through the repression of Palestinians. And it couldn't….And now it's up to the Israeli government to respond in a way that is just and proportionate, lawful that doesn't put more Israeli lives in danger as well as killing Palestinian civilians….
Netanyahu….he said, it's impossible to reach an agreement with them. Everyone knows this, but we control the height of the flames.
The hosts then discuss the following topics:
· Iran providing financial support, training, and weapons to Hamas.
· Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the IRGC was not the deterrent they claimed it would be.
· Images of chaos, wars, conflict, economic instability, migration, increase the appeal of a “strong man” government.
Toward the end is the following quote:
Short term the politics of being tough and killing people and that's really easy. But like ending conflicts requires diplomacy, talking to enemies, making concessions, and our politics just provides no space for that.
Movement Memos Podcast
There are some episodes of the Movement Memos podcast that I’ve found insightful. This wasn’t one of them. I believe the perpetual grievance mentality is detrimental. It’s been notable for some time that the group most closely matching Pew’s progressive left seems to more often emphasize a victim stance. I believe this is most often harmful to those who take on that stance as an identity. It can prevent one from seeing oppression as a situation to move on from, to overcome in ways that do not include becoming oppressors in turn. Recognizing when one isn’t responsible for a received wrong is important. Yet dwelling on the idea of ones oppressed state is almost never empowering in a way that motivates constructive planning or action. It also alienates potential allies and prevents real solutions from emerging. If the oppressed believe they or their group has zero responsibility for their condition, a corollary is usually that they have no power to change a situation, except lashing out in an attempt at a vengeance that confirms the opponent’s view of their dangerous and narrow perspective. The following narrative strikes me as an illogical conspiracy theory, completely one-sided, and unhelpful to peace building.
The podcast notes from October 12, 2023 begin with the following:
The danger now is not just in Palestine for Palestinians. It’s gone well beyond that now. It’s exported, the idea that you can export occupation, you can export the tools of occupation, the tools of apartheid.…Israel has used Palestine as a laboratory for surveillance and war-making technologies.…promoting an ethno-nationalist and authoritarian worldview, and making despotism “shareable with compact technology.”
The podcast begins with host Kelly Hayes :
Today, we are talking about Israel’s military-techno complex, and how the country has used Palestine as a laboratory for its tools of occupation, and exported its oppressive technologies around the world.
The following is the only mention in the entire podcast episode about the suffering of Israelis. The quote is by the first interviewee, Ahmad Abuznaid:
What we’ve seen over the last few days is, first of all, tragic. Anytime that human lives are lost, particularly innocent lives, it’s a tragedy. But I think that those of us who value human lives and dignity and justice for all have to look at the root cause of this violence. And we know, time and time again, that violence begets violence. And the only true solution here is to end the occupation, end the apartheid system, finally give the Palestinian people their right to return and self-determination.
This author goes on to discuss the following topics:
· Extreme poverty and unemployment persist in Gaza.
· Half of Gaza’s population are children.
· Gaza is cut off from medical supplies, schools, dreams.
The podcast host says, “my heart is with the Palestinian people right now…”
Interviewee Ahmad Abuznaid stated the following:
I’m the executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. Every so often, maybe every year or two, the Israeli army….they start bombing, and shelling, and destroying, and dismantling entire neighborhoods, entire families, entire residential buildings, and media buildings, and hospitals. And hundreds of Palestinians have been murdered. And this has happened routinely.
Interviewee Antony Loewenstein discusses topics from his book, The Palestine Laboratory:
· Netanyahu exploiting fears of “terrorism”
· Netanyahu attempting to leverage concerns about mass migration, which is fueled by climate chaos and the violence of war and capitalism
· Israel’s tools and technologies used to repress Palestinians are tested on Palestinians then exported to repressive regimes
· Israel is admired by Richard Spencer as the ideal example of an ethno-nationalist estate
In this episode of Movement Memos, are these useful points for figuring out how to move forward toward peace, or are they simply familiar talking points in a culture war perpetuating itself? To me, a bona-fide Green in the Pew type outsider left, their perspective comes across as completely unwilling to admit any culpability of Hamas for the suffering of Gazans. Condoleezza Rice stated, “anyone who wants to say that Israel has not tried to help Palestinians toward a different life in Gaza is simply historically wrong” (16:58)….“There is so much to the story about the effort that Israeli leaders have made to make it possible for a Palestinian state, and that some decent Palestinian leaders have made” (21:22).
Ralf Nader Podcast
Ralf Nader Radio Hour largely agrees with the one-sided Movement Memos perspective, but has more credibility by bringing in seasoned diplomats to discuss details in these three episodes. If these links have paywalls, you can look up their titles elsewhere to listen in the channels you favor.
Ambassador Chas Freeman…brings his vast diplomatic experience and historical insight to bear on the ongoing collective punishment raining down on the people of Gaza. Discussion of the conflict by a U.S. diplomat comes in the second part. The title comes from a discussion of polls that indicate cross-party agreement on various U.S. economic issues.
Justifying the Unjustifiable with human rights activist Miko Peled.
Podcasts on the Left That Attempt Balanced Views
Ezra Klein has devoted several episodes to the Israeli and Palestinian Conflict (10 at least, as I update this post). Of Jewish descent himself, it speaks well that he brings in the following pro-Palestinian speakers for entire episodes. He would not represent a Green perspective, but in my view is representative of Pew’s description of the group Pew labels establishment liberals.
