Israel’s Moral Balance Beam

Summary

Summary of "Israel’s Moral Balance Beam" Episode from Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

Introduction

In the July 10, 2025 episode of Interesting Times with Ross Douthat, host Ross Douthat engages in a profound discussion with James Martin, a Catholic priest, author, and commentator known for his insights on Middle Eastern politics and the threat of antisemitism. The conversation delves into the complexities surrounding Israel's military actions in Gaza, the moral and strategic implications of these actions, and their broader impact on American politics and Jewish communities worldwide.

1. The Gaza Conflict: Assessing Israel’s Response

The episode opens with a critical examination of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following the attacks of October 7. Douthat questions whether the prolonged conflict serves Israel's long-term interests both strategically and morally.

• Necessity vs. Morality: James Martin asserts the necessity of Israel's response, emphasizing the devastating personal impact of the attacks on Israeli society. He states, “There isn't an Israeli who does not know... someone who was murdered, kidnapped, barely survived the attack” (03:01).

• Proportionality in Response: The discussion shifts to the morality of the civilian casualties in Gaza. Martin acknowledges the tragic loss of civilian lives but attributes the primary moral culpability to Hamas for “hiding behind, between and beneath their own civilian population” (05:51).

2. Historical Parallels and Moral Judgments

Douthat and Martin explore historical comparisons to assess the moral dimensions of Israel's actions.

• Strategic Bombing in WWII: Martin draws parallels with the Allied strategic bombings in WWII, questioning if those actions would be deemed immoral in hindsight. He muses, “I wonder what we would say if we applied a kind of retroactive moral judgment” to such historical events (08:59).

• War's Intrinsic Cruelty: Both agree that war inherently involves cruelty. Martin references Sherman’s view, “War is cruelty. And that's an important reality that we have to accept when we're talking about war under any circumstances” (12:55).

3. Defining the Endgame: Israel and American Interests

A pivotal part of the conversation centers on the objectives driving Israel's military actions and their alignment with American geopolitical interests.

• Twofold Endgame: Martin outlines a dual endgame for Israel: the establishment of two states (Israel and Palestine) living peacefully and diminishing Iranian influence in the region. He emphasizes, “A strategic defeat for Hamas, for Iran and its proxies, is in fact a victory for American interests globally” (15:49).

• Self-reliance vs. American Aid: The discussion touches on Israel's reliance on American military aid. Martin advocates for Israel’s self-reliance, stating, “Israel should have the confidence of knowing that they do not have to rely on the goodwill of any American president” (20:38).

4. Impact on American Politics and Culture

Douthat shifts focus to the repercussions of the Gaza conflict on U.S. politics, particularly within the Democratic and Republican parties.

• Democratic Party Dynamics: Martin observes a long-term trend of the Democratic Party moving towards a less pro-Israel stance, a shift accelerated but not solely caused by the recent Gaza war. He remarks, “These were trends that you can date back over a decade” (17:52).

• Republican Party Shifts: The conversation highlights emerging skepticism within the Republican Party regarding unwavering support for Israel. Martin notes, “Somewhere, you see broad skepticism about foreign alliances of any stripe” (19:38).

5. Rising Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism

A significant portion of the episode addresses the troubling rise of antisemitism intertwined with anti-Zionist sentiments in Western cultures.

• Distinguishing Criticism from Hatred: Martin differentiates between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and antisemitism, clarifying, “Anti Zionism is not criticism solely of Israeli policy… it’s the belief that a Jewish state does not have a right to exist” (24:08).

• Cultural Consequences: Douthat expresses concern over the normalization of antisemitism linked to critiques of Israel, suggesting a dangerous confluence where "arguments about Israel and Palestine are connected to arguments about American history and American identity” (28:00).

6. Israel’s Obligations to the Jewish Diaspora

The dialogue culminates in a discussion about Israel's role as a haven for Jews worldwide and its responsibilities toward Jewish communities outside Israel.

• Safety and Security: Martin underscores Israel’s primary obligation to serve as a safe haven for Jews, asserting, “Israel's fundamental obligation to the Diaspora is to be a safe haven for Jews” (40:23).

• Historical Imperatives: He references historical events, including the Holocaust, to emphasize the necessity of a secure Jewish state, stating, “The point is to be a place where endangered Jewish communities know they can go” (40:23).

Conclusion

The episode of Interesting Times presents a nuanced exploration of Israel's military actions in Gaza, balancing immediate security concerns with long-term moral and strategic considerations. James Martin provides a compelling argument for the necessity of Israel's response while acknowledging the profound moral dilemmas posed by civilian casualties. The conversation extends beyond the Middle East, highlighting significant shifts in American political landscapes and the pernicious rise of antisemitism linked to anti-Zionist rhetoric. Ultimately, the dialogue reinforces Israel's enduring obligation to protect and serve as a sanctuary for Jews globally, amidst evolving geopolitical and cultural challenges.

