S12.E25: Ralph Nader, Andrew Ross Sorkin , Doug Heye, Reza Aslan, Chris Hardwick

[maraleia]

Political activist Ralph Nader, co-anchor of CNBC's Squawk Box Andrew Ross Sorkin , Communications Director for the RNC Doug Heye, author of Zealot Reza Aslan, and the Nerdist Channel's Chris Hardwick

[b2H]

Don't misunderstand - it was a decent show.  Ralph Nader still has it, whatever it is - his passion, his intensity (he's from northwestern CT, so I always appreciate hearing his side of the story).  I have also like Andrew Ross Sorkin, who can be the voice of sanity on CNBC's morning show.  Reza presented the other side of the story in the Gaza conflict.

 

Didn't realize it was the final show for the summer, but with Congress out of session (how could we tell?  They didn't do much in session), there may not be much to talk about.

[iMonrey]

I just get so frustrated whenever there's a discussion of the Israeli-Gaza situation, and so sick of all the same talking points. Everyone annoyed me, except Reza Aslan. Saying Hamas started this - isn't that a little shortsighted? Besides, when I was five years old and got into a fight with my sister, my excuse was "she started it." So let's agree that both are behaving like children and are in need of some adult intervention.

[ganesh]

Nader is great, but I wish he wasn't still anti-nuclear power. He's right though, in the actual party platforms there are few differences. I wish we had a real third party. 

 

That guy in the middle was a blowhard. I get that Israel is in a tough position being surrounded by Arab countries, but I don't think their "very existence is threatened every day."

 

I hate how Obama's words have to be constantly parsed to find something to criticize. Obama can't say this, he can't say that. He can't be too angry but if he's not angry enough, he's cold and aloof. 

 

I just get so frustrated whenever there's a discussion of the Israeli-Gaza situation, and so sick of all the same talking points. Everyone annoyed me, except Reza Aslan.

 

They all annoyed me. I'm not sure whether it's true that Hamas isn't hiding weapons with civilians or not. 

 

So let's agree that both are behaving like children and are in need of some adult intervention.

 

Israel needs to take the high road, but they don't want to hear it from anyone. I think USA should suspend any aid until this is resolved.

 

Hey, Bill, if you want to get rid of coal, then you're going to need nuclear. I'm totally down. 

 

Holy shit, I didn't realize Hardwick did Singled Out. That was 10 lives ago.

Edited August 2, 2014 by ganesh

[LADreamr]

The US public has a very warped view of what's really happening there, because it is very hard to get in anything besides Israeli talking points.  And even if you do get a chance to talk, you get quickly shouted down by everyone who needs to be on Israel's good side, and wants to keep their narrative going.

 

Israel is not going to take any kind of high road.  They have no incentive to.  They do horrible things on a daily basis, that most of the world doesn't hear about, because they act with impunity, and people are scared to stand up to them.  The long-term plan is to wipe out Palestine altogether, which is why the map of Palestine has been shrinking since Israel's creation.  And because the world never does anything seriously to stop them, they steal the land at will, they kill hundreds to thousands of Palestinians a year, and the ones they don't kill, they imprison, intimidate, torture, and chip away at their lives, dignity and right to self-determination.  

 

People in Gaza are locked in and have no control over any of their borders, and it is very difficult to get permission to leave.  With the walls being built in the West Bank, it's becoming a similar situation.  Their livelihoods are threatened every day.  The seven-year blockade of Gaza has affected imports and exports, and just basic materials and needed supplies getting in.  So they try to fish or farm, but they get shot or terrorized just for doing that, too.  They plant olive trees so their families will always have something to use and sell, and Israel waits out the six years it takes for the tree to grow into something viable, and then cuts it down.

 

And they have noone in their corner.  The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah does and says nothing.  They are more often obeying Israel than standing up for the Palestinians.  The other Arab countries stay silent, because they want to stay in the right good graces, too.  Hamas is crap all around, but they were only voted in because there was no other alternative, and the people haven't had a vote since.  And even if they got new elections, there is still noone to lead and protect them.  

 

And they have tried nonviolent resistance.  For years now.  There are daily nonviolent protests in the West Bank, and protesters get shot and killed there regularly.  And they don't just treat the Palestinians that way; they are just as violent with the international supporters who stand with them. 