Amjad Iraqi, a senior editor at +972 magazine and a policy analyst at the Al-Shabaka think tank
Zack Beauchamp, a senior correspondent at left-leaning Vox Media, attempts to answer the question, “What should Israel do?”
Other of Ezra Klein’s podcast interviewees emphasize Palestinian leaders’ past refusal to negotiate when offered a two-state solution.
Here are other left perspectives attempting balance:
RFK Jr., formerly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, now running as an independent, condemned the Israeli counterattack. He also hosts several discussions (3 episodes) between a Palestinian peace-builder and an Israeli peace-builder. The last quarter of the podcast discusses a realistic way forward (listen on Apple, Spotify, or Everand).
The Gray Area podcast presents the following: A Jew and a Muslim get honest about Israel and Gaza.
Tara Brach interviews Stephen Fulder, a senior Buddhist teacher and peace activist who has led walks thru Israel by groups comprised of Israelis and Palestinians.
Centrist-ish but Not Attempting Balance
Similarly impassioned perspectives on this conflict come from some who in their lifetimes had felt themselves to be on the political left, recently have been considered centrist by Allsides, namely Bari Weiss and Sam Harris. These are voices I consider worth hearing as they value truth over clickbait, however biased they may be. Bari is horrified by displays of antisemitism on elite U.S. university campuses and, herself of Jewish descent, puzzles over why the counterculture left and right both have segments of Jew-haters. Triggernometry podcast weighs in on this question, interviewing Douglas Murray on where the new anti-semitism comes from (see time mark 1:25:08).
A Proposed Two-state Solution With Historical Precedent
A lasting solution might be the same that British officials came to about ethnic and religious tensions in India, while preparing for India’s independence: a two-state solution with de-integration. A partition that forced a de-integration to create separate nations has been so far a workable long-term resolution. While originally opposed to the idea, the violence before the partition convinced British officials of the need for complete separation of two incompatible nations that "cannot coexist in a harmonious relationship" (sec. Introduction of the two-nation theory). Gandhi opposed the partition that created Pakistan as a separate nation. There was widespread violence on both sides during the partitioning. The history of India shows that such a plan would need to be carried out with intensive assistance of a mediating force, such as a peacekeeping military force by a separate nation.
The idea of a de-integration of the State of Israel, which would involve blocking all entry to and from Gaza, has been proposed by a number of individuals and groups. It is a controversial idea that has been criticized by many, including both Israelis and Palestinians. Critics of the idea argue that it would be unrealistic, unworkable, and unfair. They also argue that it would be harmful to both Israelis and Palestinians, and would not lead to a lasting peace in the region. The idea has had the following proponents, but none have been able to propose a plan that would be acceptable to both sides:
Hamas leaders had at times seemed ready to conditionally accept a two-state solution (sec. Political policy).
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has also called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would involve the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, the PLO has not specifically called for a de-integration of Israel (sec. Peace Process).
Israeli academic and leader of the Israeli peace movement Gush Shalom, Uri Avnery, has argued that a de-integration of Israel would be a more realistic and achievable solution than the two-state solution with integrated populations.
Thomas L. Friedman, a New York Times columnist and the author of From Beirut to Jerusalem, has covered the Middle East for decades and won a Pulitzer for his reporting from Israel. He advocates strongly for a two-state solution.
The Brookings Institution recommends a two-state solution.
Condoleezza Rice stated, “I still think a Palestinian state is the best hope ultimately for security for both peoples, but we’re further away from it today than we've been in a very long time, and that is thanks to Hamas and the massacre of innocent civilians” (17:10).
Bari Weiss, a popular political podcaster of Jewish heritage, formerly at The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, stated, “I have always supported the idea of a two state solution. The idea of Israel occupying another people, it seems to me that it ultimately would corrode the very soul of the Jewish state” (17: 52).
It appears that any two-state solution would require constant Israeli vigilance, without occupation, with a continued strong air defense, and closing of the porous borders of the recent past that allowed daily passage of workers into Israel. It would also prevent Gazans from accessing health care and other services they seek in Israel. As unhappy as this solution would be, this may be the most politically palatable solution. Border closure is the solution that Egypt continues to employ, as they state they cannot absorb the refugees and will not tolerate an influx of Hamas supporters that would continue to plot against Israel, which would make Egypt a target.
The Green Agenda
After attempting to learn from diverse information sources, my conclusion is that Hamas’ victim mentality, focused on revenge, creates Gazan poverty. It is not Israel who creates their poverty. The past decade has been in large part an attempt at a two-state solution. Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni stated in January, 2008, "Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement” (Wikipedia, n.d., sec. Gaza Strip). The “open air prison” accusation is inaccurate. If Hamas had loved or respected Palestinians, it could have created of their prime waterfront properties a mediterranean paradise. Even if walled off by neighbors and lacking Western amenities, people could still live simple pastoral lives in great beauty. If peaceful, it would have eventually become a tourist destination attracting foreign investment, if they chose to allow that. Instead, Hamas used humanitarian aid funds to build tunnels, buy weapons, and perpetuate war. It purposely uses Gazan civilians as a human shield. It created a hell of what could have been a haven.
I implore Greens not to support those promoting a victim and revenge mentality. Siding with Hamas will and does weaken or prevent the Green Party agendas to promote peace, sustainability, and lift the oppressed out of poverty. I reject the branches of green agenda that pursue equity by attempting to tear down or dominate. The end does not justify the means. Their vengeful impulse could lead to an equity of everyone equally miserable, impoverished, and war-torn. Let’s do the hard work of building something better, not the easy cop-out of blaming.