Notable Quotes

• James Martin on Israeli Society’s Response to Terror: “There isn't an Israeli who does not know... someone who was murdered, kidnapped, barely survived the attack.” (03:01)

• James Martin on Hamas’s Responsibility: “Hamas could end this at any moment of its choosing. Hamas could easily release the remaining hostages and agree to relinquish political power to a Palestinian, some other Palestinian group.” (05:51)

• James Martin on Moral Judgments of War: “War is cruelty. And that's an important reality that we have to accept when we're talking about war under any circumstances.” (12:55)

• James Martin on Israel’s Strategic Endgame: “A strategic defeat for Hamas, for Iran and its proxies, is in fact a victory for American interests globally.” (15:49)

• James Martin on Anti-Zionism vs. Criticism: “Anti Zionism is not criticism solely of Israeli policy… it’s the belief that a Jewish state does not have a right to exist.” (24:08)

• James Martin on Israel’s Role for the Diaspora: “Israel's fundamental obligation to the Diaspora is to be a safe haven for Jews.” (40:23)

---

Note: All timestamps correspond to the provided transcript segments.

Transcript

[Ross Douthat]

This podcast is supported by America Magazine, the Jesuit Review.

[Brett Stevens]

Like you, Father James Martin tries to keep up with the news in our complicated world.

[Ross Douthat]

But the Catholic priest and author knows it's important to take care of our spiritual lives, too. That's why he started a new podcast called the Spiritual Life. In each episode, he offers practical wisdom and has deep and honest conversations with spiritual masters, actors, comedians and politicians. So take some time to nourish your soul and listen to the spiritual life wherever you listen to podcasts from New York Times Opinion, I'm Ross Douthit, and this is Interesting Times. Since the attacks of October 7, Israel has dealt serious blows to its enemies, to Hamas, to Hezbollah, and to Iran. It has pursued a war in Gaza, a war with a civilian death toll in the tens of thousands that has no certain endgame. And Israel has also lost a lot of public support in the United States, in the Democratic Party especially, but also on the political right. All these unfinished stories matter not just for Israel's future, but for American politics and culture. But which one matters most? Are Israel's strategic successes clearing the way for Middle Eastern peace? Is the Gaza war locking in anti Israel sentiment, carrying antisemitism in its train? To argue through these questions, I'm joined by my colleague Brett Stevens, who writes eloquently about the Middle east and the threat of antisemitism. Bret Stephens, welcome to Interesting Times.

[James Martin]

It's good to be here, Ross.

[Ross Douthat]

So we're having this conversation on the afternoon of the day when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is scheduled to be at the White House meeting with President Donald Trump, presumably talking about Iran, talking about the prospects for a ceasefire in Gaza. And ultimately, I want this to be a conversation not just about the Middle east, but about America and the effect of wars in the Middle east on American culture and politics. But let's start with the war in Gaza. I think it's been hard for a while, for me at least, to see what the actual endgame is in Gaza. It's been hard in certain ways since the first days of the war. And I want to talk about that endgame. But first I just want your overall assessment of whether the Gaza war at this moment seems to have been worth it to Israel in terms of how it's been conducted, not just at a security level, but at a long term political level and at a moral level. Right. I assume you think it has been worth it.

[James Martin]

I do.

[Ross Douthat]

Okay.

[James Martin]

I don't think. I don't think any Israeli government of virtually any plausible political stripe could have responded in a significantly different way than what this government. The way this government did. You can argue about tactics, but you have to appreciate that Israel is such a small country that the death of not the death is the wrong word. The WANTON Murder of 1200 Israelis affects Israel in the same way that, say, 12 or 15, 9 11s would have affected the United States. This is what I mean. There isn't an Israeli who does not know, either at one degree of separation or at most two, someone who was murdered, kidnapped, barely survived the attack. Most Americans, as shocking as 911 was, the vast majority of Americans never met even a relative of someone who died in the towers or a relative of someone who died on Flight 93 or the Pentagon. So the scale of October 7th in Israel was. Was massive. And it is absolutely reasonable for Israel to say after five previous four or five previous wars against Hamas, that they needed to put an end to Hamas's reign in Gaza once and for all.

