The Cowardice of Sam Harris

Summary

Part of the Problem: "The Cowardice of Sam Harris"

Host: Dave Smith (with Robbie “the Fire” Bernstein)
Date: June 10, 2026

---

Overview

This episode of Part of the Problem focuses on two interconnected themes:

1. The current state of Trump-era foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iran, diplomacy, and military strategy.
2. Dave Smith’s detailed critique of Sam Harris, specifically Harris’s recent refusal to debate critics of Israel and the broader implications for intellectual honesty and the boundaries of public debate.

Dave and Robbie dissect recent news, analyze the intellectual landscape shaped by figures like Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro, and challenge the ethical frameworks underlying establishment defenses of Israeli policy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Foreign Policy, Iran, and Shifting Rhetoric

([01:40]–[17:07])

• Trump’s Shifting Approach:
  Dave highlights Donald Trump’s change in tone regarding the war with Iran—moving from bellicose threats to hesitancy about returning to large-scale bombing campaigns.

  "Donald Trump is unique in that his lies are completely untethered to his previous lies. This is why I say he argues like a drunk woman." – Dave ([05:35])

• Bluff Called:
  Dave argues that recent Iranian responses—commitments to hit back harder in retaliation—have pressured Trump into backing away from escalation. Diplomacy now appears less a strategic aim and more a necessity after military threats failed.

  "They called his bluff and he does not want to go back to hot war." – Dave ([06:50])

• Consequences of Failed Diplomacy and War:
  The hosts underscore that by burning bridges and betraying trust (e.g., striking during negotiations), the US and Trump have made future diplomacy much harder.

  “If you needed diplomacy, you've taken a country with an old passive ayatollah, now you have a... more radical [one]... and they can’t trust you at all.” – Dave ([08:41])

• Trump’s Legacy:
  Dave and Robbie note Trump’s declining popularity, symbolized by booing at a Knicks game, and tie it to the fallout from his foreign policy blunders.

  "He squeezed in a 20 year catastrophe... able to fail this big in just a few months." – Dave ([16:43])

---

2. The Rise and Fall of Sam Harris & Intellectual Cowardice

([17:07]–[25:04])

• Sam Harris’s Influence and Decline:
  Dave recounts Harris’s early prominence as part of the “Intellectual Dark Web” and contrasts that supposed independence with the reality: elite support and algorithmic promotion.

  "Their arguments are so... like, the corporate media needed a controlled environment; these guys also needed a controlled environment." – Dave ([20:58])

• Personal History:
  Dave shares anecdotes about Harris calling him a “pure misinformation artist,” leading to audience-inspired merch, and sets up why Harris’s opinions have broader significance for the libertarian critique of establishment gatekeepers.

---

3. Dissecting Sam Harris’s “Why I Won't Debate Critics of Israel”

([25:04]–[63:45])

Summary of Harris’s Position

• Harris claims he will not debate critics of Israel, arguing that:
  • The moral difference between Israel and its enemies is “vast.”
  • Debating the history is pointless as both sides have “irreconcilable” narratives.
  • Focus should be on the mindset (and supposedly pathological culture) of Israel’s enemies, whom he likens to “Nazis.”

Major Critiques by Dave & Robbie

• Refusal to Debate as Intellectual Evasion:

  "Isn’t that kind of amazing, Rob?... He's telling his own people, 'here's why I won't take on their arguments.'” – Dave ([24:46])

• Arguments Don’t Survive Scrutiny:

  • Harris asserts rather than demonstrates moral superiority.
  • He groups all Palestinian and Muslim civilians with jihadists, equating criticism of Israeli policy to moral lunacy.
  • Dave ridicules Harris’s reliance on hypotheticals (e.g., if Palestinians just disarmed, there would be peace), labeling these as “dirty tricks” and dodges from the real debate.

