The Politics of Israel and the Palestinians

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to cool down, but the rhetoric around the ongoing skirmish ...

By

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to cool down, but the rhetoric around the ongoing skirmish is heating up in the U.S. The gang talks about the pressure on Biden to help with the situation abroad. Plus, it seems as though a commission to look at the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 might not be getting much GOP support, if any at all. Sarah, Steve, David, and Jonah try to figure out who is to blame for that. David educates everyone on the abortion case the Supreme Court will be hearing, and the gang discusses the debate over the origins of COVID-19. 

Show Notes:

–DNC boos Israel language

–January 6 was just a “normal tourist day”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (64)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kurt Von Fuchs

    The comment section pretty well tells the story unfortunately you guys(and not just Sarah) really muffed this one. Other than the Economist, the Dispatch has been one of my go to for non-crazy largely non-partisan commentary and although I will continue to read and listen I may have to start taking it with a grain of salt. One additional suggestion. If Nancy Pelosi was really smart, and I don't think she is, she would appoint Liz Cheney as part of the commission.

    Collapse
  2. Mark Moromisato

    Everything that was done to incite the riots/insurrection was done in the open, publicly through speeches, tweets, social media, etc. Trumps behavior was terrible leading up to 1/6 and was in my mind, slam-dunk impeachable DURING the riots. It was "dereliction of duty" defined. But all this was the subject of - or should have been - the subject of the impeachment hearings and trial. A commission would only serve as a vehicle for mud-slinging and partisan politics.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    kategolden

    If anyone discourages Steve from doing long rants, I'll cancel my membership immediately! (Not really, I need you guys, but please let Steve rant always.)

    Collapse
  4. GregS

    I like how David thinks that we will be in an inescapable cycle of escalation *if* Roe is overturned. We've entered an inescapable cycle of escalation ever since McConnell (the "adult internet room" per Jonah) decided that holding an SC seat open for a year and filling one in a month were both acceptable uses of a bare Senate majority. It's too late. If McConnell gets the Senate back in 2022 he will hold open every single federal judgeship too. He is also the guy who prevented any Obama judges from being confirmed by using the filibuster. And even now he's willing to keep playing footsie with Trump if it'll get him a win. You want a reason for the predicament out country is in? I give you Mitch McConnell.

    Collapse
    1. GregS

      Adult in the room is what I meant

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    E7a56c3893

    I agree with the rest of the comments here that laying the blame on the failure of impeachment on Nancy Pelosi's feet is a little weak. This is politics. Pelosi used the events of the January 6 Insurrection to her party's benefit. There is no universe where a political party would NOT have done this. McConnell has made that much very clear.

    As a Democrat, I am really having trouble how a commission that comprises equally of the people victim to the event, and those partly responsible to the event would constitute something even close to legitimate or fair. I have enormous respect for Sarah, she is a top tier political analyst and an essential voice on this podcast, but Sarah you are GRAVELY mistaken to believe that I, a Democrat, would somehow unify with Republicans if those cowards took part in the very commission that investigated their culpability; seething fury would be a gross understatement if the Sarah conception of an equally representative commission were to be proposed by Pelosi. The real issue is that the Republicans made their bed with Trumpism and have now resorted to downplaying treason as the only viable road for their political survival; again, this is politics, but Republicans and Democrats have to take responsiblility for. the choices they make. Whether it is reforming Senate rules to push out nominations, committing oneself to the Big Lie, or any other of the shenanigans we have seen on Capitol Hill, both parties play the game and at the end of the day, they must take responsibility for their choices. "They played politics" is just not gonna cut it, because we can play the game of "who played politics first" until we are blue in the face. Nobody is a saint on Capitol Hill, but Pelosi clearly intended to maximize the embarrassment and political damage to the Republican Party—as she should!

    McConnell plays the game well, and that is understood by Democrats and Republicans; Pelosi does the same. The fact that Pelosi politicized the commission and impeachment is not some novel development in our political landscape—it is the grave, inexcusable and insane insurrection and the resulting revisionism that is the novel development.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is complex. Hamas and associates compete with the PLO for power. Hamas, its associates, and the PLO hate Israel. Iran hates Israel. Hamas and associates rely on Iran for weapons and support. When an excuse presents itself, like the Jerusalem eviction lawsuit, the interaction between these factions prompts Hamas, the most well-armed Palestinian military group, to attack Israel mostly with Iranian supplied weapons. There is a similar intricate relationship amongst Hezbollah, Iran, and Israel. The common participants in these two convoluted associations are Iran and Israel. Each attack of Israel by Hamas or Hezbollah is always with Iran’s participation as benefactor and/or instigator. To my memory, Hamas and Hezbollah have not attacked simultaneously, but it must be looming. Iran is the bad actor in these matters. Without Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah would be greatly reduced. Additionally, the current situation may have been prompted by Israeli sabotage of Iranian nuclear assets. Then, of course there is the Biden Administrations incredible desire to capitulate to the Iranians. So, the Mullah’s in their medieval malevolence, encourages the current violence, assuming it will accelerate the US effort to succumb.

