Is It Too Late for Two States?

Debating the reality of a ceasefire.

By
131

Shadi Hamid is a member of the Washington Post editorial board, co-host of Wisdom of Crowds, and author of The Problem of Democracy: America, the Middle East, and the Rise and Fall of an Idea. He joins Jamie to debate whether the United States should pressure Israel to push for a ceasefire, if there’s hope to rebuild Gaza with Hamas still in power, and what the realistic paths are for a lasting solution between Israelis and Palestinians.

Show Notes:

-Shadi Hamid’s profile at the Washington Post

-Shadi’s vision for a ceasefire

-Glenn Kessler’s article on Gaza death toll numbers

By
Comments (131)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jrtownson

    Late listening to this. Excellent podcast. Many disagreements with the guest, but Jamie did great at pushing back when needed.
    Could Dispatch do a deeper dive into the state of Gaza prior to Oct 7? It seems to me that Gaza was the Palestinian state? Ruled by Hamas. What am I missing?

    Collapse
  2. Andrew Z

    Late to listening to this, but yes just echoing the comments that we need more of this from the Dispatch. Please, please give a platform to smart, intelligent people who have fundamental disagreements with the general line at the Dispatch. It is so healthy. And no need to qualify about not responding to every point of disagreement: one of the best parts of the Dispatch is that we have a solid sense of where the team is at, and then we have space to evaluate the information presented.

    Letting Hamid speak at length on tough questions is exactly what I needed to better understand where I myself come down on the issue.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Jamie, this was your best interview yet, and easily one of the best episodes of this podcast ever. I profoundly disagree with Shari’s position, but have a lot of respect for him. He makes the best case for a position I strongly disagree with, and it was very useful to hear him articulate his arguments.

    Collapse
  4. Eric.Philburn

    Kudos to Jamie for bringing us this interview. Like many people, I had some disagreements with Mr. Hamid.

    I've seen a lot of generally sober people who seem to think Israel could effectively degrade Hamas with highly targeted attacks. If this were a real option, why wouldn't Israel have used it already against rocket launchers? You'd think that it would be easier to pull something like that off against rocket launchers than against individuals embedded in a civilian population.

    Mr. Hamid is keen to stress Hamas's rationality. He also likes to talk restraining them through political processes. It's not clear why they should allow themselves to be constrained by politics when they have (tens of) thousands of fighters at their disposal. Likewise, the popularity of a given course of action (e.g. peace) is irrelevant if enough armed and passionate people disagree.

    Collapse
  5. Sunilsaha2

    Fascinating podcast on this topic:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-nimrod-novik.html.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ehoop

    I don't think it's difficult to see a less nefarious explanation for Shadi's inquiry as to why Palestinians (and particularly Gazans) might be susceptible to anti-Semitic indoctrination.
    It's easy to miss the point, if you aren't thinking about it all the time, and easy to think the point is obvious, if you do.
    Gaza has been under blockade since 2007.
    ~1/2 (47%) of the 2.2 million Gazans are under 18.
    Regardless of whether you think the blockade justified, probably close to a million Gazans only know of life before the blockade secondhand.
    Vulnerable young people are exactly who extremists, gangs, and other chickenhawk types look to recruit.
    What kind of life are these 2.2 million people allowed?
    The point that Arafat turned down a peace deal seems relevant to us, but is it relevant if you live under the blockade? All they know is there's no peace deal.

    Collapse
  7. Lowedj

    Mr Hamid wants Hamas to demobilize. His naïveté is just so sweet.

    Article 13 of the Hama covenant rejects any kind of negotiations for peaceful coexistence. To wit:
    “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

    The Hamas core principles call for the slaughter of Jews: For example:
    “The Day of Judgement will not come about,” it proclaims, “until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

    My heavens, Mr Hamid has his head buried deep in the sand. Requesting Hamas to stop killing Israelis is like going to a fried chicken convention and asking the conference attendees to stop eating fried chicken.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Nathan

    Well, there goes any respect I had for Shadi. His dissembling was constant. There was no goalpost he wouldn't move. Any Israeli sin must be carefully examined, atoned for, and measures must be taken to avoid repeating, but when Hamas rapes and murders it's a chance for us to consider how maybe we're not unlike them, to discover what drove them to such lengths, and to reject the category of "evil" entirely.

    Well, I don't reject that category. Hamas is evil. Rape is evil. Murder is evil. Shadi is evil too, or at least very morally stunted. This will be the last time that I waste on that horrible person's opinions.

    Jamie, you did great.

    Collapse
  9. Austin from Atlanta

    I'm a bit embarrassed for the commenters making points about how Jaime should have "pushed back" more. He explained his reasoning right at the top of the podcast! So you went into it already knowing what to expect. They also did an extended dispatch live conversation about the approach. (It's also worth noting that Jaime made several clarifications throughout the interview.)

    It was an interview, not a debate. If it causes that much cognitive dissonance to hear an idea you disagree with not be immediately verbally challenged, you might want to decrease your intake of political podcasts in the first place. There is something to be said for trusting the strength of your own position without needing to make it overt any time a different perspective is presented.

    It's as if people think this is the ONE source of information anyone will ever get on Israel & Palestine, so everything must be made as overt as possible. In reality, there is not a single human being who would wonder in to listen to this podcast sans any additional context. There is value in hearing bad ideas articulated in detail, so that, in full context, there is greater contrast against the truth.

    In other words, The Dispatch is not obligated to make the exact piece of content you wish you had gotten. The made the content they thought was most valuable, and I am thankful they did so.

    Collapse
    1. SkyDoc

      This bordered on putting a megaphone in front of a Nazi apologist and letting him talk at length with MINIMAL scrutiny. This guy might have a respectable job title, but this was propaganda.

      I have never been so disappointed in The Dispatch.

      Collapse
      1. Austin from Atlanta

        You are entitled to your perspective, but I find that to be a particularly unreasonable framing.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Mark Hunter

    Call the fire marshall! Shadi Hamid erected so many straw men that the whole place will go up in smoke if you strike a match.

    I listen to NPR in the morning, so I hear Shadi's misleading arguments most mornings – I was disappointed that I heard them on The Dispatch sans a robust response. By the end of the pod I was wondering why Jamie wasn't just asking, "Tell me why it is all Israel's fault" for each topic broached.

    Collapse
Load More