---
author: The Ezra Klein Show
date: '2026-11-13'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BjhYUxM_94
speaker: The Ezra Klein Show
tags:
- left-wing-politics
- electoral-politics
- democratic-socialism
- foreign-policy
title: 左翼主播哈桑谈民主党中期选举、通俗伯尼主义与巴以政策分歧
summary: 播客专访左翼网络主播哈桑，探讨民主党中期选举表现与党内综合。哈桑主张聚焦反腐与全民医保等经济民生议程，阐述其反犹太复国主义立场及对以施压诉求，并结合地方实践讨论社会主义市政治理与务实路线。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: politics-society
area: society-thinking
project: []
people:
- Hasan Piker
- Donald Trump
- Bernie Sanders
- Zohran Mamdani
- Brad Lander
companies_orgs:
- Democratic Party
- Democratic Socialists of America
products_models: []
media_books:
- Mao, The Man Who Built China
- Black Shirts and Reds
- American Socialist, the Life and Legacy of Eugene V. Debs
status: evergreen
---
### 播客主旨与嘉宾介绍
本周播客的构想，是希望听取民主党联盟内部关于民主党如何赢得权力以及如今应如何运用权力的不同视角。周二我们邀请了来自 Searchlight Institute 的亚当·詹特森（Adam Jentleson），他代表一种更偏中间派的视角。如果你还没听过那一期，我觉得你应该听听。
今天来自左翼的是哈桑（Hasan），他是一位网络主播，在 Twitch 上的账号是 HasanAbi。选举之夜他的直播峰值达到了20万人。但他也成为了这次选举中的重要人物，为美国民主社会主义者（DSA）及左翼候选人站台助选。他在密歇根州参议院初选中既非常重要又极具争议，在那场初选中他是阿卜杜勒·埃尔-萨耶德（Abdul El-Sayed）的盟友。
随后共和党人试图将他塑造成这次选举的“假想敌/大反派”。他在福克斯新闻（Fox News）上被谈论的频率甚至往往超过了共和党参议员候选人。他是乔希·戈特海默（Josh Gottheimer，较温和的民主党人）与迈克·劳勒（Mike Lawler，温和派共和党人）发起的一项国会决议中被针对的人选之一，该决议谴责了多位网络名人的言论。本雅明·内塔尼亚胡在联合国大会发表演讲时也提到了他。
Original English
So the theory of the podcast this week,
I want to have on different perspectives inside the Democratic coalition on how Democrats won power and how they should now wield it. So Tuesday we had on Adam Jentleson from the Searchlight Institute, a more centrist perspective. If you haven't listened to that episode, I think you should.
Today from the left, Hassan is a streamer. He's on Twitch under HasanAbi. Selection night livestream topped out at 200,000 people. But he also became something of a major character in the selection, stumping with DSA and leftist candidates. He was very, very both important and controversial in the Michigan Senate primary where he was an ally of Abdul El-Sayed.
Then the Republicans tried to make him into the bogeyman of the election. He was often talked about on Fox News more than the Republican Senate candidates were. was one of the people targeted in a congressional resolution by Josh Gottheimer, a more moderate Democrat, and Mike Lawler, a moderate Republican, where they were condemning the rhetoric of various online personalities. He was mentioned by Benjamin Netanyahu during Netanyahu's UN General Assembly address.
Original English
>> Mr. Mamdani, since you were elected mayor of this city, many Jews no longer feel safe in New York. Now it's no wonder. You praise criminals convicted of supporting Hamas. You count as friends people like Hassan who said America deserved 9/11. America deserved 9/11. Some friends you have.
Original English
>> He was all over Republican advertising and even in a very strange way all over the Jumbotron at Donald Trump's big midterm rally.
And is a sort of interesting mix of kind of radical and pragmatist, like a self-avowed socialist, somebody who really is in many ways trying to get past capitalism. And then you talk to him or you listen to him, and sometimes sounds just like a normal liberal. It is striking to me in this conversation how often what he is saying and what Adam Jentleson are saying are basically the same thing. The place where that ends and the place where himself is most controversial is Israel and some of the things he has said there, some of the things he has argued for there. So I want to talk to about the election, about how the Democratic Party should act going forward, and talk through both what he has said and the broader politics around Israel, which is one of the issues that I think has the most possibility of tearing this coalition apart. joins me now. Hasan welcome to the show.
Original English
>> Great to be here.
Original English
>> So we're week and change, guess actually just a week off of the midterms. Take me through your view of the victory. What did you learn from it? What do you think Democrats should learn from it?
Original English
>> So me personally, I've engaged in political commentary for the last 13 years, um but I was never as hands-on with campaigns until this last cycle. And it actually started before the cycle. It started with Zora Mamdani in his primary. He was in a crowded field and people had asked me to go and uh work with them.
Original English
>> I remember you asking about abundance at like a lunch counter somewhere.
Original English
>> Okay, so you keep bringing up abundance mindset. What do you what do you think about the abundance mindset? I mean you keep bringing it up.
Original English
>> I did this I did this to myself.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> One of the greatest obstacles we face is the existing inefficiencies, inadequacies of the public sector. And if we want to get people to trust in the public sector, we have to deliver outcomes that they haven't seen.
Original English
>> Yeah. I I did. I did ask him about that. Um and he's turned out to be quite the abundist as a matter of fact.
Original English
>> We're in we're in a grand era of synthesis over here.
Original English
>> And well I think that's also kind of the story of the victory that the Democrats had, but it was effective.
Original English
>> Uh so I want to talk about the forward motion here. Democratic Party coming out of this election is a a Democratic Party. It has a much larger left wing. We've mentioned Abdul Sayed, but Daria Lisa, Chris Rab, Claire Valdez, there's a big DSA cohort coming into the house in particular. It's also got a much larger moderate wing. Got Adam Hamilton and Josh Turick and Scott Colom in the Senate. The Blue Dogs have more than doubled in size, which is the moderate caucus in the house.
Original English
>> Yeah, that's also fascinating because you have Four Stag, who's like considered a Blue Dog.
Original English
>> You have the Bernie Dogs, right? The people Bernie endorsed and the Blue Dogs endorsed.
Original English
>> Yeah. So that that was like like you said, it was a fascinating synthesis that we're seeing. I mean, I think uh it's not a secret that Bernie Sanders's 2016 run, his insurgent run against Hillary Clinton and did uh with a defeat, but I think even if he lost that battle, I would go so far as to say he won the war. And what I mean by that is uh the my friends like to call this vulgar Bernieism. Uh the vulgar Bernieism of 2016 was so prominent in virtually every campaign. Every single candidate, no matter what faction that they're a part of, um attacked billionaires, attacked corporate corruption, attacked the Trump administration's allegiance with Big Tech, attacked data centers, um and even uh leaned into the fears that many people were feeling about AI in particular. And that's all left populism. And it was fascinating to watch that unfold. It was uh very interesting hearing people like even uh a a Roy Cooper in North Carolina say, you know,
Original English
>> Tonight, guys, we told Washington loud and clear that North Carolinians will always matter more than the billionaires and the insiders.
Original English
>> These corrupt billionaires are placing their interests over your interests. Like I'm going to fight for North Carolina uh instead of, you know, Washington D.C. Now, in some respects, you could say that's always been there, right? In the Democratic Party's messaging. But I think it was a little different this time around where that uh hardline economic agenda focus uh and uh and and defining ourselves as a party nationally with local issues and and moderation on on certain things that are obviously important to to important to the to the local interests like Tallarico's pivot on uh you know pivot away from renewable energy to to focus on the oil and gas industry's interests. Like those are understandable uh instances of moderation, but like the the overall focus was on the economy. Part of that was because of the the devastating nature of the American economy accelerated through uh Trump's corruption, the tariff war, and then also uh the the quagmire we found ourselves in Iran. But I think it was almost like something shifted after the 2024 defeat where Democrats realized, no, we have to we have to put uh an economic agenda at the forefront of our campaigns.
Original English
>> So it's really interesting the way you put that cuz I I really like your term. I guess maybe said it's your friend's term, vulgar Bernieism. So I don't find the rhetoric to be that different, but here's Obama 2011.
Original English
>> Of course, the Republicans in Congress, they call this class warfare. You know what? If asking a millionaire to pay the same tax rate as a plumber makes me a class warrior, a warrior for the working class, I will accept that. I will wear that charge as a badge of honor.
Original English
>> Pelosi 2011.
Original English
>> When we became the majority, the first 100 hours we passed the minimum wage increase, the first time in 11 years. So when they want to talk about class warfare as Warren Buffett said, the other was class warfare and his class won.