    The Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions are top-down federal decisions of social matters that should (?) be “reserved to the States respectively, or the people.” Perhaps, that these judgments be overturned for that reason is arguable, but there is another compelling (non-judicial) rationale. In 1973, with the Roe & Doe decisions, abortion or “choice,” if you prefer, became central issues in Federal, mostly Presidential, elections, some District and Appeals Court nominations, and every Supreme Court nomination. Since that time, our elections and especially Court appointments have evolved into absurd spectacles. Allowing these necessary governmental events to occur without screaming Activist interruptions might help return our politics to a more peaceful state. Of course, your suggestion that Activist might “turn-up the heat” is alarming, but that might only be a short-term challenge.

    For the last several decades the world, mostly the west, have proceeded to deal with China by allowing them advantage, reasoning that at some point China would attain enough economic strength to join a principled world order. Well, China has strengthened but shows no sign of ethical comportment or willingness to relinquish its advantageous allowances. It is time they were confronted.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Why do you think Iran hasn’t provided Hamas with missiles? Why only supply them with the material to make relatively low yield, low tech rockets?

      Collapse
  7. Ben Moser

    This pains me to write because Sarah on AO is such an honest incisive person but dear lord is that a Hugh Hewitt/Byron York level take on 1/6 Sarah.
    Let’s lay out the tick tock.
    Republicans lose an election
    Republicans lie about losing the election for months
    Republicans try every trick in the book to steal an election short of LBJ Box13 shenanigans.
    Republicans encourage Republicans to storm the nation’s capital to lynch a Republican VP and overthrow the govt.
    Republicans fail to hold their own accountable in impeachment
    Republicans then claim ahh it’s just tourists
    Republicans vote against even investigating the insurrection.

    Sarah’s response: “you know the real culprit here is Nancy Pelosi.”
    That’s just so far below the level of intelligence and candor demonstrated previously that I honestly can’t find a good faith explanation for it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Steve Hayes

      So, let me jump in here in defense of Sarah -- or at least in partial defense of Sarah. As you all heard, I disagree with her on several aspects of her argument regarding the commission, including some of her blaming Pelosi.

      But in general, she's right. Pelosi's aggressive announcement of her lopsided commission proposal came at a particularly inopportune time. Republicans -- sane Republicans -- had begun to feel out Democrats on the possibility of a serious, bipartisan commission. The Speaker's proposal -- 7 Dems and 4 GOPers -- was absurd. She knew it wouldn't work. So either she proposed it as a poison pill -- something designed to derail talks -- or as the opening bid in what might have been longer negotiations. But it was so unserious it landed with a thud and effectively ended those conversations. Rs were pissed at being sandbagged and Dems were angry that her proposal ended progress on conversations.

      I have not gone back and listened again, but in the realtime discussion I never got the sense that Sarah was raising Pelosi's bad faith as an excuse for Republican cowardice. I took her to be saying that Pelosi's partisan instincts were bad in themselves and unfortunately gave cowardly Republicans an opportunity to punt.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jason Gibson

        I agree Steve I actually thought that you all were describing an object from a different angle and I don’t think either one of the sides of the discussion on this issue were wrong

        It was still the object. Which is shameful from any angle

        Collapse
      2. Lylegruby

        They just punted on a bipartisan commission. As adults, and as elected leaders, they cravenly kowtowed to Trump under the cover of Pelosi’s bad faith acts from 4 months ago that have nothing to do with the bipartisan commission that was negotiated. Sarah literally said she doesn’t blame the republicans for voting against the commission *now,* not the Pelosi commission.

        Collapse
      3. GregS

        What you're all saying implicitly or explicitly is that after GOP members had consistently enabled a election stealing fascist in the time between November and January, and voted to overturn the election *after* a violent coup attempt had occurred, Pelosi should have considered the electoral interests of the GOP and made sure that a commission gave these unserious toadies an equal say in the commission's work. You know, for bipartisan reasons.
        Absolute BS. No. The GOP was never going to engage in good faith because they were ompli it in the crime. You are again treating the GOP like children who aren't responsible for their actions and have no choice but to be fascists because it is in their electoral interests, while Pelosi has to be the bigger person who gives the ability to hamstring the very commission that is going to investigate their perfidy.
        Absolute bonkers BS. This is why I say that for all the blather about how January 6th was a big deal, GOP operatives and voters will vote for GOP candidates even if they're craven Trump bootlickers and coup-deniers because they will convince themselves that Pelosi or Biden are worse. Jim Geraghty is already there. This podcast, and the ones with Crenshaw and Gallagher showed that you're all getting there too.
        But sure, blame Pelosi because apparently it's *her* fault that the GOP and its voters still worship at Trump's feet.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Steve Hayes

          Thanks for the feedback. I'd say it's more fruitful to deal with what we're saying explicitly rather than what you're inferring our meaning to be. I'm open to the possibility that I could have been clearer -- I usually assume the problem is on my end when people don't understand what I'm saying. But, for example, nobody said or implied that Nancy Pelosi "should have considered the electoral interests of the GOP" in her decisionmaking and it's just a distraction to pretend we did.