 

Besides not having political representation, they have no voice.  Public knowledge and outrage is growing, but not yet to the point that it will make Western leaders actually do anything effective about it.  There has been so much destroyed there in less than a month, that it was estimated it would take ten years to rebuild. Except that Israel doesn't allow building materials in, so they are going to have to improvise and figure out another way to live, as they have to do all the time.  And they haven't been able to fully rebuild yet since Operation Cast Lead, five years ago.  

 

Israel knows this.  It's not an accident that they are also destroying the hospitals and universities.  They don't want them to be able to build and thrive and have productive lives.  The talking points are full of lies and misdirection so they can keep going with their overall plan.  And they will keep getting to do that, because in the history of their existence, they have never had to answer for anything.

 

Israel's apologists like to ask, "What would you do?"  But if this was your life, and had been for generations, what would you do?  This is a long post, but it barely scratches the surface of the humiliation and deprivation they've had to endure, and still try to find a positive way forward.  If the US had dead and wounded in the numbers Gaza has them, percentage-wise, we would be up to about 230,000 dead and nearly 1.3 million severely injured.  Even without all the other enormous human rights violations they have to endure.  I can't imagine the US not fighting back with something.  Anything.

Edited August 2, 2014 by LADreamr

[alias1]

I enjoyed the Nader interview.  And I'm glad Reza Aslan was there to provide a balance to what I think is usually a pro-Israel discussion. 

 

I like Bill a lot but his rant at the end about taking August off came across as childish, and certainly wasn't funny, in my opinion.  I wish he would have finished with one of his normally insightful editorials. 

[opus]

And then ,of course, came all the plugs for his August appearances.

[HelenBaby]

IDK, I thought it was sort of funny but they needed to practice the camera shots more.

[ganesh]

I like Bill a lot but his rant at the end about taking August off came across as childish, and certainly wasn't funny, in my opinion.  I wish he would have finished with one of his normally insightful editorials.

 

I think Bill missed the point of the ad and was kind of criticizing the wrong thing. The guy in the ad was like, we work hard to buy stuff, like the Wright brothers. No, that's not what they were doing, actually. Plus, people aren't getting paid worth shit anymore so they can't buy brand new expensive cars.

 

People can't take August off because they have to pay rent. The whole thing was just off.

[opus]

Also, as Chris Hardwick jokingly alluded to, people also have to eat.

[Hanahope]

People can't take August off because they have to pay rent.

 

That's part of the point.  In many countries, employers are required to give paid vacation time (along with paid maternity leave).  In America many who, even if they could take time off, don't get paid, so they can't really afford to take time off.

[ganesh]

Whose point? Because that wasn't the point of the ad. And Bill's point was that he's taking August off and we should too. But we can't because we have bills. 

 

Was his point that we shouldn't be working so we can make money to buy stuff? The whole thing was sloppy and lacked focus. 

[opus]

As he noted, he's not taking August off:

 

 

Bill Maher Tickets

 

 Tour Dates

Aug 8 
Bill Maher

Paramount Theatre
Denver, Colorado  Find Tickets 
Aug 9 
Bill Maher

Kingsbury Hall
Salt Lake City, Utah  Find Tickets 
Aug 15 
Bill Maher

Orpheum Theatre Sioux City
Sioux City, Iowa  Find Tickets 
Aug 16 
Bill Maher

Robert S. Whitney Hall
Louisville, Kentucky  Find Tickets 
Aug 29 
Bill Maher

Britt Pavilion
Jacksonville, Oregon  Find Tickets 
Aug 30 
MasterCard Performance Series - Bill Maher

Green Music Center
Rohnert Park, California  Find Tickets

 

So the whole thing seemed rather dumb.

[DXD526]

I think the point was that we should have the option of taking the time off. Bill started off talking about how much more vacation time people in so many other countries get when compared to the US, then kind of got lost. He is right about Americans being generally overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated, and I think that was his point, but it got kind of convoluted. 

[ganesh]

He is right about Americans being generally overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated, and I think that was his point, but it got kind of convoluted.