[Ross Douthat]

Okay, so I agree with that. But I think part of the argument that you made is about necessity, which is different from, in the end, wisdom and morality to some degree. Maybe they're not completely separable. Right. But like, it was absolutely necessary for the United States to respond to 911 on an aggressive and substantial scale. I think that's true. I also think it's true that the way we ended up responding led us into various debacles and disasters and moral calamities. Right. So it could be the case that everything Israel has done is completely understandable and still fails certain tests. Right. And so I want to ask about, like, about that test. Right. So Israel, Israel, the pursuit of the removal of Hamas from power, I also agree, is completely legitimate, absolutely morally legitimate. Right. But Israel has killed a lot of people in the course of this war. Tens of thousands of people are dead. Some substantial number of women and children are dead. Entire urban areas have been leveled and raised. And I guess I'm curious, as a supporter of the effort, how do you assess the point at which that kind of response becomes disproportionate?

[James Martin]

Two issues here. One is the question of moral culpability. Let's agree, obviously, that the death of a single innocent child is a death too many. All of the civilians who have been killed, displaced in Gaza, the misery that they have endured over the last nearly two years is horrific and heartbreaking. The question then is, who actually bears moral responsibility for that death and displacement? And my argument is it's clearly Hamas. Hamas, first of all, broke a ceasefire that obtained on October 6, 2023 in the cruelest way, Hamas hides behind, between and beneath their own civilian population. The very opposite of the way other countries fight wars where they protect civilians and put their armed soldiers forward. And Hamas could end this at any mom its choosing. Hamas could easily release the remaining hostages and agree to relinquish political power to a Palestinian, some other Palestinian group. Hamas refuses to do all of that. So it's a little bit frustrating for those of us who are supporters of Israel to hear people who simply just discount the idea that Hamas bears the lion's share of responsibility for the suffering that they have inflicted on their own people by starting a war they should never have started and by pursuing that war in the cruelest way possible. But a second point I think is worth mentioning. You know, you just talked about death and destruction of civilian life that even in pursuit of a righteous cause at some point causes, causes people to wonder whether it's worth the. The price. What you described is June 6, 1944. People think about D Day as probably the most heroic and most righteous with no, no irony intended in that word moment in American history when our boys stormed the beaches in the attack. But we killed thousands of French civilians in Normandy through indiscriminate bombing of targets because that was the price that we thought was worth paying in the service of the reconquest of France and the liberation of the rest of Europe. And I wonder what we would say if we applied a kind of retroactive moral judgment to the position of the United States on June 5, 1944. I'm sure someone could say, well, look, the United States is no longer in danger. We won the Battle of the Atlantic. The Nazi regime terrorizes Europe. But that's not really a major concern of ours. And if we destroy the Nazi regime, the level of death and destruction that we're going to inflict on European civilian life is just not worth the cost. That's exactly the analysis that I hear when it comes to Gaza. So we should at least ask ourselves, when we were pursuing our own existential struggle against an enemy we thought was the apotheosis of evil, what was the moral calculus that we pursued?

[Ross Douthat]

Do you think that the US Was right to firebomb Dresden? I mean, is it possible to look back on World War II and say the US pursued a righteous cause and we were right to do it, but in hindsight, we made some strategic choices that were immoral? Is that okay?

[James Martin]

I think that's an argument worth having. I was very persuaded by a book that appeared close to 30 years ago, Richard Why the Allies won about the merits and demerits of the what's called the strategic bombing of Germany. And I'm personally torn on this subject because my in laws are German. My late now late father in law was a 10 year old child or 9 year old child in Hamburg when Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill authorized the firebombing of Hamburg which inflicted devastation on a similar scale. And I think it's an open moral question, but I don't think it is entirely clear cut to me that the devastation that we inflicted on Germany wasn't necessary to finally end the devastating effects of German militarism on global security. Remember, that was not the first war the Allies were fighting against Germany. They just fought a previous war against Germany when they'd been much more sparing of German lives by agreeing to an earlier armistice. I mean, I think it's fair to say, it's fair to ask, was every single Israeli military action in this war necessary? Did they have to use 2000 pound bombs as opposed to 500 pound bombs or whatever? And there's no doubt in my mind that at many junctures Israel used excessive force. I would just ask that when we think about our judgment of Israeli military action, we think about it in comparison to instances where the Allies used military force in pursuit of a goal they thought was essential to their security and survival.

[Ross Douthat]

Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm trying to come at this from the point of view again of someone who agrees that some kind of campaign like this is morally defensible and that accepting some level of civilian casualties in a war like this is just necessary. But, but still, as we try and assess not just the campaign itself, but also, and I want to talk more about this, the reaction to the campaign, its cultural impact on the United States, on American politics, I feel like it would be helpful to sort of have a kind of moral baseline like the point at which a campaign that yields civilian casualties crosses a moral line. And I know we can't assess that definitively. Right?