Original English
>> I'm Gore called Bush's tax cuts class warfare on behalf of billionaires. So I 'm not sure that I think the rhetoric was so different, but the thing that I think was really different, I'm curious how this lands for you, is Bernie, particularly 2016 Bernie. I take a big part of his argument that the Democratic Party had abandoned its focus and prioritization of of issues of class and economics for this kind of broad-based, post-material It kind of eventually becomes what people call wokeness. Hillary Clinton runs against him on this, right? You know, breaking up the banks won't end systemic racism or whatever the line was.
Original English
>> That was the line.
Original English
>> If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will would that end racism?
Original English
>> No.
Original English
>> Would that end sexism?
Original English
>> No.
Original English
>> Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make
Original English
people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?
Original English
>> No.
Original English
>> And in the kind of post-inflation Democratic Party, right? The Democratic Party that got beat in 2024 on inflation, the recognition that the way you turn back the kind of geographic polarization of the country, the way maybe you can compete in more places is you moderate on culture and you go hard on economics. That's the old Bernie formula, right? More pro-gun in Vermont, right? He was an overperformer in Vermont. It didn't strike me as so much like socialist versus liberal versus moderate, but economics first as the uniting threat of the party.
Original English
>> I 100% agree with that assessment, and I think that's precisely what happened. Um and you're right. The reason why you're bringing up quotes from 2011 as opposed to the last decade is because there was this big pivot, I think, that was relatively recent.
One of the most unique factors of this uh swing that we saw, especially in, you know, former Trump battlegrounds and and and very safe districts, was not just the Hispanic votes shifting not And it wasn't just the youth vote shifting. We saw plenty of that. That was expected. That was predictable. I found it fascinating that rural voters were also shifting to the Democratic party. For the first time it felt like a lot of maybe even non-college educated whites living in rural areas were really impacted by the economy and someone was seemingly addressing those concerns. And I think that's what's really important. This doesn't mean we should betray marginalized identities and and and do what even Josh Hawley did and I don't even know how effective that was ultimately to to come out. Yeah yeah exactly.
Original English
>> As a kid in a wheelchair I faced my share of bullying. It's why I believe that no Iowan should face discrimination. As a Paralympian I also know it's important to have rules. It's why I oppose males competing in female sports. Something that is already illegal in Iowa.
Original English
>> I think any sort of focus on this stuff is is a losing battle because it's a it's a tiny minority and one of the things that I consistently point to is is the fact that I mean one of the first executive actions that Trump took was banning all transgender athletes from NCAA competitions.
And obviously this didn't improve anyone's material conditions at all and it was simply a distraction and it wasn't even that effective of a distraction considering that you know I would routinely point to that to say to a lot of young men coming into my audience like are you feeling better? You know is your rent more affordable? Are groceries cheaper now that Trump did this?
And if not why do you think he was doing this? Why do you think he was focusing so much on this particular issue? Something shifted in the last decade or so where Republicans started winning the culture war battles.
And I don't think we need to participate in those battles at all and we need to call it out for exactly what it is which is something that James Tallarico did very effectively where he kept saying like these are unnecessary distractions. It's not about left versus right it's up versus down. I think that is a very reliable and very truthful way of discussing politics.
Original English
>> The other thing that worked for Tester, you saw it work for Adam Hamilton. A lot of people just think Democrats don't like them, look down on them, don't share their faith, don't share their kind of not cultural positions, but cultural context.
And one thing that it seemed to me Democrats did well in candidate selection this year was to run a lot of people who undermine the perception of what a Democrat is, right? A mega church pastor in Kansas, a firefighter, right? In um Pennsylvania, a Tejano crooner in South Texas, right? You You know, Tester who's a seminarian, Tester who's a Paralympian, Mary Peltola with her kind of What was it? uh fish
Original English
>> fish faith.
Original English
>> Yeah, family fish faith.
That You know, we all talk about moderation as a question just of ideological positioning, but what people apprehend really quickly, it's one reason you wear a suit now, is what kind of person you seem like. Do you seem like their kind of person?
And the Democratic Party kind of undermining the sense of who is a Democrat and whether or not they're your kind of people seems to me to have cracked open the door for people to be able to hear a lot of the other things that were being said.
Original English
>> Yeah, I agree with that to a certain degree, but I do think that the real story here is uh at the end of the day what Trump was doing, the chaos of Trump.
Original English
>> with that.
Original English
>> And And And ultimately it was um you know, you you normally don't have a president press a button that just explodes the gas prices, but Trump seemingly had that button and he just kept pressing it. And I think that was a major part of the reason.
Original English
>> Have you seen the charts of his approval rating and the gas price?
Original English
>> Yeah, exactly.
Original English
>> basically exactly.
Original English
>> Exactly. And um I think for what reason he was doing this was also important. I mean, their initial roll out of the Iran war was fascinating because they didn't even try to manufacture any consent whatsoever. And as a matter of fact, on the first wave they came out and were like, we're doing this for Israel. And then they came and then they went back and were like, no, actually we're doing this for ourselves. But that was that was a unique moment because Americans were already frustrated with American foreign policy, constantly waging war endlessly and and they this was already unpopular from the start and it became the least popular war that America's waged in a matter of months.
This is historic stuff, right? So I think of course there were going to be punishments for the admin that was engaging in this in this action after two years of chaos, two years of instability and outright corruption from the White House, the close associates of Trump and his immediate family members making billions of dollars in cryptocurrency schemes or or or the the pay-to-play initiatives that were taking place in the White House, some of which we knew about and some of which I hope we will learn more about with these investigations that will unfold.
Original English
>> So the Democratic Party that's coming into power now remains an opposition party at the national level. Donald Trump still is in the White House even if they've got the House and the Senate. What do you think they should do?
Original English
>> I've jokingly referred to this as um files and trials, belt the ass, and hopefully a comprehensive legislative agenda that is defining what the Democratic Party is for 2028.
Original English
>> than the third.
Original English
>> Yes. Well, the third one is just for me.
Original English
>> But let's go in those in in in buckets. So let's start with the what's it called, files and
Original English
>> and trials, Epstein files. I feel like that's that is a a nod to the swing voters that were very frustrated about this. So I think like that is a high-profile incident. I I that that I know will cause uh many of the the apoliticals or or many of the low propensity voters to to pay close attention to exactly what's going on. But more importantly, I think it's the trials that are uh a necessity, investigations, uh identifying uh what Chrystia Freeland did um and exposing the network of of pay-to-play uh initiatives that were taking place inside of the White House cuz we've never seen outright corruption of this sort perhaps ever in American history. I I often joke and say like you know I'm look I'm Turkish I grew up in Turkey. I know Erdogan is very corrupt and so is Vladimir Putin in Russia for example, but at least they hide it.
And Trump was so in our faces with his uh corruption and with his lack of interest in in the overall economy. I mean there were so many instances where he just said I don't care about inflation. I don't care about the prices. Uh and uh I mean even with with your former colleague Ross uh on the on the 60 Minutes interview where he he was he he had his own Mary Antoinette moment where he was like well you know I made billions of dollars because I put money in the stock market. He's like why don't you put your money in the stock market?
Original English
>> There's a Forbes story that said that your net worth maybe it's changed with the stock market recently, but your net worth went up by $3 billion since you since you returned to
Original English
>> Okay you ready? So here's
Original English
>> Everyone's my net worth did not go up by $3 billion for for the record.
Original English
>> stock.
Original English
>> I I should have I should have had stock.
Original English
>> And it's like well that's not not exactly populist, is it? Right? He's not exactly the man of the people.
And um I think we have to expose uh all of that. I think the Democrats need to work hard to make sure that people fully grasp the the uh outright corruption that's taking place inside of the White House.
Uh we need law and order. I'm a law and order Democrat. I believe in accountability.
Uh we need answers and we also need punishments. And I think this is something that people are demanding.
Original English
>> So it's funny talking to you because your reputation is as a hardcore socialist.
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> This slightly sounds like a No Kings rally here.
So is this your theory of like the next two years when you're just dealing with an opposition party?
How do you think about the like what path you're trying to put the party, the country on?
Original English
>> Great question. So I yes, I'm a socialist, but I also believe in good governance. I believe in the power of institutions, which is very interesting for someone like myself to say this, even though I understand that many of those institutions have turned on socialists historically at times.
But I think they need to exist. It's the same concept behind policing.