  "It's very easy to assert that you're right. That's the point of debates... The point is that you're full of shit and you can't defend these assertions and that will be exposed." – Dave ([33:30])

• The “Dirty Tricks” of Framing:
  Robbie highlights Harris’s conflation of civilians and jihadists, and the loaded double standard for “evil."

  "You're grouping them both together and indicting all... as if they are extreme jihadists, which is not true." – Robbie ([36:01])

• On the Rejection of Historical Context:
  Harris’s suggestion that debating history is futile is mocked as anti-intellectual. Dave points out that understanding historical grievances is vital in assessing both motivation and justice.

  “That might be the most anti-intellectual sentence that's ever been written, Rob. Let's stop doing history.” – Dave ([47:06])

• Absurd Hypotheticals:
  Dave and Robbie undermine Harris’s oft-repeated talking point that if Palestinians laid down their arms, peace would follow—but if Israelis laid down their arms, genocide would ensue.

  "The Palestinians essentially have been disarmed... and what have the Palestinians gotten for that? Subjugation in perpetuity." – Dave ([58:50])

• Why Harris Avoids Debate:
  Dave posits that Harris’s arguments only survive in an uncontested “controlled environment” and that he—and others like Ben Shapiro—avoid live debate with informed critics because their positions collapse under scrutiny.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [05:35] Dave: “Donald Trump is unique in that his lies are completely untethered to his previous lies. So he doesn't even try to keep it linear. This is why I say he argues like a drunk woman.”

• [08:41] Dave: "Now you have a country with a young... more radical [Ayatollah] whose family was just slaughtered. And... they can't trust you at all. It's not clear at all that a deal is even possible at this point. So great job."

• [16:43] Dave: “In just a few months, he squeezed in a 20 year catastrophe... able to fail this big in just a few months, and really in some ways fail more than these other wars have.”

• [22:52] Dave: "Their arguments are so... in the same way that the corporate media needed a controlled environment... these guys also needed a controlled environment. And in fact, when you're allowed to be a critic of Israel, they got no answers and they can’t win a debate."

• [24:46] Dave: "Isn't that kind of amazing, Rob?... He's telling his own people, 'here's why I won't take on their arguments.'"

• [33:30] Dave: "It's very easy to assert that you're right. That's the point of debates... The point is that you're full of shit and you can't defend these assertions and that will be exposed."

• [36:01] Robbie: "You're grouping them both together and indicting all... as if they are extreme jihadists, which is not true."

• [47:06] Dave: "That might be the most anti-intellectual sentence that's ever been written, Rob. Let's stop doing history."

• [58:50] Dave: "The Palestinians essentially have been disarmed... and what have the Palestinians gotten for that? Subjugation in perpetuity."

• [71:58] Robbie: "This guy's a loser."
  – summing up Sam Harris’s refusal to debate and his broader character.

• [72:02] Dave: "I have no respect for this stuff. I find Sam Harris to be a contemptible person... I'm still willing to have the debate with him... Why is it that I'm willing to do it and he's not?"

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Trump’s war rhetoric & shift – [01:40]–[06:50]
• Discussion on the futility of recent Middle East wars – [12:23]–[16:43]
• Introduction to Sam Harris debate topic – [17:07]
• The intellectual dark web, controlled media, and independence – [20:58]
• Reading & critiquing Sam Harris’s Substack piece – [25:04]–[63:45]
• Deconstructing Harris’s hypotheticals, refusal to debate, historical amnesia – [36:01]–[47:06], [50:44]–[63:45]
• Audio clip analysis, starvation and genocide denial in Gaza – [66:41]–[71:58]

---

Flow & Tone

Throughout, Dave’s tone is irreverent, sharp, and sarcastic, blending humor with a meticulous, adversarial scrutiny of mainstream and pseudo-alternative punditry. Robbie provides counterpoints and additional analogies for clarity. Both are direct and challenge the sincerity and capability of figures like Trump and Harris to meaningfully engage with criticism or ethical debate.