[James Martin]

No, no, let's take another example. I was rereading last year Ron Chernow's great biography of Ulysses Grant. We're, I'm sure in complete agreement here that the cause of the north, the cause of the Union, was a righteous cause. And at Vicksburg, which was the pivotal campaign next to Gettysburg in the summer of 1863, Grant starved Vicksburg, starved the Confederate garrison at Vicksburg. So let's just ask ourselves, how do we draw the line here? Should we go back and say, you know, as righteous as the north was in wanting to eradicate slavery and save the Union, starving the Confederates at Vicksburg so that they were eating rats at the end of that campaign, or Sherman's march to the sea or other instances of what the Union cavalry did throughout the south was such a moral abomination that we really have to rethink how that war was fought. It's a form of Monday morning quarterback.

[Ross Douthat]

But it's a little different.

[James Martin]

That's very easy for us to indulge in, but very difficult for people who are actually waging the war to measure at the time in which decisions are being made. And I wish there were a method by which you could do it more carefully and more judiciously. But I'm always mindful of Sherman's line, war is cruelty. And that's an important reality that we have to accept when we're talking about war under any circumstances.

[Ross Douthat]

Right. But we aren't just playing Monday morning quarterbacking with a war that is far in the past, whose outcome we know, like, the war isn't finished. Right. So to me, a lot of the. Without being consequentialist, like, part of the morality of war is figuring out what your end game is. Right. Like, if you're going to ask a lot of people to die and you have a clear endgame in mind, it's more justifiable than if you don't. Right.

[James Martin]

Well, there are two endgames that I think are important to specify. And I have no doubt that President Biden made absolutely the right call in October of 23 and then for the rest of his presidency in fundamentally putting the United States behind Israel's efforts to defeat Hamas for two principal reasons. Number one, the end game for Israel and the Palestinians should be two states, an Israeli, a Jewish Israeli state and a Palestinian state living peacefully side by side, like neighbors anywhere else in the world. But that endgame is absolutely impossible to conceive if Hamas remains an undefeated power in Gaza. But I also think that there's an American interest here, which is that we not only want to support our allies throughout the world, small allies endangered by totalitarian enemies, but Hamas was one finger among many fingers of an Iranian power, and Iran was one arm of what is increasingly coalescing into a united, revanchist, revisionist, anti Western, anti American front, which is Russia or, you know, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and I think you could add Pyongyang to that list. So a strategic defeat for Hamas, for Iran and its proxies, is in fact a victory for American interests globally.

[Brett Stevens]

You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. Join the 3.5 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to hire great talent fast. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com NYT just go to indeed.com NYT right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com NYT terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

[Ross Douthat]

So let's talk about America. Uh, oh, right. Well, no, because there, there is now.

[James Martin]

You want to become really depressing.

[Ross Douthat]

No, I mean I, I think that part of we're sort of accustomed to Debates about U.S. middle Eastern policy and Israeli policy. But I would say I'm curious if you agree that I haven't seen any thing that's happened in the Holy Land change American politics as much as the Israel Gaza conflict has changed US Politics in the last few years. The Democratic Party was trending in a less Zionist direction, less supportive of Israel, but it seems like that trend has just been absolutely turbocharged. And the Republican Party is still very pro Israel. But you can see that also shifting in some polling, especially among younger Republicans. And you don't have to look very far on the Internet to find right wing factions that are sort of frankly anti Zionist wings.

[James Martin]

The Tucker wing of the party right.

[Ross Douthat]

Which is a real and again, there's been a Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican Party for a long time. But it just seems like the current environment has shifted things on both right and left. Do you agree? Like, do you think the change, how big do you think that change is?

[James Martin]

These were trends that you can date back over a decade, Right. Even at the beginning of the second intifada at the turn of this century, you started to see the left, at least the hard left in, in America, take an increasingly anti Israel turn. And that left has expanded on the wings of the Bernie Sanders campaign and other left wing populists. So I see it more as an evolution rather than a kind of a sudden shift on account of the last 20 or so months of war. And it's the same thing with the Republican Party. Before there was Tucker, there was Pat Buchanan. Whether the anti Israel wing of the Democratic Party becomes the dominant wing, I think that's quite possible. I'm more skeptical that it would happen on the Republican side.

[Ross Douthat]

I mean, I think on the Republican side you have A sort of core constituency in evangelical Christians that is supportive of Israel for not just sort of one specific theological reason, but a whole host of reasons going back culturally, arguably to the, to the 18th century. There's sort of a lot of interesting threads in terms of American attitudes towards Israel that long predate the actual refounding of the state of Israel. At the same time, like, I feel like I'm, you know, fairly well aware of trends among young right leaning voters. You know, I was, I was around for Pat Buchanan. It feels more substantial than the Buchananite moment. It feels like there's a skepticism of the American relationship to Israel that has taken root on the right in a stronger way than I can remember. Although in my, in my lifetime, I.