It's not a secret that policing doesn't work very well in this country. Now this is probably the worst time to say that because, you know, crime is down. Even in the city in New York City, the murder rate is lower than ever before.
But I think those are historic trends that
Original English
>> Jessica Tish socialist.
Original English
>> I'm not a Jessica Tish socialist. I do disagree with the wonderful mayor on that issue.
Having said that, having said that, I understand the necessity for policing as an institution. I'm not a police abolitionist, right? I want police policing as an institution to serve and protect and serve the people.
And I also understand that we have to use these institutions against those who are corrupt, against those who are violating the law. And this administration clearly has. So in the interim, I am completely aligned with the anti-Trump coalition because that is an an absolute must. That is that is a necessity for us to to rebuild the the social fabric to restore uh American civilization, American society, because uh if we don't do that, then complete chaos. And I worry about what kind of fascist acceleration is comes after Donald Trump.
And then, last but not least, I want the Democrats to design a definable, tangible 2028 legislative agenda.
So I think there are uh numerous uh areas that Democrats should um lay a stake on, like just plant their flag and say this is what we're about.
So I think right now one of the biggest uh problems with the affordability crisis is healthcare.
Premiums are completely out of control. As a consequence of the Big Beautiful Bill uh in order to pay for the corporate tax cuts, uh there is tremendous austerity coming for Medicaid. That's actually happening right now. They they uh timed it so that it would uh hit right after the midterm, so they wouldn't get penalized for it, right? So we have this major crisis that's imminent. It's going to make prices far worse, and it's going to uh lead to many other rural hospitals shutting down. That's another separate crisis in healthcare in this country.
And I think the only solution to solve this problem is single-payer healthcare. I believe in Medicare for all.
Um not only is it the most popular it's ever been as a policy according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it's 66% I believe.
Um but I think it's the the right policy initiative as well. Now, of course, Trump is going to veto it. I understand that. But I think it's important to define the Democratic Party with tangible economic policies that that people can identify with, that people can associate with. Um because I said this in 2024. This was one of Kamala's biggest weaknesses was that she was not definable. She was all over the place. She had some policy prescriptions. Uh, she had some very good ones that were critically panned by this institution like uh combating price gouging. I thought that was expertly communicated as well. She didn't say it's price controls. She said she's going to go after price gouging in grocery stores. That was broadly popular.
But there was no real uh healthcare policy on the on the platform that at least was communicated on the campaign. And I think that was a major mistake as well beyond just like subsidizing the existing marketplace.
Um, I think people are frustrated with that.
Original English
>> If you're not a subscriber to the New York Times, we have some news for you. You can now explore the Times for free without any paywalls at all during your first month in the New York Times app.
Original English
>> So I want to spend some time on healthcare because I think healthcare is where you see the Democratic Party shifting and a kind of synthesis emerging. But but it I would describe it differently than you did, so I want to see where we disagree on it.
So one, I think for a while after the Affordable Care Act, the Democratic Party kind of had the view not the Bernie wing of the party, but the main wing of the party of like we did healthcare. It's time to do climate, time to do pre-K, time to do something else, maybe bolster Obamacare subsidies, but we already did healthcare, time to spend the political capital elsewhere.
I think at this point that's not true any longer. One is that Trump has gutted Obamacare in a bunch of different directions, taken out the mandate, cut the subsidies, you know, the um insurance premiums in the individual markets are spiraling.
The other is that I think in some ways just some of the ideas behind Obamacare didn't work as well as people hoped they will. Uh, competitive private insurance markets didn't uh end up being a thing people are really excited about.
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> On the other hand, the abolish private insurance side of the party, this is more the Bernie side of the party where people like Medicare for all in theory, but you begin talking about taking away their insurance, they don't like that.
But I've been hearing AOC, I've been hearing El Sayed kind of walk away from that. It's more of a Medicare choice platform.
So I think you're going to end up with some kind of Medicare for more synthesis.
Original English
>> Yeah, this is the uh what is it called? The Medicare for America concept Democrats have pushed for. Um I am in opposition to that uh as a as a uh policy because I I see it as um also deeply unpopular by the same exact entities that are going to say this is far too competitive with our product. Private insurance is not going to be in favor of uh a a public option or an expansion of Medicare. So if we are going to have to face this inevitable resistance uh from moneyed interests, we might as well go all the way.
The reason why we have skyrocketing premiums is because it's entire this is an inelastic service. You need healthcare or you die, right?
And uh and therefore we have this unnecessary middleman that is great for the GDP, it's great for the insurance executives, it's great for this industry, but it's actually horrible for the consumers. It's not even great for the healthcare facilities, it's not even great for the doctors themselves.
It's just good as a money-making vehicle for the insurance companies.
And of course that is precisely the reason why our healthcare costs have skyrocketed. So I think that doing away with that and uh and making it much cheaper overall, much more affordable overall on every single American uh while still using the existing skeleton of those, you know, middlemen that exist in all these different markets, but uh basically packaging it under some kind of public-private partnership is the appropriate way to go.
Original English
>> Have you looked much at what happened when they did tried to do single parent Vermont?
Original English
>> Uh no, I am not familiar with what uh the single payer initiative was in Vermont, but I will say this.
Original English
>> let's talk it's useful to to chat about for a minute because I think it gets to where maybe I think this is going to end up.
So they tried to do this a couple years ago. Bernie Sanders, obviously being senator from Vermont, they had full democratic trifecta control.
Original English
It fell apart. And there are different reasons it fell apart. My colleague now at the Times and at Vox, Ezra Klein did a lot of great reporting on this. But one of the things that happens when you try to ingest the entire healthcare system into a single-payer system is all of these hidden costs right now become visible all at once to the electorate.
Original English
In theory, the people you would think would want Medicare for all are employers, right? That you know, a huge amount of my healthcare spend is covered by an employer. I don't see it. That's true for most Americans who are not in Medicare and Medicaid itself. And so you get everything that the employer is paying becomes a tax. And everything that is kind of hidden in tax deductions becomes a tax. And so the price tag doesn't look less to people even though it might be less on the national budget because a lot of the costs right now are hidden. So you have that problem.
Original English
And the other problem, I don't know if you saw this, it was a poll by Media Sones Group and Searchlight. So you had a kind of left and centrist poll. And people people want Medicare for all, but then you're like, do you want to do you want your private insurance taken away? They say no. Do you trust the government more than your private insurer? They say no. And so it has seemed to me that you're even if you want to get to a single-payer, you have to be in a kind of trust-building period where you take it in pieces. When I had Abdul Sayed on the show, he talked about this is like climbing Mount Everest, right? You got to get to base camp and then a piece and then a piece.
Original English
So first I'm curious which part of that political analysis you disagree with. And and if you don't, like what you see is a kind of like what would be a progression towards what you want as opposed to biting it all at once.
Original English
>> Yeah, I I don't think that biting it all at once is is something that is is feasible or possible right now. But I think there's value in advancing that as as um our our legislative north star. The reason why there is this distinction and and people get frustrated when you or people are more negative about Medicare for all when you tell them that they might lose their private health care is because there's not a lot of confidence in good governance right now.
Original English
And that has been I would say the defining feature of the post Reagan neoliberal era. But I think there's some real changes coming right now, but it requires great communicators to diligently talk to people, not treat them as stupid, but to explain to them the situation ahead because the reason why Medicare for all has become much more popular over the years is because healthcare premiums are unbelievably costly. People hate healthcare. People hate their private insurance companies. They love their healthcare providers. They love their doctors. They don't want to lose their doctors, but they despise Aetna and and Blue Cross Blue Shield because their experience
Original English
>> makes this harder though, right? Because the cost is coming I mean there's some cost that sits with the private insurer. But the costs are coming from the providers first and foremost and because the insurers lose when they fight the providers, they just don't fight the providers. So they just pass along the cost
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> and then take a cut on top of that and then we spend a ton. You do Medicare for all in a way that saves money, what you're doing is price controls on providers, right? That is that is the mechanism of money saving. There's administrators
Original English
>> want to do that.
Original English
>> Yeah, but then they're going to fight you, right? That that's always been the hard part about healthcare when the doctors come after you because you're cutting their salaries.
Original English
>> Fully fully aware of that and I think that that is an inevitability. It's a necessity, but that's also why the the complementary policy to that is also free college education because I think I mean look I I grew up in Turkey. We have a nationalized healthcare system, but then we also have private insurance on top of that. We have private hospitals and public hospitals, right? And you can get free college education all the way to medical school. But in exchange for getting your doctorate get uh getting an MD, then the government will send you to one of these different uh places where you have to do a residence and you don't really have a say on where that uh residence is. After that you can work in whichever facility you want to.