---

Conclusion

Dave and Robbie argue that refusing to debate is a mark of intellectual cowardice, especially when paired with inflammatory claims and the smearing of all critics as “moral lunatics.” They close by holding themselves up as willing to defend their positions in any forum, challenging Sam Harris (and, by extension, others who play it safe in filtered media spaces) to do the same—and insisting that, on the facts and the ethics, their side will always win in the open.

---

This summary omits all advertisements and non-content sections to provide a focused, richly detailed account of the episode’s central arguments, key moments, and rhetorical highlights.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to this podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. National average 12 month savings of $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.

[B]

For a small business owner, every day is full of surprises. Some great, some not so great. Like when a client cancels their order at the last minute. But here's a surprise you will like. Progressive provides small business owners with 30 customizable coverage options to help keep their business going strong. So go ahead, surprise yourself. Get a quote in as little as 8 minutes@progressive commercial.com progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates and third party insurers. Coverage is not available in all states or for all vehicles and coverage selections.

[C]

What's up? What's up everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I am Dave Smith. He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein. How's it going buddy?

[D]

Doing well. I had a long drive home last night. Let me tell you, coming back is not as fun as going out.

[C]

Yeah, where were you driving from?

[D]

I did a straight shot back from Pittsburgh. It's like an eight hour drive.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[D]

Not a fun Monday. But I'm here now.

[C]

Now. There you go. That's all you wake up to the news. By the way, I am genuinely pissed off about this. Donald Trump, that fucking mushroom. Goddamn. Jinx the Knicks. Jinx the Knicks.

[D]

Rob, you think that's what happened? He brought. He brought bad vibes to the Garden?

[C]

Yes, he brought in all those Epstein spirits. Dude, what do you explain it to me? You come in. Knicks have won 12 games in a row, Rob. It's the first time we've been in the finals in 27 years. We're the closest we've ever been to a championship in 50 something years. We're riding a 12 game win streak including two in a row against these San Antonio spurs in San Antonio. We're coming home to New York and this fucking warmonger retard sits. Howard Lutnick, front row. What do you think's going to happen? The basketball gods are going to shine down. And you know, he snapped the streak. He quite possibly calls us a championship.

[D]

He, he jinxed the Garden by bringing his loser energy to it. Get real. Losing a war. Energy.

[C]

Real losing energy. Yo, you see he got booed out of the building and then he fell asleep. It's just like this thing has just become, it's, it's a mockery of itself. But yeah, yeah, he said, he said he heard some cheers in there. I didn't hear too many from tv, but sounded more like a lot of booze. But anyway, we'll come back. It's just hopefully Donald Trump doesn't come back to any more games. Focus on this war, sir. Focus on this amazing deal that we're days away from and that is the latest rob two days deal should be signed within 48 hours. That is the latest. We'll see. I'm obviously, I'm sure Donald Trump wouldn't say something like that unless he can back it up. He wouldn't just say it. But yeah. Anyway, there's a bunch of, a bunch of stuff I want to talk to, I want to talk to you about today. But let's do this first. Let's go to this. You sent this clip over.

[D]

I got, I got Minnesota this weekend and you and I got Denver next week.

[C]

Weekend. Oh, yeah, Minnesota. Go see Rob there. And then me and Rob will be out in Denver. Comicdabesmith.com for the tickets to Denver, porch tour.com for the tickets to Minneapolis. Okay, let's, let's hear Donald Trump on the tarmac giving you the latest on the war.

[E]

If we go and bomb, which we can do very easily if we want, and we spend another two or three weeks bombing, they'll have nothing left while whatsoever. But you won't have the straight open for months.

[C]

If we do the bombing, you know, a lot of people are going to be killed.

[E]

Who wants to do that? I don't.

[C]

And we'll get, we'll have a signed

[E]

document that's actually stronger than doing the bombing.