[James Martin]

Think, and I'm speculating that this is simply a function of the Republican turn to a kind of broader skepticism about foreign alliances of any stripe. The same people who I think would tell you that they're opposed to American supplies, military supplies to Ukraine, aren't very happy about our alliance with Israel. The same people who are trade protectionists would also be kind of, if not hostile, at least skeptical of our support for the Israelis. By the way, it's a good argument at some point soon for the Israelis simply to wean themselves completely from American military aid. Israel's a half trillion dollar economy with an incredibly robust domestic military set of military industries. The Israelis do not need to be getting $3 billion of American taxpayer money, even though most of that money goes to Boeing and Lockheed Martin and a few other defense contractors.

[Ross Douthat]

Well, so I guess, yeah, that gets to one of my questions here. Right, which is that is this a reality that Israeli policymakers should consider as a factor in their own decision making.

[James Martin]

If I were the Defense Minister or Prime Minister of Israel, I would set the goal that by say, 2030, all of the munitions that Israel uses are produced in Israel, or at least mostly produced in Israel, that Israel should be able to defend itself. I mean, the Israelis like to say we want to defend ourselves by ourselves, but the Israelis should have the confidence of knowing that they, they do not have to rely on the goodwill of any American president, whether it's Lara Trump or Hunter Biden when he becomes president. That's a joke, but you never know.

[Ross Douthat]

He's sticking with painting. No, but not Hunter Biden, but Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Right? Let's say some figure associated with the current American left.

[James Martin]

Well, I do think that when we get out of the democratic corridor of AOC's district, or maybe the People's Republic of Mamdani In a few months time that you'll find most Democrats that I meet take a much more level headed view of our relationship with Israel. The potential frontrunners for the next Democratic presidential candidate, I don't see any of them coming from the anti Israel wing of the Democratic Party. What I do see is a Democratic Party that is elevating voices that have many views, among them strident anti Israeli views that are going to harm the party's chances in the next electoral cycle.

[Ross Douthat]

I mean, I guess it depends on how you define anti Israel. Right. But from what I can see from polling, when it comes specifically at least to the war in Gaza, but also support for bombing of Iran and so on. Right. I would say a reflective hostility to Israeli policy is a dominant view in the Democratic coalition right now.

[James Martin]

Is that Josh Shapiro's view, Andy Beshear's view, Wes Moore's view? I think what you're seeing is a Democratic Party that has a progressive insurgency within it. But rank and file Democrats are very ambivalent about that insurgency and its views on many subjects of which Israel is one of them. Now, who knows what, what the future will bring. You know, I, I was so spectacularly wrong about the direction of the Republican party, say in 2014, 2015. So I need to be a little mindful of the mistakes that I've made in the past. But I don't see a Democratic Party being effectively taken over by this progressive wing because it's not progressive. At some level it's hostile to the views of middle class Americans.

[Ross Douthat]

What about the part of this that isn't about Israeli strategy and sort of US policy towards Israel, but it's about American culture? Right. So again, you and I would both agree there's been a surge in anti Israel sentiment and anti Semitic. Well, right. I assume that you think that anti Zionism, anti critiques of Israel's policy shade really easily into anti Semitism, right?

[James Martin]

Yes. I mean one is the entry drug into the other.

[Ross Douthat]

Can you criticize Israel without becoming anti Semitic?

[James Martin]

Of course you can. And you know, this is one of the points that I tear my hair out. Look, you want to see the most acerbic criticism of Israel? Go to the Haaretz website, leading Israeli paper. Israelis criticize Israeli politics all the time when it comes to every issue imaginable. There are no sacred cows, there are no red lines. In fact, some of the most strident anti Zionist voices will often refer to Israelis writing in Haaretz to kind of wash themselves of accusations of antisemitism Let me just make this baseline point, because again, criticism of Israeli policy can be mistaken, but it's always legitimate. But anti Zionism is not criticism solely of Israeli policy. Anti Zionism is criticism of the existence of the State of Israel as a state that has the right to exist. So it's a little bit different. I mean, if, if, if people hate Donald Trump, by all means, hate Donald Trump. But that doesn't make you anti American. It doesn't make you want to destroy the United States because you can't stand the policies of the Trump administration. Anti Zionism is the belief that a Jewish state does not have a right to exist. Now, I would accept that that argument isn't anti Semitic. If people said a Japanese state doesn't have the right to exist or Icelandic state doesn't have the right to exist.

[Ross Douthat]

I mean, in fairness, in our own time, I would say that that argument has often come bundled with progressive views that generally ethnostates are illegitimate. I do think that there's a kind of.