 

Yeah, but that's not what the commercial was about. He chose the wrong evidence to support his point, and as it's posted just above, he's working 2 shows a week across the country, when he said in the piece that he's taking the month off. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

But didn't Bill, at then end say the equivalent of "never mind" since he is actually doing shows in August?

[opus]

I think the simple fact that a lot are confused about the point shows the bit didn't quite work.

[Victor the Crab]

Well, I'm ready for a vacation from Bill.

[ganesh]

But didn't Bill, at then end say the equivalent of "never mind" since he is actually doing shows in August?

 

Why do the bit then? Again what was his point?

 

 

I think the simple fact that a lot are confused about the point shows the bit didn't quite work.

There's other things he could have done to rip on the commercial; consumer culture for one. He could have said, "I like to work. I'm working 2 shows each week in August. It's not because I want to buy a fancy car, I just like working. So what?" Or, "idiot, the Wright brothers didn't invent planes so they could make money to buy fancy cars. They did it because they lived in a country that used to be the place to be for technological innovation. They wouldn't be able to get funding for planes now because the tea party would say, 'the bible doesn't say anything about man being able to fly, so we aren't giving you any money.''" 

 

There's a bunch of different directions he could have gone with this.

[Maherjunkie]

But if Hamas is open about wanting to destroy Israel, what is Israel supposed to do?  I understand they can be bullies but they were once accused of letting victimization happen to them.

[Neurochick]

I got Bill's point about Americans working too hard.  The commercial was basically saying that "We're better in America because we DON'T have too much vacation," which is stupid because we need more paid vacation time in America.  When I first started working in the 80's, I worked in a place where we had 4 weeks vacation a year and people who took it off were better for it.  Most people don't get that much time off.  To me, the commercial was making it look like we in the USA don't need all that "pesky vacation time" and that we're better off and better than the rest of the world because we work ourselves to death.

[Hanahope]

To me, the commercial was making it look like we in the USA don't need all that "pesky vacation time" and that we're better off and better than the rest of the world because we work ourselves to death.

 

 

I think its a combination of (1) those people who are true workaholics and want to work work work and thus believe that everyone else should also work work work (2) those people who want their underlyings to work work work so they can buy stuff they don't really need and (3) other people who just want to work work work to buy stuff. 

 

People in other countries get by just fine on far less "things" and spend their time visiting friends and family.  I always look forward to vacationing with my husband's family in Europe because we spend all evening eating dinner and talking and not in front of the TV or on the computer.

[ganesh]

(3) other people who just want to work work work to buy stuff.

 

We're a massive consumer culture. Forget about that car you bought 2 years ago, work hard so you can buy this car now! Most of the big budget movies now are just commercials for all the tie ins. 

 

I think Bill was way off the mark. 

[lawless]

LADreamr, you have every right to your opinion, and you state it very articulately.  I think you went a little astray from the Show, and I don't want to do the same, but I also feel that you said number of things that are only part of the story, or simply not correct, and I would like to just respond to a few of your points and offer more information and another perspective, because, well... I can't seem to refrain, given the implication your post gives that Israelis are barbaric and that their actions are malicious and without justification, while those of Hamas are not.  Maybe that's not what you meant, but it's how I interpreted what you wrote.

 

You mentioned:

People in Gaza are locked in and have no control over any of their borders, and it is very difficult to get permission to leave.  With the walls being built in the West Bank, it's becoming a similar situation.  Their livelihoods are threatened every day.

I will not dispute that Israel has blockaded the Gaza strip, and that the control on the ingress and egress of both people and things into and out of the Gaza strip has been strictly limited and controlled, and that it has caused a hardship on Gazans.  That's true, and something worth discussing on Bill's show.  But please keep in mind that Gaza borders Egypt as well, which has also participated in the blockade.  And not because it is scared of Israel, but because, like Israel, it feels threatened by Hamas and Hamas's link to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Both groups are known, unapologetic, violent terrorist groups.  Also keep in mind that Israel did not immediately move to blockade the Gaza strip -- that happened only after Hamas took over the government -- because Israel was afraid of the very thing that Hamas has done, which is import weapons and plan attacks on Israel, rather than build infrastructure.  Hamas's charter states that it refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, many of its prominent members openly deny the Holocaust happened, and they openly call for the death of all Jews -- not "merely" all Israelis -- all Jews.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas And when they have the opportunity, they put their money where their mouths are and do it.  There are valid reasons to criticize the extent and severity of the blockade -- but given the barrage of thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza, and the extent of the tunnels and plans for attacks inside Israel -- it can't be said that Israel's fears weren't valid.  And Hamas was a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel before there was ever a blockade -- there is every reason to believe that Hamas would have done exactly what is has done, but far more effectively, if there had been no blockade.