[C]

If we go all right, so there, I mean this is, it is almost Rob like his Kamala Harris. Russia is a big country. Mo like it's, it's just, well, if you drop bombs, bombs can kill people and then there won't be anything left where the bombs dropped. So there is Donald Trump saying, you know, I hesitate to going back to bombing because you kill a lot of people at all. I mean, weren't you saying you were going to take out every single bridge and power plant a few Weeks ago. Now all of a sudden, what? We don't want to hurt people. We don't want to bomb too much. He's also saying if we went back to bombing, it would be months before the straight opened. I was under the impression that it would just kind of open up. I thought this was the easy part. Donald Trump was calling on other countries to do this because opening the Straits, the easy part, the hard part's been done. Okay, I guess we're abandoning that again. There's no. As I've said before, all the presidents lie us into wars. Donald Trump is unique in that his lies are completely untethered to his previous lies. So he doesn't even try to keep it linear. It just doesn't. This is why I say he argues like a drunk woman. Like, it just doesn't. It doesn't matter if what he's saying completely contradicts the last thing he said. But here we are, Rob, we should negotiate. Negotiations are preferable to war, which is why we've launched a war on Iran twice in the middle of negotiations. I don't know, Rob. We may have a difference of opinion on this one, though, from, from our last episode. But I do get the impression I don't think Donald Trump wants to go back to war. Now, you seem to be thinking this is all a head fake that might lead just back to another bombing campaign. You be right, by the way. That's. I don't know.

[D]

I sent this your way because I was like, man, this is evidence on Dave's behalf. Because what I'm hearing here is previously, he's always, all options are on the table. Hey, you know, the Straits will reopen themselves. Nothing to worry about. I'm not going to tell you what I'm doing. All options are on the table. And this really seems like he's admitting that a lot of options aren't on the table and that we're going to have to gauge in diplomacy, which would have been nice if he had that outlook without learning that lesson the hard way.

[C]

Yeah, that's for sure. I mean, especially when he had, at least, I know, in Geneva, he had on the table better than the jcpoa, you know, like a stronger deal than that. And I don't see any way we're negotiating that there. Now, again, the other thing here. Right, Look, I mean, this is kind of why I was saying it before is just that it, it seemed to me, again, it's all very, you know, it's kind of like it's. It's analyzing a Trump war. It's like you're boxing with blindfolds on. You know what I mean? Like, it's hard. You got to kind of just feel it and see. Yeah. What? Because again, like I said, it's not just that he lies, it's that he's. He'll lie and then completely contradict himself and then say he never said the first thing. So it's hard to. But Donald Trump is threatening the crap out of Iran, trying to get them to capitulate for weeks and weeks and weeks, and they won't. And then just over the last week, they've really changed their whole doctrine here, where it's like, no, anytime you hit us, we're going to hit you harder than you hit us. Like, they are not backing down on this. And now Donald Trump is talking about everything else except hitting them hard. Seems to me like he does not want. It seems like they called his bluff and he does not want to go back to hot war. I could be wrong about that, by the way. You could still be right about what you were. Even if this is a point of evidence in the other column, you could still be right about what you said yesterday. He could be planning this, could be a head fake and he could go back to war, or maybe it wasn't a head fake, but he ultimately just decides to go back to it anyway. But I think something that is really important to point out here is that if you do recognize that negotiations are preferable, that diplomacy is preferable, that getting a deal here, I mean, even as Donald Trump said, right, like the Pentagon's own estimate, we'd have to finish the war, and then it would take us six months to militarily open the Strait of Hormuz. So even in Donald Trump's best case scenario, if he could win the war decisively in the next two months, that's eight months till the straits open, which will destroy the world economy. And it's not that clear that he can win this in two months, you know, but okay, so if you recognize that diplomacy is superior to that, you'd go, it's not just that you could have done the diplomacy without all of this, which would be devastating enough, right? Because like, if you were to recognize what we all know is the case, that best case scenario, this was all unnecessary, worst case scenario, it leads to nuclear war or a world war or destroys the global economy, but best case scenario, this was all unnecessary. That's still pretty devastating. You just blew hundreds of billions of dollars, you know, in total, people are dead. There's tons of destruction. Like, that's bad enough. But the reality is that if you recognize that diplomacy is superior to this, any human being should. You've now made diplomacy so much harder. And a huge part of this is that, you know, Iran can't, can't take anything you say seriously now. Like, they can't, they can't. Look, Rob, if you're sitting here on our last episode going, I don't know, Dave, I think this might be a head fake for him to start the war again, then the Iranians have to be treating it that way because he's already suckered him twice. So now, like, if you needed diplomacy, you've taken a country with an old passive ayatollah. Now you have a country with a young, you know, ayatollah who's more radical by all accounts, whose family was just slaughtered. And there are, you're not going to get nearly as much as you could have gotten then. And of course they can't trust you at all. Like, it's not clear at all that a deal is even possible at this point. So great job. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is the wellness company. Americans love sushi. Over the last two decades, raw fish consumption has exploded and millions of people now eat raw fish weekly. But there's a hidden risk most people never think about, and that is parasites. Salmon is one of the most popular fish worldwide, but it naturally contains more than 70 parasites. Most are tiny and nearly impossible to see and they are making their way into the human body. Once inside, parasites can hide for years while frequently laying eggs before any symptoms appear. This is why many physicians are raising awareness about parasite exposure. Dr. Peter McCullough recommends doing a parasite cleanse at least a year as a preventative measure. The wellness company offers a hard to access prescription Parasite Cleanse USA compounded ivermectin and mendazole. Ivermectin paralyzes the parasites nervous system while mendazole starves them. If you are interested in learning more about this parasite cleanse, go check them out over at TWC Health problem and use the promo code problem to save up to $60 off plus free shipping. This deal is available for US residents only. That's TWC Health slash problem promo code problem for up to $60 off plus free Shipping. All right, let's get back into the show.