[James Martin]

I've yet to see a protest outside of the Icelandic mission to the UN saying down with Iceland, an ethnically homogenous state. Or down with Japan, which has tends to treat minorities in a discriminatory way. Or down with Denmark, because the Danish Lutheran Church enjoys certain tax advantages against other faiths in Denmark. It's uniquely, uniquely aimed at one ethnostate that happens to be the Jewish state. And if you are a Jew whose life story is about a mother in hiding in the Holocaust and a grandfather who fled the pogrom and Kishinev, you have the right to cock a skeptical eyebrow and say, why us?

[Ross Douthat]

So, one. I agree. I think that there is what you might call just a persistent excess in the way the case against Israel is prosecuted, especially on the left, sometimes on the right. That is hard to explain without talking about antisemitism as this kind of constant temptation. If you watch Internet culture, right. Sort of play itself out, it is kind of fascinating in a morbid way that the pull of, you know, you've gone through four levels of disillusionment and the fifth level of disillusionment. You're going to blame the Jews, right? There is some sort of eternal recurrence of that tendency. All I'm saying is that there is also a tendency where arguments about Israel and Palestine are connected to arguments about American history and American identity. I agree. Nobody's protesting the existence of Iceland, but plenty of people are invested in the idea that France or the UK or Europe broadly should become a kind of multi ethnic, multi religious society. And they, again, I'm describing people on the left, they see their view of some kind of binational future for Israel as, as part of that. I think there is a continuum here that runs from anti Semitism in excess through sort of other arguments in left wing politics.

[James Martin]

That's, that's fair and true.

[Ross Douthat]

Which is why, which is why I worry, right, in an age when the left is a very important part of Western culture and American culture, right, about the darker pull. Right. The extent to which there is this sort of inherent pull towards overt or tacit antisemitism in these debates. And I just feel like that pull has just clearly gotten stronger because of the Gaza war.

[James Martin]

No, it happened before the Gaza war. And the best evidence of this was that the protests, the accusations that Israel is committing genocide happened on October 8th and the Israelis had barely were still clearing out Hamas from, from their own territory. It's not as if suddenly this terrible Gaza war happened and the left said, oh geez, these people are terrible. You know, look at what they're doing. All of the feelings, the entire architecture of opprobrium and hatred was in place on October 6th so that these people would celebrate on October 8th. And one of the most shocking experiences to me as a Jew was going on 8th October to a protest that had been hastily arranged in which people were, look, the expression on people's faces in the wake of this unbelievable massacre was euphoria. So when people say, well, this is the result of the war in Gaza, I'm sorry, but that's just. That doesn't explain the letter from however many Harvard organizations that putting the blame entirely on the Israelis. It doesn't explain the protests in Sydney calling on them to f the Jews. This hatred was there. And you know, it is true that people are against ethnostates, sort of in theory, but you have to ask, why is Israel the object of an obsessive hatred? And it's not because it's American taxpayers, because you're seeing the same kind of protests and the same kind of hatred in Melbourne and Sydney and any number of other places I've visited that contribute nothing to Israel's defense.

[Ross Douthat]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's partially, and I want to say again that I agree with you, but I'm looking for sort of points of tension here, right. That like, yes, I think that what you saw in the immediate October 8th, 9th and 10th reaction to Hamas's attacks on American college campuses can really only be explained in terms of a left that has marinated so deeply in critiques of Israel as to be functionally antisemitic and is unable to sort of see Jews as human beings. But I also think, as someone who has watched left wing politics and progressive debates play out in the context of other issues, that there is a way in which that is connected to again, critiques of American history. Right. Like the idea is that would be, for instance, that Israel is a settler colonialist state and so is America. But the American settler colonialism is unfortunately settled, right? You can't have a viable left wing politics that undoes the American project. And so Israel becomes this kind of displaced zone of anti Americanism. I think that's part of the story too.

[James Martin]

All of this goes to a kind of a, kind of a naivete and ignorance that bleeds into functional antisemitism. I was in Australia about a year ago and I gave a talk at a public library there where some young person stood up and asked me about the suggestion that Israel was a settler colonialist state and how awful that is. Of course, Australia, with the exception of the aboriginal peoples, are entirely a settler colonialist state. Canada is basically a settler colonialist state. Many states in the world, Mexico, where I grew up, is largely a settler colonial state, speaking a language that was not native or indigenous to the area up until 1519. So the entire ideology which sounds has a kind of surface plausibility, as my old colleague Homan Jenkins says, vanishes in the presence of thought. But the second problem, but surely some.

[Ross Douthat]

Of the people in that Australian audience would have nodded along and said, oh, it is terrible that Australia is a settler colonialist state.