          Anyway, see my response to Ben below, which addresses some of your points, too.

          Collapse
          1. GregS

            Fair enough and as I have said my main beef was with Sarah's stated position. Your position (and hopefully I am capturing it fairly) is that Pelosi's initial proposal was so poisonous that it ended any possible hope of Republicans getting on board. And that although the final negotiated proposal was very bipartisan (giving the GOP effective veto power over the commission's actions), the delay allowed the GOP position to become one of rock solid support of the Big Lie.
            Ok - let's grant that Pelosi miscalculated in being too aggressive in her initial proposal. But it is utter nonsense to say that her miscalculation is the reason that Republicans voted against a bipartisan commission. No - they voted against it because they're cowards and have decided to continue down the path towards fascism.
            It is a bit like a person walking around downtown Dallas at 2 am carrying a big wad of $100s who gets mugged and killed. It is fair to say- hmm perhaps he shouldn't have done that, it was a bad idea. And also, kids, you shouldn't do that. But the blame? The blame lies with the mugger. The mugger doesn't get to defend himself by saying, "it's not my fault, the guy shouldn't have flashed his way of cash!"
            So while I agree that pethaps Pelosi could have played this better, when you (or Sarah) focus on that before we've seen *any accountability whatsoever* for the GOP is galling. Also note- I say "perhaps" because I don't necessarily buy that a bipartisan proposal from Pelosi at the beginning wouldn't have been met with approval followed by immediate stonewalling by the GOP members once McCarthy had made his pilgrimage to Florida to abuse himself.

            Collapse
        2. Ben Moser

          I think this rather overeggs the pudding.

          Collapse
          1. GregS

            I disagree. The shifts are always gradual, but they are apparent now when you listen closely.

            In 12 months the shift to a reluctant support for GOP candidates (e.g., "I hate to support someone who will look the other way on Trump's lies, but Biden is just too left wing") will be complete. I hope I'm wrong - so that I can continue to read and listen to The Dispatch - but the indications are not good.

            Collapse
      4. Ben Moser

        All fair Steve although I'd point out that when the Republicans came back with a rescue package quote that was 1/3 the size I didn't hear that being called an unserious poison pill. Which maybe it wasn't but let's get on the same page about what an aggressive opening bid is and go from there (as a liberal I'd also add, see SCOTUS noms in the last month before an election but I can hardly lay that at your feet).

        I'd encourage you to go back and listen to that portion of the podcast, because I did, as one of the previous commenters told me I missed something. If the argument is "Pelosi is an unserious partisan who isn't doing an adequate job managing the unique risk to the rule of law posed but the Trumpist Republican Party" that's an argument I might not agree with but its a serious argument that is worth me grappling with. Which FWIW is literally why its worth it to me to read/listen/engage with you fine folks. But that isn't the argument she made or at least she only made the first half of it.

        My frustration stems from two places
        1) you guys are so much smarter and more intellectually honest than the two figures i referenced above and have been so much more consistent in that age of intellectual dishonesty and motivated reasoning and this felt like a departure from the team's high standards.

        2) it feels like part of a new and frustrating pattern where Dispatchers will excoriate Trump and his many flaws but than soft pedal equally valid criticism of his enablers, whether it was the Crenshaw pod, or the risible idea that a Chip Roy caucus would be anything other apologists with better diction.

        Thanks for responding, know that my critiques come from a place of valuing what you guys do (as a fellow wisconsinite I'd compare it to getting mad at when Favre threw interceptions compared to Rex Grossman.)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Steve Hayes

          Love the Rex Grossman reference -- so good. I only wish Declan was here to read it.

          Appreciate the feedback, even if I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree in some places.

          I'll let Sarah jump in again if she has a moment, but it seems (from your comment and other less charitable ones) that I wasn't clear.

          I'm not blaming Pelosi for GOP cowardice. The Republicans who oppose a commission own their decisions and it's deplorable that they're choosing to ignore or downplay what happened. And, most important to me, that by enabling Trump and amplifying his continuing lies, they're making future violence more likely. It's irresponsible, it's anti-democratic and it's inexcusable.