Original English
And that I think is a much fairer system and much more efficient system ironically enough because like at least you are no longer saddled with debt uh right out of the gates uh and and um of course this would be a uh a a seismic shift in the way that we currently operate. But there are initiatives uh paid for by benefactors and places like NYU and many other colleges right now where people are trying to pay for medical school specifically. So I think there is uh there is uh definitely a need that people recognize that exists here.
Original English
>> Let me ask you about how you apply vulgar bernieism to places where you can have more conflict within priorities that Democrats hold at the same time.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> So right now there's a permitting reform bill making it easier to build both clean and dirty energy moving through Congress. It's a bipartisan bill. You have sort of Democrats who negotiated it, Republicans who negotiated it. I don't want to go super deep into the details of a super complicated bill. But the the challenge it is posing to Democrats right now is I think the study show it's on net kind of modestly good for climate, but let's even say we didn't know, right? Let's just like use a kind of stylized version of the bill.
Original English
If you make it easier to build dirty energy and Republicans win again in 2029 and they kind of subsidize it whatever, you could get a big build out of dirty energy. On the other hand, it does reduce energy costs and people are mad as about energy costs and you know when the Democratic Party ends up facing this set of questions, right? What if you can make things cheaper, but maybe it means you get more natural gas plants? Maybe you can make things cheaper, but maybe it means it's easier for corporations to produce. How do you think about those kinds of tradeoffs?
Original English
>> I mean, my attitude on this stuff is that we need to demand more in exchange for the subsidies that we offer to these companies to begin with. I think that was a huge issue with the Biden administration when I I remember when the first oil shock happened after Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden went back to the oil and gas giants and basically begged them to increase supply and the petroleum industry came out and said, no, we have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders. We're not going to we're not going to increase supply and and maybe ease prices.
Original English
I find that completely unacceptable, especially considering the the sheer amount of subsidies we offer these companies. And I think the way I would go about it is or rather the populist way of going about it is like there are areas where we could potentially make demands of the oil and gas industry to to at times even increase supply if necessary and and lower prices overall, but it's not the the current order of business, the current way that we go about it is is through incentives.
Original English
>> But but it sounds even in the example you're choosing here, it sounds to me like you're saying prioritize affordability over emissions reductions.
Original English
>> I think that there are ways of doing this, yes. I think again, this goes back to how much control we have over private enterprise, how much control we have over the oil and gas industry, and currently we have none in my opinion. I mean, look, example I use is again going back to Norway, right?
Original English
So on the one hand, they make a lot of money off of oil and gas, but also on the other hand, some of the profits go back to building out an electrif- uh an electrical grid that focuses on pho- photovoltaics and wind energy and renewable energy overall. And I think that is something we can do here in America as well.
Original English
>> How do you think about questions where you're dealing with a conflict between consumer prices and production here, right? So maybe a an easy example of this is it would become cheaper to buy
Original English
an electric vehicle if we allowed Chinese EVs into the country without ruinous tariffs on them. On the other hand, it could be really really bad for the American auto industry and the jobs in places it supports. So how do you think about a trade-off like that?
Original English
>> Um I am fully in favor of protecting domestic manufacturing. Look, I'm I'm a socialist. I I am in favor of trade protectionism. So I I believe that uh there are some tariffs that are necessary, especially considering that we don't really have a lot of domestic manufacturing that remains here uh anyway. So um I I don't mind uh shutting off uh Chinese electric vehicles uh from from entering the American market.
However, I think what we should be doing is uh focusing on investment in R&D to ensure that we have competitive electric vehicles, a fleet of electric vehicles that we create as well, that we could potentially sell to the rest of the world rather than uh engage in what Donald Trump is doing to to eradicate some of the tra- trade surpluses that we've seen with other countries and then I guess like forcing them to purchase our F-150 pickup trucks that are uh not exactly compliant with uh the the uh needs that other markets have.
Original English
>> So I think of a lot of places where the Democratic Party is rowing in the same direction.
And then there are debates about political strategy and how far to go and trade-offs.
I want to go to the issue where I think it's going to be hardest for the Democratic coalition because not everybody believes things in the same direction, which is Israel, particularly the issue of whether Israel can and should exist as a Jewish state and whether that can coexist with freedom and self-determination for Palestinians.
So let me try it this way. Tell me how you understand the different positions here inside the Democratic camp and then sort of after you do that, where you place yourself.
Original English
>> Yeah. Um I mean, I'm an anti-Zionist and uh uh that that obviously means that I I want Israel to no longer exist as an apartheid state, uh as an occupation. Uh and uh I hope that the most just and equitable solution is one that, you know, every party involved in this conflict can can agree on. Um that could be a single solitary secular state where everyone has equal rights and representation. Uh it could potentially be a binational commitment or a two-state solution, even though that seems less likely as a consequence of the the uh occupation in the West Bank and how there's no contiguous Palestinian statehood any longer. Uh and the settlement project has almost rendered that impossible.
Um the Democratic Party, or at least the base of support, the voters themselves are not in disagreement uh so much as the the politicians are on the issue of Israel. There's definitely uh a divergence between where the base is versus where the party is. And I think there's a couple different factors at play here. Obviously one is uh the the corrosive influence of
Original English
>> want to go to the factions first, right? I I want you to describe what what you understand the various opinions to be.
Original English
>> I mean, you have the the die-hard uh ideologues like the ultra-Zionists or the Zionists that are uh legitimately invested in this ideological project. I would put Biden in camp.
Um, he seemingly uh for one reason or another, and this is very interesting cuz he's you know, Irish Catholic, and that's um probably one of the last demographics you would expect to be so um so invested in the um Israeli project. But he is in the ultra-Zionist camp in my opinion, and there are a lot of people who um are worried about their reelection, let's say, and are worried about at least up until this cycle, were worried about uh AIPAC and and numerous other uh Israeli lobby uh um front organizations dumping boatloads of money uh into their races and potentially unseating them.
And then you have people uh and this is a growing coalition within the party. Uh many of the candidates that I backed that are in favor of delivering accountability to Israel for its crimes of genocide uh and and demanding an arms embargo on Israel or um I mean I guess there's uh other versions of this where people want to apply the Leahy laws uh evenly to Israel, although there are limitations on those um restrictions.
And um yeah, I would say that I am closest to that camp, the camp that wants accountability for what Israel has done, the camp that wants to pressure Israel because we have profound amounts of influence.
Original English
>> anti-Zionist. Or at least not all of it is anti-Zionist.
Original English
>> Like Brad Lander, for example, is self-described liberal Zionist. Uh and I would put him in that camp as well.
Original English
>> I I want to get to this is where you've become most kind of electrically controversial, and so I want to play a clip of of I think where some of this has become tricky. This is you talking to Rashida Tlaib at last year's DSA convention.
Original English
>> Zionism is an exterminationist ideology built around ethno ethno-religious supremacist values. So uh when when people say like, oh well, you you I'm a liberal Zionist, like I want there to be a Jewish I want there I'm a liberal, Zionist. I want there to be a Jewish ethno state. I'm like, okay, like what do you mean? It's like saying you're like a liberal nazi. You want a an Aryan majority ethno state? Like what are you talking about? There's people there.
Original English
>> So a minute ago, you were saying you're sort of in the camp with Brad Lander, who's a liberal Zionist and coming congressman from Brooklyn. Um you're also kind of here saying liberal Zionist here like liberal Nazis. Put that together for me.
Original English
>> All right, so great question. Zionism by my estimation and I think this is becoming a more popular position overall is a racist ideology. It it is it it it differs the way that people see it depending on their social conditioning differs, but its impact ultimately is is undeniably a racist one. It's an exterminationist ideology because it's led to the extermination.
Original English
>> is an exterminationist.
Original English
>> So with Brad Lander, the reason why I say he's a part of this coalition is because I find him to be a fascinating figure because on the one hand, he says he's a liberal Zionist, but also on the other hand, he recognizes the apartheid. He recognizes the occupation and seeks out the end of the apartheid in the occupation. He recognizes the genocide and wants accountability. The areas of disagreement between myself and Brad Lander is when, for example, I love that he went out to the West Bank and wanted to do protective presence during the olive harvest.
Original English
>> We're in the West Bank this week as part of that protect the harvest effort. We're helping Palestinian farmers harvest olives rather than be ethnically cleansed from their land.
Original English
>> I think that's great. That's wonderful. And more politicians should do that, especially politicians who are are self-described as as liberal Zionists should do that as well.