[James Martin]

Yes, but they will not nod along to the following suggestion, which is go back to blimey, right? They won't say, oh, you know, My name is McDougal from the Klan McDougal. I think I'm going to move my family in penance for generations of settler colonialism out. Whereas what the suggestion to Israelis is go move somewhere. Well, where? Poland, where you were massacred, Russia, where you were oppressed, Iraq, from which you were expelled. Those thoughts don't really trouble these people. The other issue, and I mentioned this to this person who asked the question, I said, you know, what's Hanukkah, Right, Hanukkah. And any number of Jewish religious commemorations or occasions are memories of the Jewish fight against colonial oppressors of antiquity. Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, and then following them, Byzantines, Seleucids, Mamluks, you know, Ottomans, and finally the British. The British are still upset about the Jewish revolt and uprising, some of which involved terrorism against British colonialism. Zionism is the oldest continuous anti colonial struggle in history. And Israel is probably the single most successful post colonial state in the world. So even if you accept the terms of settler colonialism, the people making that argument have it exactly backward.

[Ross Douthat]

Don't you think though, that there is a way in which the American affinity for Israel is an affinity of Americans who in the past saw themselves as settlers and that that was a good thing, right? That like the idea of making the desert bloom, building a new society and so on, that that is part of, part of the American commonality with Israel. That if Israel is. And of course America can say we're anti colonialist too. We had the Boston Tea Party, we kicked out the British. Right? But these things are very complicated, right? I think Americans relate at the end of the day, like in 1955, being a settler society was in American rhetoric considered a good thing, right?

[James Martin]

That's part of the truth. I don't think it's the whole truth. Look, the earliest pilgrims came to America seeing themselves as establishing a kind of new Jerusalem. You know, I mean, the echoes in early American religious history to the idea of constructing a new society based on kind of radically ethical precepts also explains the kind of long history of philosemitism. And then there's a third factor beyond the two that we've mentioned, which is that America saw in Israel a reliable ally against mutual enemies who were calling for death to the great Satan, Death to the little Satan. Whether they're in Tehran or Gaza City or Beirut, the same people who are blowing up American barracks are blowing up Jewish cultural centers. So all of this explains why the relationship between America and Israel is a fairly profound one that isn't going to be washed away because some wing of Park Slope decided to vote for Zoram Mandani.

[Brett Stevens]

In business they say you can have better, cheaper or faster. But you only get to pick two. What if you could have all three? You can. With Oracle cloud infrastructure, OCI is the blazing fast hyperscaler for your infrastructure, database, application development and AI needs where you can run any workload for less compared with other clouds. OCI costs up to 50% less for compute, 70% less for storage, and 80% less for networking. Try OCI for [e-mail] NYT oracle.com NYT.

[Ross Douthat]

So you've mentioned a couple times Zoran Moundani, the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York, in his campaign, I think there was an effort to use some of his anti Israel positions against him. It didn't succeed. But what does he represent to you?

[James Martin]

A combination of unseriousness and a kind of underlying ugliness of his flat out refusal to condemn the expression globalize the Intifada. I think it was extremely telling that he wouldn't do so and that he does so under the alleged banner of free speech. Progressives are never shy about condemning speech they view as racist or hateful. But an exception is carved out in the case of globalize the Intifada, which worries me and I think worries a huge number of New York Jews who don't want a mayor who, irrespective of his foreign policy views, can't see the implicit hatefulness of an expression that is in practice a call for violence and terrorism.

[Ross Douthat]

But most of the people who voted for Maudani, Right. Are presumably not motivated by globalize the Intifada perspectives. Right.

[James Martin]

And the worrying aspect of it is that Mamdani's views on this issue weren't deal breakers for those voters. But it should have been a deal breaker for most morally sensible voters that Mamdani takes this particular position. Just as for me, when people ask me, you know, do I regret voting for Kamala Harris last. Last November, my answer is no, because January 6th was a deal breaker for me. So even if I agree with Trump on, I don't know, tax policy or even on. On what he did with respect to Iran, that stopped me, and that's why I voted the way I did. It wasn't something that was going to stop other New York Mamdani voters that he effectively sanctions a phrase or doesn't object to a phrase which in practice involves the murder of Jews.

[Ross Douthat]

I guess, though that is in a way an example of the kind of shift that I worry about being encouraged by the unpopularity of the Gaza war, the civilian toll, and so on. Right. Again, it's not the people who vote for Mamdani for cost of living reasons and forgive or ignore things like globalize the Intifada are not embracing antisemitism, but they are in a context of increasing unpopularity of Israel sort of downgrading the issue. I guess I'm just interested in what you might call sort of concentric circles, Right. That there is a circle of critique of Israel shading into anti Zionism, shading into anti Semitism. And I feel like there is a wider circle of people who go back and forth who were on Israel's side immediately after the Hamas attacks, but who are also, like right now in opinion polls. Not big fans of the war in Gaza. I guess the question I'm getting around to here is do you think this is maybe a strange way to put it, but do you think Israel has obligations to the Jewish Diaspora?