 

You said:

Hamas is crap all around, but they were only voted in because there was no other alternative, and the people haven't had a vote since.  And even if they got new elections, there is still noone to lead and protect them.

There was an alternative, Fatah, and anyone else who might have emerged to lead Gaza when Israel pulled out.  As for Fatah, the two sides fought each other in houses and the streets for control, and Hamas came out on top, apparently because it was more violent and better trained.  Some of the estimates of the number of Palestinian people killed by Palestinians during the civil war between Fatah and Hamas estimate the number at 600 people, and many more tortured and maimed.  For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict Israel had nothing to do with that, and it was a horrific time during which both Fatah and Hamas were accused of war crimes by Human Rights Watch, but yet -- silence. People either don't know about it, or apparently they think it's not a big deal, because Hamas is allowed to do that.  Hamas is just described as "crap all around."  Respectfully, I think that's a bit of an understatement that mischaracterizes the threat the Israel is confronted with, and I have to agree with Bill that there seems to be some hypocrisy in the outrage levied at Israel over this situation, versus the outrage over much greater horrors being committed by Islamic militant groups around the world right now.  I respect Reza Aslan a lot, and I understand the point that Reza was making about Israel being a democracy and therefore being expected to act with civility -- but he was literally arguing that there's a double standard in making that argument.  It also completely overlooks the fact that Israel has to contend with extremely dangerous people who feel no such compunctions, and that changes things.

 

And they have tried nonviolent resistance.  For years now.  There are daily nonviolent protests in the West Bank, and protesters get shot and killed there regularly.

The West Bank is not Gaza, and Gaza is not the West Bank.  Hamas does NOT try non-violent resistance, and the Israeli control over the West Bank, which is run by the Palestinian Authority and not Hamas, is far less restrictive than that of Gaza, for that reason.  Please again keep in mind that the West Bank is not surrounded by Israel, but also borders Jordan, which expelled Yassir Arafat and the PLO after the PLO and Arafat threatened the ruling Hashemite family in Jordan for control over Jordan in the 1970s.  That is because Jordan actually has a substantial Palestinian population, and, if you will recall, the West Bank was part of Jordan until it attacked Israel and lost.  Arafat, who had grand plans for himself much more than for his people, thought he could oust the ruling King of Jordan and take his place.  The PLO and Arafat lost, and were expelled.  Had the PLO not resorted to violence, even going so far as to attempt to assassinate the King of Jordan, though the Palestinians may not have obtained separate statehood, they might well have pursued much brighter, violence-free futures as Jordanian citizens -- which is already comprised of many people who are, in fact, Palestinians to the extent that term is understood in a tribal sense, rather than as a political entity.  Arafat and the PLO wanted to advance themselves, however, at the expense of the people they purportedly championed, and got themselves thrown out of Jordan after much violence.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan  At any rate, to the extent non-violent protests are happening in the West Bank, it should be noted that even the PLO/PA and the people of the West Bank are relatively new to non-violent resistance, even with other Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence   That does not mean that they should be hurt if they are doing so now.  But it's just not accurate to characterize Hamas or Gazans as having engaged in non-violent resistance, nor to imply that it would be fruitless to do so, when that is simply not what has historically happened.  Your post implies that Hamas has resorted to violence as a last resort, when in fact, it was the first thing to which they resorted, and they haven't given it up to date.

 

It's not an accident that they are also destroying the hospitals and universities.  They don't want them to be able to build and thrive and have productive lives.