But then during that experience, he gets detained. I think that was more so the Israeli government trying to save that group uh that the the settlers didn't attack them and it became much worse uh and much bloodier affair.
But then someone attacks a checkpoint in the West Bank. Lander came out and said you know rest in peace to the uh to the IDF soldiers that were at this checkpoint. Now my expectation isn't for Brad to come out and be like get wrecked to those people but my expectation I think the expectation of many people on the anti-Zionist side is uh to approach the issue with the understanding that it is illegal for those soldiers to be there. The entire franchise is illegal. The settlement project is completely illegal under international law.
Original English
>> describing here I'm not arguing with this part. What but what you're describing here I understand there's a difference between being an anti-Zionist and a liberal Zionist, right? When you described what Brad Lander believes you're just describing what liberal Zionists today believe. It's an occupation, it's an apartheid.
Original English
>> I wouldn't say all liberal Zionists believe that. Yeah.
Original English
>> The genocidal dimension is the part where people part. But a couple times you've called liberal Zionists akin to Nazis, right? That's a very specific thing, right? Sometimes I'll hear you defend the argument by saying well Zionism in all of its versions is uh ethno-nationalist and I'm just saying I don't
Original English
like ethno-nationalism.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> What made the Nazis the Nazis was gas chambers. Like just like straight, right? Liberal Zionists who believe there's an apartheid uh scenario happening in the West Bank, who believes that Gaza was a genocide or at least war crimes I don't really understand the defense of calling them akin to Nazis.
Original English
>> Now it's hyperbolic but the reason why I'm not so precious about the utilization of the term is because of its historic significance. The entire principle behind Holocaust studies is to understand uh how society could move in a direction where people could turn a blind eye to such devastation, to such systematized forms of violence, this machine of death and destruction. Um it's its utility is in learning about it so that we don't repeat those mistakes. And right now obviously it's not uh to the same degree as the Holocaust, but right now we are watching a genocide unfold. So I don't mind using this kind of incendiary language with the hopes that people understand exactly how devastating the situation has become and take the sufficient response against it to try and stop it.
Original English
>> Well, I think I think there's agreement here on how bad the situation actually is. Um
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> but I guess I'm actually more confused about your position inside this conversation than I was coming in cuz when you said at the beginning look, you don't really care so long as you have a a just and equitable outcome, whether it's one state, two state, binational, confederacy, right? There's all these different ideas out there.
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> I mean the two-state solution is like the liberal Zionist solution.
Original English
>> I just don't think it's sincere.
Original English
>> Well, you don't think it's sincere, you don't think it's likely. Those are different.
Original English
>> I I Well, both. I think that people that say they want a two-state don't actually map it out. What does this look like? What do we do about the 750,000 Jewish settlers that live in occupied East Jerusalem and also the West Bank? And um they don't actually talk about how to get there or what those two states look like. And that's what that's the point of frustration. So I feel like it's just a way to to simply say, no, I want a two-state
Original English
>> who want a one state map it out?
Original English
>> Um some people do. I mean I certainly haven't and at two at one state also goes through a potential binational commitment as well uh and then uh and then continue to build from that.
Original English
>> But what you're describing here and I mean this is a place I sit in a lot is the impossibility from where we sit right now of imagining any solution passing and holding again given what the situation looks like at the moment. You're not going to move to a one state tomorrow. Nobody's got a pathway to do that, not to a two state, not to a confederacy.
You're sort of you're doubting the sincerity of people who believe in something that they don't quite know how to get to. But in the way I would say you believe in something you don't quite know how to get to. I don't think you got a plan for how in Israel right now they can't even imagine how it would integrate Arab Israeli parties into a governing coalition when they're not even able to get coalitional like full coalitional membership. How that becomes a peaceable multi-ethnic one state secularized you know from the river to the sea.
Original English
>> You do recognize the setback here is is not the fact that these Arab Israeli parties or the you know Palestinian citizens of Israel have some uh part of this political coalition that already exists but it's it's actually the societal attitudes.
Original English
>> Yes, I do.
Original English
>> So that is the the unchecked racism that exists in Israeli society that's gotten worse over the last couple of decades.
Original English
>> Racism and fear.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> I think the thing that you often under
Original English
>> is fear.
Original English
>> it's both right? It's sometimes fear and I think fear drives a lot of it.
Original English
>> The question is do you find that fear to be justifiable or not? I personally don't think that that fear is justifiable even in spite of the the horrific actions that took place on October 7.
Original English
>> I don't think that the place Israeli society has gotten itself into is justifiable morally or from a security perspective. I think in the long run all of this is completely ruinous.
And I think that Israel being forced to confront the question of even within Israeli society as it is currently composed, can you actually have a pluralistic, multi-ethnic governing coalition is showing things that probably Israelis would have preferred the world not see. So like my despair over this is very deep.
Um and how we get from where we are now to something I consider even modestly better like on a path, but if the position here is to believe in a two-state solution because you want to see Jewish self-determination, Palestinian self-determination is akin to being a modern-day Nazi, like then you've got a that that coalition cannot hold together.
Original English
>> No, I I agree. Um like I said, the if the underlying argument revolves around uh dehumanizing Palestinians or in any way shape or form justifying as a as a consequence of security concerns for example or the demographic concerns that Israeli society has broadly as a as it builds out a Jewish ethno state, right? A Jewish majority state cuz that is the the underlying problem. That's why uh when Zoran says, oh, I believe that Israel should exist as a, you know, pluralistic liberal democracy where everyone has equal rights and representation and people go, wait a minute, but you didn't say it's a Jewish state. It has to be a Jewish state in character when there are indigenous inhabitants there that are not Jewish, that is the real problem. And I think the reality of the matter is um and I understand why the the the deployment of Nazi as a terminology is is so powerful, right? It It cuz we're talking about um a a Jewish state engaging in fascist actions at the end of the day.
Original English
>> I can't tell if you just used a provocative thing, but you don't want to climb down from it. Like actually talking to you.
Original English
>> Well, it is it is fascist. I do believe that Zionism is fascist.
Original English
>> but Nazis were more than fascist, right? The reason we don't just call them fascist is they were the Nazis.
Original English
>> I understand that.
Original English
>> think you think liberal Zionists are actually the same thing cuz even every time I push you, you don't quite seem to think that.
Original English
>> There are, absolutely, in my opinion, people who self-identify as liberal Zionist that have turned a blind eye to the atrocities or outright celebrated them and demanded more of it in Israeli society and in American society as well. Uh while while the No, of course not all of them. There's varying degrees here.
Original English
>> But but you do sometimes describe people here in really really sweeping and and to them really offensive ways. I mean, one that came to me non-politically just through Jewish people I know, as when you described Abdul Sayed, canvassers in a Jewish district, as akin to people arguing for miscegenation in a KKK neighborhood. And and maybe it's worth just playing that clip.
Original English
>> Trying to convince people that El-Sayed is the right candidate is
Original English
>> This has got to be the wildest door-knocking operation of all time. Trying to get perhaps the most Zionist district in the country. Well, not the most, but like one of the more Zionist wealthy districts in the country to vote for a Muslim anti-Zionist.
Brave soldiers, all of them. Thank God they don't probably own any guns, you know.
This is the equivalent, straight up. Look, I don't think this is insensitive to say. This is the equivalent of going to that like clan KKK neighborhood to stump for like a black candidate who's running expressly on a, you know, pro-miscegenation campaign or something like to abolish anti-miscegenation laws.
Original English
>> I think it's crazy to describe an entire neighborhood of Jewish people whose positions you actually don't know as akin to KKK members.
Original English
>> Okay.
Original English
>> Like I I think among other things, what is I think offensive to many Jewish people about this is just the like describing a district where you actually don't know what the people think. You don't know what their relationship to Israel is. Like that's where sometimes you'll talk very much about policing this boundary between what people think about Israel, which is I think up for political contestation, and just
Original English
Judaism.
And among the things that I thought were a problem about that was like the demolition of that boundary.
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
Yeah. Um this was uh Jews for Abdul canvas um that was going to homes with Democrats for Mike Rogers signs outside of it.
Um and from my estimation, I don't think that I mean we also found out that there were plenty of people who did not find it unconscionable to vote for a Muslim anti-Zionist. So that that wasn't the case at all. And I and I have talked extensively about how much uh this this this uh false conflation and loyalty to Israel is exaggerated in the news and ironically enough how dangerous that is in terms of creating and fomenting more antisemitism.