[D]

Also, I want to clarify, I don't know that Trump was head faking for full scale war as much as he's looking to continue in targeted strikes and hope that that creates some sort of an opening and just not acknowledging the situation that we're in and that perhaps this past weekend allowed him to stay in the ceasefire while getting a couple strikes off and seeing if maybe that changed the dynamics, which it's not going to.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, fair enough. That's. That's so not even necessarily like a head fake to total war, but a head fake back to some type of military strikes or something like that. And again, I do think your assessment of that is correct. That's. It's, it's, it's essentially like just trying to do something that might change the situation and then see what openings are there, because we don't see any right now. So, like, just do something and then maybe that will, you know, get back to it. But I think that it's just, again, what Donald Trump is relying on here is it's not like a short memory or a short attention span. Like, you'd have to be, you know, like, Dory from Finding Nemo. Sorry, I got little kids. These are my references. You know what I mean? Like, look, Donald Trump, it was only a few weeks ago that you announced this as a regime change. War and demand demanded total surrender. You know how you're going to spin that into, like, actually, I think we can make a deal that's good for everybody is like, okay, and then you're gonna try to pretend that this was your win. And, and the sad thing is that in order to defend Donald Trump, what you have to rely on is almost like you have to treat him like a child. You go, no. But he never meant any of those things he said. It's just so brilliant to say that when you don't mean it at all or something like that. I don't know, Rob. I, I think, you know, I gotta say, as we, you know, the more this, this war goes on, it's like, I don't know. I think we got this one right. I think we got this one right from the beginning. And it wasn't that hard to get this one right. There's been, there's been some major ones that we got right before that I am more proud of in a way, because I. This was just so obvious and so easy. But this is. This war is a disaster. It was the stupidest thing in the world to launch this war. Who would have thought this is what we need, another war in the Middle East. That's, you know, complete consensus amongst the American people that there was the last thing we, people who couldn't agree on nothing else could agree on that, that we don't need to fight another stupid war in the Middle East. Oh, and we got the president who ran on the campaign that we shouldn't fight another war in the Middle east, and he launched it anyway. And then the other thing that we called right away is that this, this destroyed Donald Trump's presidency. And I think that's just being borne out more and more. And I did think there was something about that Uf. Sorry about that, that Knicks game last night where, you know, look, I understand the UFC crowd is a little bit different from the NBA crowd, but there just was something about, like the, the imagery of that moment and seeing like I, I did always, I always made a big deal out of when Jon Jones was doing the Trump dance after he won the heavyweight title and came over to him. I mean, this is in the middle New York City. That was also at Madison Square Garden. It's in the middle of the liberal world. Donald Trump had just kind of taken over the culture there. All the talk about the vibe shift and all that stuff. And now it's like, oh, yeah, look where you are, look where you are. Just getting booed out of the arena. People see your face and they're just like, oh, God, this embarrassment. And I don't know, going down in the midterms this year, going down in his approval ratings, going down in, in his terms of his legacy. Just been a really, you know, for people who love Donald Trump, this really must be a, a sad time.