[James Martin]

Yes, of course it does.

[Ross Douthat]

In terms of thinking about how its policies and its public presentation affect Jewish life in the United States.

[James Martin]

Sure, of course it does. By the way, old Jewish saw, you know, the classic Jewish telegram is start worrying more to follow. I mean, it's in our DNA that we're always concerned about implications of everything. It would be lovely if Israel had more effective spokespeople, if these exceptionally awful characters Bengavir and Smotrich were not part of the cabinet. But the fundamental obligation that Israel has to the Diaspora is to be a safe haven for Jews. Because the long course of Jewish history is that even in the societies where we appear to be most at home, most integrated, most at ease, will ultimately turn on us. I always think that in 1922, the greatest philosopher in Germany was Edmund Husserl, the greatest scientist in Germany was Albert Einstein, and the greatest statesman in Germany was Walter Ratnauer. Three Jews. And within 11 years that was a regime run by the National Socialists, by Adolf Hitler. And so Israel's fundamental obligation to the Jews is not to simply be a vanity project so that Diaspora Jews can go around and say, look, Israel's making great strides in, I don't know, desalinization or, you know, water conservation. The point is to be a place where endangered Jewish communities know they can go and have a margin of safety behind a Jewish army that they simply don't have in France or present day South Africa or other communities. And, and what worries me too is that God forbid we may come to a place in 40 years, I don't think it's going to happen, but it might. Where Jewish communities in the United States feel the same sense of isolation, danger, hatred that say, Jewish communities in France do today or have for the last 15 or 20 years. Again, it would be wonderful if Israel had better pr. But the PR is less important than being a state where Jewish life is going to be secure in a way that historically we know it's never secure anywhere else.

[Ross Douthat]

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to. I'm not Jewish, right? So I don't, I don't have that kind of historical consciousness. I have, I do have an American historical consciousness where, though, where I, I feel like we are, we are in or walking through a scenario where the Israel that you describe, Israel as refuge, Israel as powerful country that can defend its own interests and its own people comes out of this period strong. I think that's a totally, much more plausible endgame than anyone would have imagined two years ago. It's a testament to the success of the Israeli military, maybe diplomatic success soon as well, but that we also walk out in the United States with a Democratic Party that's more hostile to Israel than it's ever been, a Republican Party that includes a vocal anti Israel block and a culture in which antisemitism is more mainstream than before. And I feel like those things are connected. And so I just worry about the effect on the United States and my Jewish friends in the United States. And I'm worried that there is a trade off here where Israel, if you're in the Israeli government, you're saying we're making ourselves more secure than ever before. And meanwhile, without the best possible outcome in Gaza, you get sort of a different climate here.

[James Martin]

So, I mean, obviously I think about this and I think everything you're saying is fair and plausible. Let's imagine a scenario in which In November of 2023, after the first ceasefire which led to the release of bulk of hostages, Israel had then agreed to a full time, long term ceasefire. At that point, I think there were maybe 10,000 estimated dead in Gaza, not the numbers that we have today. But Hezbollah would have remained entrenched in Lebanon. Iran would have good reason to think that the massacre of Jews on October 7th was a strategic gamble that had paid off for them. The left would still be accused. Left here in the west would still be accusing Israel of being a genocidal apartheid state that should be boycotted and divested from. On balance, if Israel had done what reasonable people think would have been kind of a moderate course, right. I think it would emerge not only Israel, but the Jews would emerge in a much worse place than they are now. I think you can bid for the world's love, but you can also bid for the world's respect. And what Israel has won at very high cost to all parties. But what it has won, I think is a measure of respect that in the longer term serves the interests of Jews in Israel and the Diaspora better than the alternative scenario I painted, which is some calibrated but ultimately kind of feckless response that would have left things pretty much as they had been before.

[Ross Douthat]

Brett Stevens, thank you so much for joining me. It's a pleasure. Interesting Times is produced by Kathryn Sullivan, Sofia Alvarez Boyd, Andrea Batanzos and Elisa Gutierrez. It's edited by Jordana Hochman. Our fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary, Marge Locker and Michelle Harris Original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero, Aman Sahota and Pat McCusker mixing by Sophia Landman audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski and our director of Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.

[Brett Stevens]

In business, they say you can have better, cheaper or faster, but you only get to pick two. What if you could have all three? You can with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, OCI is the blazing fast hyperscaler for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs where you can run any workload for less. Compared with other clouds, OCI costs up to 50% less for compute, 70% less for storage, and 80% less for networking. Try OCI for [e-mail] NYT oracle.com NYT.