Um but this is very specifically about um people who are like outwardly and expressly antagonistic to any criticism of Israel. And yeah, at the end of the day, I think it is coming from a racist place. I look I live in a very I live in a very pro-Israel neighborhood.
And the things that I've heard from my neighbors that I've known for decades at this point about who I am from their eyes now because of what they've seen, what they've heard is genuinely alarming and is outright racist.
Original English
>> But you don't think some of what they think about you comes not from the fact that you're anti-Zionist, but because maybe you describe them as KKK members or Nazis?
Original English
>> I think that there is no difference between a KKK member and what I'm describing in my personal experience and what I've seen and what I've heard and what my my anti-Zionist Jewish friends have uh talked about in in of their own conversations. I'll give you one example. I go to a dog park.
My dog and this other lady's dogs play all the time.
One day my uh I'm at the park again, and my assistant is is uh walking my dog. I'm playing basketball.
She comes up to her and says, how can you work for that man?
She says, what?
She goes, I know who you work for. How can you work for that man? This woman I've I've met many times, had long conversations.
She says,
he wants Muslims to rape you and every other, you know, all of our daughters.
There is this tremendous amount of Islamophobia that has grown in the last two years or so.
One of the funniest parts about this is like
I as a socialist, it's almost like a Jewish tradition. Like all of my favorite thinkers are are radicals, the revolutionaries are all Jewish. And and not only that, but all of my closest friends are Jewish. I live in a very Jewish neighborhood. So like
it's it's kind of sad to see the the attitude shift from people who are otherwise very progressive people that I've I've known for years.
And I mean, it sucks. And
Original English
>> racism. There is Islamophobia. I'm not But that feels like an interesting shift in in in the topic there because what you're talking about here
are people who have not said to you or not said to your assistant that they believe Muslims are here to to rape all of their their daughters. But I think probably a lot of those Democrats for Mike Rogers, you know, homes to even narrow it to that more limited group rather than the whole neighborhood of Jewish people.
Original English
>> Do you think a Democrat for Mike Rogers that is a lifelong Democrat is uh obviously making the calculation that the odious forms of white supremacy that they're seeing from the Republican Party is still nowhere near as consequential as for an Arab Muslim?
Original English
>> No, I don't think Well, I'm not going to say I know what's in their heart because I also don't think you know what's in their heart. But if you if you hold this in a slightly more generous space, or I think a more straightforward space, the way you described it as um they don't want to vote for a Muslim anti-Zionist, right? And I would assume that it's probably the anti-Zionism part is pretty important there. And what a lot of the Jewish people I know who hold politics that look more like that believe
is that
the
Jews in Israel are endangered and that if it loses American support, if Israel loses American support,
that there will be mass slaughter there at some point, right? And it may not be about what anybody else is doing or believes. It is a much more security-oriented
view that was vastly worsened after October 7th.
And you may not agree with that. I'm not asking you to agree with it. But but suggesting that they all believe that what's going on is, you know, you want to rape their daughters is I think jump into something they haven't said.
Original English
>> the point, well, first of all, the reason why I brought that up is is is anecdotal, but the reason why I brought that up is because it's coming from somewhere and it's obviously very clearly a a tide shift that I've personally experienced that many people that I know have also reflected on. But what I was going to say is the concept of security,
right?
There's never been a point throughout history where atrocities have unfolded, where those who are responsible for those atrocities have not made the security argument.
Of course, there are security concerns. I mean, the Nazis made a false security concern argument as well. They didn't say, oh, we're going to go out and kill Jewish people because Jewish people are evil. They said Jewish people are evil, that they're the organized Jewry is is in control of the banks, but also the labor unions. They're doing socialism. They're disrupting, you know, the the German folk and and their good nature.
We don't have to believe the security concerns. And my argument is I don't believe in the the security concerns that justify the continued support to Israel and its current belligerent form.
I don't agree with that because I think the occupying force still controls the pacing and the intensity of the violence, both the violence that it subjects the occupied people to,
but also the violence that is born out of the retaliation to the the form of apartheid, which is a system of violence.
Original English
>> You know, one thing that I wonder how you respond to it is you've often said you find Hamas to be a thousand times better than the Israeli government. Putting aside the question of comparison,
there used to be a strong, even majoritarian peace movement in Israel. Now, maybe it wouldn't go as far as you would want it to go, but it did want two states. It did have politicians. Israeli politics was not nearly as far to the right as it is today, and much more seemed possible then.
And it was a very long period of suicide bombings that destroyed that movement, right? And that was an incredible accelerant to Benjamin Netanyahu and his politics, right? Is explicitly what he ran on again and again and again, right? Likud strong on Hamas, right? That was the campaign slogan.
And so I understand your critique of the security argument, and I'm not saying you got to buy it, but the view of Israeli Jews when I talk to them, what they say to me is
easy for you sitting in your podcast studio hanging out with Hassan which they're probably not going to love.
Original English
>> the most dangerous man.
Original English
>> Easy for you to say
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> why I need to figure out a political settlement.
But we're here, and it was my nephew who died in a bombing at a discotheque. And I had been out there in the streets protesting for a two-state solution for years at that point.
And that there is agency on the other side. And what we simply don't believe is that if we let up on the repression, right? The occupation, uh that we will be safe.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> Hassan might believe we're going to be safe, but I don't believe we're going to be safe.
Original English
>> Yeah.
So the the the appropriate way to go about this is to understand how the Palestinian resistance's tactics has shifted over the years. Obviously, I think it's completely unacceptable to engage in uh uh in in violent actions against any group of civilians, right? Like international law does not allow that. That's obviously illegal. Um that is what we would largely consider to be terrorism, right? Even though it's a vague definition.
Um but the evolution
Original English
>> was terrorism too.
Original English
>> There are absolutely there were war crimes that took place. I mean, it was it was uh horrifying. I've never you know, I've never condoned October 7. Having said that, I understand the the ways in which October 7 unfolded almost became an inevitability really. And
Original English
this is not that controversial of a perspective. It's one that Gideon Levy has also uh talked about. It's it's conversation that I Yeah. And it's it's the Haaretz editorial board's opinion immediately after October 7. It was one uh conversation that I had with Ofer Cassif, uh an Israeli minister of the Knesset, uh that that was warning about this happening. The former heads of the Shin Bet that talked about the the squeezing of the Palestinian uh existence in the West Bank was uh making it an inevitability that the uh the Palestinian resistance from Gaza was inevitably going to do something because they were getting written out of the equation in its entirety. Um Abraham Accords obviously accelerated this process as well. Why am I talking about all this? Well, because Palestinian resistance uh the the the age-old adage is a bit of a cliché is that the first intifada was fought with stones, and then the second was fought with bus bombings, right?
Original English
So how did that evolution take place? Baruch Goldstein and the massacre um that took place where 29 Palestinians that were praying inside of a mosque were ruthlessly slaughtered by this American Israeli uh was when the Palestinian resistance saw a turning point, a point of no return. It's an act of desperation from their perspective, but they recognized that there was no other solution. I think it was wrong. I I don't just think that it's morally wrong, which I do, but I also think that it was tactically wrong as well. And there's uh uh there were a lot of conversations at the time amongst the resistance about whether they should pursue this or would this harden the Israeli position. And it's very clear that it hardened the Israeli position against Palestinian statehood.
Original English
So having said all of that, it's important to understand how this evolution took place because the entire resistance is not born out of antagonism towards Judaism, but antagonism towards the occupation. There's a reason why even Hamas itself, which is a fundamentalist group, right? And I probably wouldn't do so well living under uh uh Hamas governance, right? And there's plenty of problems in their civil governance, which again, many of which is still born out of the occupation. Having said that, the attitude is that uh they are expressly animated by Jew hatred. That's not the case. If Israel was a Christian nationalist ethno state, then the violence and the attitude would look like it's anti-Christian. It is a national emancipatory front. That's all they care about is the end to the occupation.
Original English
Um and I think this is a a real issue in the way that we've discussed it in Western media. And and it's obviously uh beneficial to to dehumanize the entire Palestinian population and to say that the resistance is not in any way, shape, or form invested in something that is just if we are to consider the end of the occupation to be just.