          The Pelosi point is different. As noted above, she inserted herself in the process at an awful moment. And helped create a missed opportunity.

          The impeachment conviction vote in the Senate took place on February 13. Seven Republicans voted to convict. (On top of the 10 in the House.) I wish there'd been more. But beyond that small group, there were others who condemned Trump and offered to support a commission. As Haley notes in Uphill today, John Cornyn was one of them and even said in his statement that he agreed with Nancy Pelosi's call for an independent commission. "I agree w/ Speaker Pelosi — a 911-type investigation is called for to help prevent this from happening again.” In talking to lots of congressional Republicans at the time, it was clear to me that there was some momentum for a commission beyond the 17 who'd gone on record condemning Trump.

          Pelosi's proposal -- announced without the input of Republicans, in a "Dear Colleague" letter to Democrats -- blunted that momentum. In my view, she should have done the opposite - brought good-faith Republicans into her planning and sought immediately a bipartisan proposal. Not (GregS) because she needed to be mindful of GOP electoral prospects, obviously, but because an independent commission was possible and would have been good for the country. (One place I do differ with Sarah is that I think a serious look at what happened would probably be better politically for Democrats than being able to portray as opposing one.)

          Anyway, hope that helps make clearer where I'm coming from on all of this.

          Collapse
          1. Ben Moser

            Quite clear. Appreciate the engagement, I'm comfortable with us having different lenses on the same problem.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Philbnichols

      Ben Moser, you're forgetting the final point -

      Dem hacks on TheD comment page misrepresent Sarah Isgur's statement on Pelosi.

      Collapse
      1. Ben Moser

        Her final point was that Pelosi is such a partisan that the Dems are at fault for not letting us unify around the idea that the Republican Party of Trump (see McCarthy/Scalise’s statements about the election pre 1/6) incited an act of mob terrorism?

        I mean what were the odds that a large number of Republicans were gonna be honest enough to own up to that.

        This reminds me of the push to unify around and understanding of the Civil War that lets the South pretend it wasn’t about slavery.
        Letting the perpetrator define the crime and forcing the victims to accept that definition is not unity it’s just a continuation of the crime.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Philbnichols

    That 'steel man' by David French was a fail to the extent that he stopped just short of giving the best defense of the Palestinian position.
    First, Jonah should have kept his 'defensive war' comment for rebuttal - true or not, the best way to allow for the most fruitful debate is to allow the opposition to voice their best case. Second, David could have noted how Israel's occupying of the region means the P's have little to no non-violent recourse when Israel kicks Palestinians out of their homes (or whatever it is the P's say instigated this conflagration). The position of the downtrodden impotent is an excuse for violence most can understand; in fact, it's often how nation establishment happens.
    Third, David gave up any pretense of well representing the Palestinian position by degenerating into a diatribe against Hamas.

    If David had well-constructed an opposing argument, we could have heard a more cogent and complete explanation of the situation. Also, I think Israel looks better & better when their whole story is told.

    And I don't think there's any need to bring into the discussion the condition of the middle east before 1948. That's when basically the known world (only the West?) decided Israel could have a place. That way the discussion has parameters most people can track.

    Collapse
    1. DJ

      Hamas is awful, but Israel's behavior around settlements has been provocative for the last 30 years. I'm mostly on Israel's side in this, but those kinds of long term policies can lead to violent revolution.

      Collapse
    2. Nickolas Fink

      I wonder if David feels that his position represents that of the sheep, the wolf, or the shepherd, to call back to another recent episode of this pod

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    BW

    Like Steve I’m quite baffled by the three of you, (David, Sarah and Jonah) dismissing any kind of investigation or attempt at evidence gathering to find the origin of a virus that has and has had devastating effects on the globe. Stipulated, I almost feel like I need to put it all caps, the CCP is going to lie, withhold access to evidence and deny everything. But like another topic discussed, the January 6th commission, doing are damndest to get to the bottom of it is the right thing for histories sake. Trump is going to lie and deny everything said about him on January 6th. I didn’t hear any of you dismiss the investigation based on that. Neither should you in this instance.

    Collapse
  10. Les

    I think Steve’s analysis of the lab leak debate was spot on. I didn’t see much nuanced discussion of “maybe someone screwed up and it was an accident and the cover up made it worse” not unlike Chernobyl. As soon as “man made” entered the picture a lot of people went straight to “China did this to crash the US economy so Trump wouldn’t get re-elected” which nearly made my eyes roll so far back I was worried they’d get stuck. That kind of poisoned that particular well for a while I think, but now that that fever has broken there’s more room for nuanced discussion, especially now that it seems to me anecdotally that there is more proper differentiation between “lab leak” and “deliberate bio weapon release” theories that I think was missing before.

    Collapse
Load More