[D]

Exciting, though, that he's claiming we're two weeks, two days away from a deal, so, you know, we don't have to wait three weeks, a month, four days. It usually he doesn't make such bold claims as in two days. So that's, I mean, he did say weeks, not months. And then months, not years. And then there was a lot of chatter of, hey, you know those people that did that Vietnam War that we all love so much, they kept us in it for 18 years. So I should get a couple months of war, like, be gracious. You know, other people got a lot of war. I've only been doing this for three months. So, you know, it's a little bit fun that he's putting his balls on the table and saying, just give me two days.

[C]

No, it's. Well, you got to be in awe of how amazing Donald Trump is. In just a few months, he squeezed in a 20 year catastrophe. Just to all of that, he was able to, he was able to Fail this big in just a few months and really in some ways fail more than these other wars have in some other leaders.

[D]

It takes some years before people hate a word. My word. Couple days. Only three months.

[C]

Yeah, there. Well, there you go. I mean that there actually is something to be said for that. Hey, I wanted to, I did want to address this Sam Harris article. He wrote a piece on Substack. You know, I know perhaps I pick on Sam Harris a little bit too much, but you know, he said some pretty nasty things about me over the years. Although I did get a pretty cool hoodie out of it. Someone, someone brought it to me. He. He called me. Oh, I can't remember the exact. I think it was pure misinformation artist was what he called me on some show. He goes, Joe Rogan keeps having this Dave Smith guy on who's a pure misinformation artist. And then someone I. We had a stand up show the next night and someone brought me a hoodie that said pure misinformation artist on it. And I was like, I really like that. And I've worn it several times.

[D]

We did a limited run of shirts with the most immortalized brain rotted idiot alive.

[C]

Which one did that come? Oh, that was the chick.

[D]

Yeah, that chick called you that. And we did, I mean we only did. I think I printed 20 T shirts with that, but they sold pretty quick. There's people out there with that T shirt.

[C]