I think that's taking things too far.  I know Reza denied it too, but Hamas most certainly does fire rockets and hide them amongst civilians. Indian journalists were among the very few who managed to catch Hamas members setting up and firing rockets at Israel from a densely populated residential area. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fP6mlNSK8 As you can see, they blurred the faces of the people they caught on camera, and they waited to release the video until they were safely out of the area, because journalists have been threatened with death if they expose Hamas doing things like this.

 

I am not as blithe as Bill came across about the civilian deaths in Gazan, but as for fighting the war in the first place, sorry, but I come out on Bill's side on this, and I think Israel has to act militarily to stop the threat that Hamas is posing.  Today, they admitted to the kidnapping and killing of those three Israeli teenagers after all.  Members of my family who live in Israel have said that the explosions from the rocket attacks from Hamas were a constant for over a month -- and while the Iron Dome has been very effective so far, all it takes is one mistake, one mishap, and you and your family can be blown apart.  Can you imagine living like that -- regardless of whatever grievances the people launching the rockets at you and your kids might have?  I would demand my government do something about it, and so have the Israelis.

 

But I will agree that Bill seems to avoid any scrutiny as to whether the civilian casualties in Gaza could be avoided without great cost to Israel.  That said, I do not accept Hamas's claims that 1700 have been civilians.  Israel's tabulation is closer to 1000 Hamas militants and 950 civilians, which, granted, is still a lot.  To my understanding, what is really most likely causing so many of the civilian casualties is the fact that Israel is using artillery instead of ground troops whenever possible, which is not tremendously accurate, and which, when used in densely populated urban areas, is going to inevitably hit buildings and people who are not the intended targets.  And I will agree -- it's awful.  It's horrific to any decent person to see children maimed and killed as we've seen in Gaza.  Bill acknowledged that, though he felt that it's unavoidable in war.  For me, though I support Israel's right to defend itself militarily in principle, I do not think that Israel can do no wrong, and I follow the news about what is happening and wrestle with the morality of what is happening every day.  Though you say that the press only includes pro-Israeli talking points, I would point out that in the last few weeks a former member of the IDF wrote an article posted on the Huffington Post explaining the use of artillery, why it is causing the casualties in Gaza, and why he personally believes it is immoral.  He does not, however, go so far as to say that Israel should not act militarily to defend itself from Hamas, and he does not deny that Hamas is a threat.  I wish Bill's guests would include people with a little more knowledge about what's going on rather than people who seem to have a much more superficial grasp of the subject.  In any case, in response to your statement that people in the US have a warped view because they can only access Israeli talking points, I would counter that there seems to be plenty of coverage of the civilian deaths and criticism of Israel available to anyone who gets their news from the internet, which is a lot of people. 

 

I will say this too.  If you have nothing personal at stake, and you concede that Israel has to act to stop Hamas from bombing Israel and using its tunnels to attack, then the simple answer is to say that Israel should use more of its troops in fighting this war, to reduce the civilian casualties of the Gazans.  However, given the urban environment in which this is taking place, there would probably still be a large number of civilian casualties, and a heck of a lot more Israeli casualties.  A more "symmetrical" looking casualty rate would probably make a lot of people feel better, because it would seem more "fair."  Ok.  I understand that perspective.  But it's different if you do have something at stake in the conflict -- i.e., either you or your loved ones are in the IDF and would make up those casualties.  It is abhorrent to see children killed, any children.  But I also have to admit that as a parent, I think I will love my children just as much when they are 18 years old as I love them when they are 9 years old, and I'm still going to see them as kids whose lives have barley begun.  Every Israeli is expected to serve in the military at 18, male or female.  From the Israelis' perspective, if they used soldiers in place of artillery, they would be sacrificing their own beloved children to spare the lives of the children of their enemies.  They don't want to do that.  I don't think I can honestly say I would choose differently -- that may not be noble, but it's true. That doesn't mean that Israel hasn't been heavy handed, and there is every possibility that there have been deaths that either could have been avoided, or that were actually gratuitous acts by people who are callous or outright hateful toward the lives of Gazan civilians.  And though that is often inevitable in war, if that has happened, it is not acceptable.  But you made quite a leap to say that Israel is targeting hospitals and universities intentionally out of malice, without seeming to have even considered other possibilities, and since what you said is so serious, I felt it important to point out another interpretation.

Edited August 23, 2014 by lawless