Original English
>> So I think that's uh an answer with more both understanding and context than the everybody who lives in that neighborhood is akin to a KKK member, which I recognize there's like your short clips and your long clips. But in this clip in a part we didn't play you're like, I know this is going to get clipped out of context and
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> it's like, well, you're you're inviting it. This reason to the point you're making here substantively though, the reason I actually don't get into a lot of debates about Zionism is I find the word itself outdated. There just is this state called the state of Israel. It exists. States do not give up their territorial integrity or their future willingly. And this state has factions in it that are highly racist and supremacist. It also has a lot of people in it who genuinely care about security and who had a friend die or a child die or a nephew die in October 7th or in a bus bombing. And they're genuinely scared. And the one of the hard things from the position that I know better, right? I'm less you know, I go to the West Bank when I go there, but I don't my understanding of Palestinian politics is not as strong as my understanding of Israeli politics. But unless you know, if you just said dismiss the security question as well, every occupier believes they are doing this on behalf of security, there's legitimacy to that,
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> but there's also the
Original English
>> Political reality?
Original English
>> No, there's also the physical reality
Original English
>> Okay.
Original English
>> of your friend was butchered um or blown up or you were at the funeral, right? And saying to that person, security is an abstraction. It's not an abstraction to them just like oppression is not an abstraction to the Palestinians.
Original English
>> Well, it's not just oppression, right?
Original English
>> Cuz it's, we've talked a lot about Israeli security concerns, but what is always uh not discussed in this conversation is how can Palestinians live alongside those who have slaughtered their families?
Original English
>> they have no security.
Original English
>> Yeah. And that's that's my point always is the reason why I draw back to historical parallels is because with the exception of maybe the Haitian Revolution, there has never been an instance where the newly freed population has actually engaged in the act of righteous vengeance. As a matter of fact, if we go back to the Reconstruction period, the violence often comes from those who want to restore the racial pecking order, the Klan, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan uh during the Reconstruction period was was where a lot of that violence was coming from. So that's
Original English
>> tricky though, because this is the decolonization perspective, which has legitimacy to it.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> But the other perspective on this, and you hear it much more from Israelis, and it in some ways fits better the demographics where you have roughly 7 million people on each side, is a lot of decolonization examples. You have a very, very, very tiny governing minority and a gigantic indigenous majority. That's South Africa, right? That's a lot of the examples you're talking about. Here you don't. Um what you have are 7 million people and you have many, many, many, many, many examples including in that region of disruptive political transitions leading to uh absolutely devastating civil wars. And another, the civil war perspective, um I mean you can look right over there in Syria uh where, you know, hundreds of thousands died. So the idea that sometime people say like, oh just look at South Africa, well this doesn't actually look like South Africa. I mean this to me is why it's very hard. I always not joke, I always say that like my ideology on this is better. I believe in things that make it better and you take kind of one step at a time to you like Chinese politics metaphors, so you cross the river by feeling the stones underneath your feet.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> As opposed to being hard on a two-state solution or one-state solution or a land for all or any of the other ideas because you're going to have to find your way to something that you got to build confidence like step by step by step by step just saying to people hey in most decolonization instances, I mean the Israelis don't believe what they are colonizers. There was colonization in that period
Original English
>> colonizer believes that though.
Original English
>> Right, but they also have a you know their own connection to the land and they're not leaving to go somewhere else. They're not moving back to Britain.
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> Like that is
Original English
>> I I I do understand that. If Palestinians are capable of coexisting and cohabitating these spaces with those who were previously responsible for pogroms and and their demise and the destruction of their their land, the the ecocide that is taken place, the destruction of of their futures, then I think Israelis can do that too. However in order for this to happen there needs to be outside partners that incentivize and sometimes push in that direction. And that's where we come in as American taxpayers and as even you know Zionists living in America that have a connection or have family members that live in Israel that don't want to live in Israel but think this is a good way to show support to Israel. We should do everything in our power to not only restrain Israel in the interim but to to offer some kind of restitution so that we could potentially build a real civilization there that is pluralistic, a pluralistic democracy that offers equal rights and representation to everyone.
Original English
>> What do you think what would
Original English
you
be
happy
to
see
happen
the
actual
actions
taken
given
like
the
different
parts
of
the
Democratic
Party
that
exist
will
have
to
be
brought
into
the
same
fold
on
this.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Um,
shut
off
all
aid,
all
arms
transfers,
and
the
memorandum
of
understanding
immediately,
and
apply
maximum
pressure
to
the
Israeli
government.
And
And
uh
make
demands
of
the
Israeli
government
to
slowly
but
surely
uh
one,
retreat
from
Gaza
in
its
entirety,
and
to
to
create
a
process
of
of
um
trying
to
address
what
happened,
a
system
of
accountability,
a truth
and
reconciliation
committee
inevitably,
uh
and
and
to
move
away
from
the
the
current
occupying
structure
that
exists
to
one
that
is
hopefully
uh
more
just
and
equitable
for
everyone.
Original English
>> is
the
pressure
you
want
to
see
America
sanctions?
Original English
>> I want
Well,
the
threat
of
sanctions
alone,
I
think,
would
be
enough
for
Israel
to
to
react
exactly
how
America
would
want
it
to.
This
is
precisely
the
reason
why
under
the
Biden
administration,
uh
we
had
so
much
power.
And
uh
now
there's
more
and
more
coverage
coming
out
about
exactly
how
we
avoided
using
the
pressure
points
that
we
had
and
the
profound
amount
of
influence
that
we
have
over
Israel.
Many
people
in
America
think
now
that
Israel
runs
this
country,
that
uh
and
it
it
is
is
obviously
uh
antisemitic
tropes
galore.
The
the
further
you
go
into
that
argument,
the
more,
you
know,
people
talk
about
organized
jury
and
whatnot.
I
have
the
exact
opposite
perspective,
that
we
are
the
top
dog
and
that
Israel
is
an
imperial
satellite.
And
it's
been
quite
beneficial
for
American
interests,
the
interests
of
American
Empire
for
a
very
long
time
in
this
resource-rich
region.
And
as
a
consequence
of
that,
Israel
has
obviously
been
able
to
make
certain
domestic
uh
changes
and
and
domestic
demands
at
the
legislative
agenda
that
we've
never
seen
from
any
other
foreign
ally
or
foreign
adversary.
Um,
I'm
of
course
referencing
anti-BDS
laws
in
38
different
states,
the
the
uh
former
primacy
of
AIPAC
in
American
politics
and
just
the
uh
the
the
uh
lobby
and
its
uh
numerous
functions
in
and
advocacy
groups
that
exist
in
American
society.
This
has
a
a
unique
relationship.
Israel
and
America
have
a
very
special,
very
unique
relationship
because
of
Israel's
utility
to
the
American
agenda
in
this
region.
But
that
means
we
still
hold
all
the
cards.
We
can
tell
Israel
to
restrain
itself
and
I
think
we
must
tell
Israel
to
restrain
itself
to
save
uh
the
the
lives
and
and
livelihoods
of
the
remaining
Palestinians,
but
also
to
save
Israel
from
itself.
Original English
>> One
of
the things
that
that
strikes
me
about
the
way
you
put
this
is
that
you
actually
do
see
a
lot
of
coalitional
room
on
this
issue,
right?
I
mean,
you've
come
out
saying
you
want
to
see
Chris
Van
Hollen
be
the
Senate
majority
leader
rather
than
Chuck
Schumer.
Hollen
is
been
very
strong
on
this
issue,
but
is very
much
a
two-state
solution
kind
of
guy.
Original English
>> Well,
I'm
pragmatic.
Original English
>> You
have
rhetoric
that
on
the
one
end
is
is
very
strong
and
and
honestly
I
find
fairly
offensive
on
the
liberal
Zionism
Nazi
question.
But,
you
know,
you
want
to see
politicians
who
are
going
to
push
for
accountability
and
push
for
pressure
to
move
the
conflict
in
a
more
just
direction
towards
some
kind
of
solution
that
we
don't
yet
know
its
shape.
Like,
is
that
me
basically
getting
your
position
right?
Original English
>> Yeah.
I
mean,
I
have
a
a
a
a
goal
that
I
want
to
achieve,
but
any
step
in
the
right
direction
that
preserves
life
uh
is
is
appropriate
and
good
and
I'm
in
favor
of
it.
Um,
that's
that's
my
that's
my
position
on
everything.
That's
why
I say
I'm
a
very
pragmatic
person
overall.
Like
I
have
I'm
a
socialist,
but
I
you
know,
want
modest,
nominal
social
democracy
in
America
in
the
interim.
Original English
>> Where
would
you
want
to
go
in the
whatever
the
opposite
of the
interim
is?
Original English
>> In
the
long
term?
Original English
>> long
term.
Original English
>> For
for
Israel?
Or
just
in
general?
For
America.
Original English
>> us
off
of
Israel.