Oh yeah, she got van. She got beat up in that debate pretty bad. Yeah, she was like one of the Iranian expat types who is supporting the destruction of her own people. So ridiculous. But you know, I do part of the reason why I bring up Sam Harris. It's not just about Sam Harris and it's not just about, you know, that he's said some insulting things about me. It's just that there is something. And I think as we get into this piece, you'll see there's something about this that is, it's so representative of the bigger moment that we're living through. And I do, I gotta say, I find something really fascinating about the, you know, the rise and fall of so many of these figures. And Sam Harris is really right up there with, with the ones who I find most interesting. And so of course it does it all, you know, whatever, I'm me and he insults me. And so that does like get this kind of rivalry going or whatever. But the reason I bring it up on the show is because I think it's really interesting to this bigger conversation. It it reminds me of guys like Jordan Peterson, who unfortunately has, you know, gotten quite ill. From what I understand, Jordan Peterson, in some ways, to me, is always the one who got away. Like, I, you know, I know I've told you and Natalie before, even back recently, I was like, yeah, I really want to have a conversation with him. Like, I think me and him would have a really interesting one. And of course, it was after I debated Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan's show. Jordan Peterson was the next episode. And then he started talking about, like, keeping the groipers out. And I don't know, it just got very bizarre. But there are these guys, Sam Harris, I think, is right at the top of this list, who really were, when kind of like the podcast thing first started blowing up, amongst the biggest. And they were very influential amongst young people. And Sam Harris, of course, was. Was like a member of what they called the intellectual dark web at the time. And anyway, I just always thought the guy was a fraud. I always thought his arguments were totally fallacious. And now, of course, between Trump derangement syndrome and Covid and now really, particularly with Israel, he's just kind of completely disgraced himself and lost all of his influence. And this is. I don't know. I find this to be interesting. There's, like, we kind of had this world where there was the corporate media and then the intellectual dark web, or the Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris types were almost able to position themselves as the alternative to the corporate media. And this got a lot of excitement because people were fed up with the corporate media for obvious reasons. Now, when you. When you look back at it, you look back at people like Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris, and you're like, they weren't exactly us. When I say that. I mean, they weren't exactly, like, independent like me. And you are like, we're two standup comedians who just started podcasting and talking to each other. I mean, we know we had a network in the sense that my buddy Louis and my buddy Ralph, like, run a little podcast network, but we really had to build this show from nothing up to what we have today. Ben Shapiro started with, like, millions of dollars in seed money, and the head of YouTube is talking about how we don't deplatform him because he's a good supporter of Israel. And in the days where all the right wingers are getting censored, Ben Shapiro is getting pumped huge by the algorithms. And so, you know, you have this air of, like, he's independent media, but really, when it comes down to it, he's not. Sam Harris also, by the way, is like, you know, Sam Harris's mom wrote the Golden Girls or whatever. Like he was like a rich kid who's, you know, anyway. But at a time they were really respected. And then the censorship kind of rolled back. The, the corporate media fell apart even more. The podcast rose up even more. And now they got real competition and they can't hang. They just can't hang. Their arguments are so like, in the same way that the corporate media needed a complete controlled environment in order to do what they do, these guys also needed a controlled environment. And in fact, when you're allowed to be a critic of Israel, they got no answers and they can't win a debate. That's kind of in, in the same sense, Rob. Literally in the exact same sense. You know that woman at CNN was the black chick who like hosts that the, the one that Jennings is always on. You know who I'm talking about?

[D]

Yes. I don't know her name, but I know you're talking.

[C]

I don't know her name either, but there's, you know, like, imagine she had to just come debate me. Like, you know, like imagine she got like, you're out of your comfort zone. You're not in a CNN studio anymore. It's one on one now. Three hour long debate. Any policy you choose. And she would just get destroyed. She doesn't actually know anything about anything. State Matters and Ben Shapiro are kind of the same way. Their, their whole shtick, they're full of shit and so they can't really survive the debate. But anyway, so Sam Harris wrote this piece. I found it fascinating, not for the reasons he would want me to, but this is the title of his piece. It's called why I Won't Debate Critics of Israel. A note to the Making Sense community. So Sam Harris is writing a piece to his listeners. By the way, Making Sense was the name of his book, I believe, if I'm getting this correct. So that's like what he calls the, the community. I think maybe that's the name of his podcast. I believe he wrote a book called. I think I read one Sam Harris book and I believe that's the one. I got it here somewhere. Making Sense. I think that was it. But anyway, that's what he calls his community. So he's already starting. This is just to be clear here, Rob. He's responding to his own fans who are like, hey, maybe you should take on some of their arguments. Now if you remember, Rob, one of my major criticisms of Sam Har Harris. I mean, I've had a lot throughout the years because he's has very bad ideas. But one of my major criticisms was like, he had done like four or five segments on me and never takes on an argument. Calls me a pure misinformation artist, but never gives one example of the misinformation I'm giving out. And you're like, that's kind of weak. And now here he is telling his own people, here's why I won't take on their arguments. Which already, before you even read the piece. Isn't that kind of amazing, Rob?