Original English
>> Yeah,
I
think
uh
we
need
a
stronger
state
in
general
that
uh
is
is
far
more
representative
of
the
interests
of
the
masses.
Um,
I
am
not
worried
about
a
centrally
planned
economy
in the
way
that
many
are.
I
I
think
that
even
in
order
to
compete
with
China,
we
have
to
adopt
some
of
the
uh
Chinese
forms
of
of
uh
managing
the
economy.
Um,
I
think
having
uh
stricter
controls
over
the
flows
of
capital
could
possibly
be
a
good
thing.
I
mean,
this
is
super
idealistic
and
and
very
far
uh
in
the
future.
But
um
I
think
that
uh making
sure
that
we have
a
more
performance-focused
uh
form
of
governance
is
also
not
a
bad
idea
either.
More
responsiveness
is
is
something
that
I
feel
like
is
lacking
from
our
current
theoretical
democratic
project.
If
we
say
we
want
to
eradicate
poverty
in
the
Appalachian
region,
and
we
send
our
our
um
you
know,
we
send
our
our
party
representatives
to
that
region,
they
have
to
accomplish
that
task.
Original English
>> So
one
of the
things
I
I
find
interesting
about
this
moment
we're
here
in
New
York
is
on
Mamdani,
of course,
is
is
mayor
uh
in
Los
Angeles,
and
Nithya
Raman
has
just
won
the
the
mayoralty
there
uh
running
on
a
very
like
a builder
socialism
is
the
way
I would
describe
which
is
doing
Yeah,
the
sewer
socialism,
but
but
specifically
building,
right?
I
mean,
her
early
ads,
a lot
of
her
campaign
was
about
how
much
more
she
was
going
to
build.
There's
a
bit
of
abundance
in
this,
but
I
wouldn't
just
call
it
that.
I
am
seeing
this
highly
technocratic,
highly
pragmatic,
highly
managerial
sort
of approach
in
very
left-wing
governance
of
you
know
various
big
cities
across
America.
I
mean
you
this
is
working
out
differently
in
different
places
but
Seattle,
Boston
showing
their
work,
being
caught
trying.
Original English
>> Yeah.
Original English
>> And
I
do
find
this
to
be
a
pretty
interesting
movement
right
now
because
like
we
can
talk
ideology
all
day
but
if
people
don't
trust
the
government
and
don't
believe
it
will
help
them
then
they're
not
going
to
let
it take
over
their
healthcare.
They're
not
going
to
let
it
take
over
capital
flows
or
whatever
you
might
want
to
do.
So
I'm
I'm
curious
to
kind
of
hear
your
reflections
on
that,
the
sort
of
this
like
technocratic
bent
in
modern
socialist
um
municipal
governance.
Original English
>> I
think
it's
it's
great.
Um
you
you
nailed
it.
I
mean
this
is
a
real
problem.
The
the
lack
of
confidence
that
people
have
in
governance
is
born
out
of
the
government
not
really
helping
people
or
rather
when
it
is
helping
people
it's
doing
it
in
very
invisible
ways,
right?
The
regulatory
agencies
that
are
tirelessly
working.
I think
it
was
Adam
Conover's
series
that
was
executive
produced
by
Obama,
the
the
was
it
the
G
word?
Original English
>> Oh
yeah.
Uh-huh.
Original English
>> I
I
love
that.
I
love
that
show
because
I
think
it's
very
important
to
uh
to
to
understand
exactly
how
the
government
works
in
ways
that
we
don't
fathom
at
all
or
take
for
granted.
We
only
recognize
uh
that
the
government
is
supposed
to
be
there
when
it
fails,
right?
When
we
have
recalls
for
example
because
the
FDA
is
is
falling
apart.
That
is
a
real
problem
and
I
think
we
have
to
uh
reinstill
confidence
in
good
governance
and
socialists
are
doing
that.
They're
more
responsive
to
the
needs
that
people
have
and
uh
they
are
seeking
out
solutions
and
also
showing
every
step
of
the
way,
every
step
of the
process
and
and
creating
uh
a
level
of
confidence
in
in
uh
municipal
governance
at
least.
Original English
>> What
changes
in
their
own
approach
to
coalition
building
or
policy
making,
whatever
it
might
be,
governing
is
this
forcing?
I
mean,
you're
much
more
inside
this
world
than
I
am.
So
when
people
are
discussing
what
is
being
learnt
here,
like
what
was
done
poorly
in
the
past
and
what
is
being
done
well
now,
when
you
hear
people
talking
about
what
they
should
learn
not
just
from
the
way
Mandani
communicates,
which
is
what
like
the
rest
of
the
Democratic
Party
wants
to
learn
from
him,
but
the
way
he
actually
governs,
um
what
are
the
what
are the
actual
lessons,
the
principles,
the
if
if
he's
a
Harvard
Business
Harvard
Business
School
case
study
for
socialists,
what
what
is
being
run
up
in
that
study?
Original English
>> I
mean,
I think
um
on
the
election
side
when
he was
campaigning,
the
the
five
definable
policies
was
perfect.
It's
exactly
what
I've
demanded
Democrats
do
for
the
longest
time
and
I
was
so
happy
that
he
was
able
to
accomplish
that
and
win.
Um
and
then
when
it
came
Original English
down to governance, he very quickly had to I guess make certain decisions to build a broad coalition in order to ensure at least some of that agenda was accomplished.
Original English
>> Very very pluralistic.
Original English
>> Yeah. Universal childcare being the the immediate uh tangible change that that people wanted, people voted for that ended up boosting his profile as well and it ended up delivering a little bit more confidence in the political process, not just good governance, but also the political process as well because I think there's a there's a sense of apathy that we breed in our political
Original English
>> passed universal childcare.
Original English
>> He hasn't, but he's he's started yes, the implementation of it. But he's also again marketing it very effectively. So people are very excited about it as well. But you're right, it is a pilot program and it's supposed to expand um and a part of that is obviously creating a funding vehicle for it. So that on that front, that's been quite difficult to accomplish. But broadly speaking, I think it's a the executive role is an exceptionally difficult one for socialists. It's the one area where you can make immediate impact and an this broad movement with with with deliverism.
However, it's also an area where you have to build these coalitions and therefore compromise quite a bit.
Jessica Tisch remains the police chief, for example. The SRG is still not disbanded. I I'm sure that
Original English
>> SRG is?
Original English
>> The Strategic Response Group is this counterterrorism this counterterrorism group inside of the NYPD. They were most notably involved with the Colombia student protests. And there's a lot of surveillance that they engage in, and this is something that Zohran said he would seek to disband as well, because I do think that our police forces unbelievably militarize, and I think that is a real problem.
But everything that he does that that everything that he does well in New York has positive reverberations for the rest of the Democratic Party and certainly the Democratic Socialist movement.
Original English
>> I think that is a good place to end. Also, our final question, what are three books you recommend to the audience?
Original English
>> Yeah.
Mao, The Man Who Built China by Philip Short. It's dense, like 800 plus pages, but I think it does a very good job of explaining his his development, his history without without veering into like state propaganda or anything like that, but it also doesn't like automatically demonize him. It just looks at him as a historical force, and I think it's a fascinating book.
Another one that's even more controversial than that that one's not really controversial is and I thought about whether I should recommend this or not, but I recently reread it Black Shirts and Reds by Michael Parenti. He is somewhat of a controversial figure. He recently passed away. I think it's good for the New York Times readership to try to develop a different understanding of of countries and systems that are so foreign, so alien to us. And I think
Original English
>> describe what makes up a controversial for people not familiar with it?
Original English
>> Um it
Original English
>> What it's about?
Original English
>> talks about how fascism and and capitalism serve the same masters and that it has uh what I would say is a more sympathetic approach to the USSR, to communist forms of governance. Um but I think it's good for those who are intellectually curious to to read something like this and then uh perhaps try to comprehend what some of the the positives were within this this otherwise like dystopian form of governance that we have a a very different understanding of.
And the last book is also somewhat controversial because I haven't finished reading it. Um but I think it's very timely book is um American Socialist, the Life and Legacy of Eugene V. Debs. I feel like that's a it's a really timely book that just recently came out about the the OG American socialist, someone who was uh profoundly impactful in in Bernie's uh personal ideological journey as well. I think it's timely because of the American socialist resurgence that we're currently uh going through right now. Uh and uh back then, I mean they had far more political representation than we do now. Even though the Democratic Socialist of America has uh I I believe become the largest socialist uh party or organization in the history of this country now.
Original English
>> That's Owen Paker. Thank you very much.
Original English
>> Thank you for having me.