[D]

It's pretty weaselly. I will say. He's more palatable in writing than he is talking.

[C]

He's not a terrible writer.

[D]

Yeah. And although we're gonna take it on and break this apart, it does have a slightly more persuasive flavor to it. But yeah, the piece is essentially, here's why I'm a weasel.

[C]

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Cove Pure. If Flint, Michigan taught this country anything is that the government's word on your water is worth exactly nothing. Maybe less than nothing. And Flint wasn't a one off. That's why people are switching to Cove Pure to purify their water. There's still millions of lead service lines actively carrying water to American homes. Many were installed before your parents were born. And here's what the government doesn't tell you. The testing method that utilities use to check lead levels is specifically designed to collect the least contaminated sample, not the worst. EPA scientists have confirmed that no matter what's in your water that you don't want there, Cove Pure removes it. It's certified to eliminate up 99.9% of contaminants. And the setup couldn't be simpler. No plumbers or drilling. You just put it on your counter, fill it up and plug it in. Your city tested the water and said it's fine. So did Flint's. Cove Pure. Is what you put between that track record and your family's water right now. Go to covp pure.com problem where listeners of this show can get $250 off for a limited time. That's C O V p u r e.com problem covpure.com problem for $250 off. But again, for a limited time only. Covpure.com problem. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, yeah, that's basically it right here. Let's. Let's jump into It. Okay. Many reader, many readers, excuse me, and podcast listeners have been dismayed by my enduring support for Israel and now urge me to debate someone, really, anyone, drawn from a growing cast of scholars, grifters, and moral lunatics who have made that beleagued their professional or psychiatric obsession. The Making Sense community seems to have inherited this infatuation, leading to some heated exchanges in recent days. I've explained my position on Israel across several podcasts and in my public talks, but it might help to summarize it here. So just to be clear, if you can read through the lines here, essentially what Sam Harris is saying is that. That people are so crazy and obsessed with Israel and it's so clearly, you know, on its face, wrong that it's. But it's even infiltrated my group. So, like, even people who read Sam Harris's substack, whoever these people are, I guess in this case it's us. But generally it's not even they are going. I mean, this is what I'm saying. Even they're going, eh, There are some points on the other side here. And if you're going to go out and smear all the people who, you know, are critical of Israel, maybe you should take one of them on. I don't know, Rob. I found it particularly interesting that even in this, he mentions, he goes to debate someone. Really, anyone, like, there's just something interesting about that to me, where it goes. Essentially, his listeners aren't saying, you got to go debate Dave Smith, you got to go debate, you know, whoever Max Blumenthal or Nick Fuentes or, you know, like, whoever the person, Tucker Carlson or whoever the person is, they're going, but shouldn't you do it with someone? Shouldn't you once put your ideas up there and listen to their rebuttals and then attempt to rebut their rebuttals? I mean, again, I think this is kind of a point I've made with, with Ben Shapiro, of course, a lot. It's like Ben Shapiro will debate trans issues. Ben Shapiro, he debated Destiny. He'll. He'll sit down with like a dude, you know, who is about as far away from his professed, you know, opinions or whatever as possible. Sam Harris will debate Jordan Peterson on religion. He'll debate all. But none of them will debate this topic. Now, it seems that, like, given that this topic, whether you agree with it or not, is like a pretty big issue in this country over the last few years, maybe you think it's just a crazy obsession. It shouldn't be this Big of an issue. But, like, it has become that. And given how you're claiming that you have to. You have to be a moral lunatic in order to be a critic of Israel, why wouldn't one of you just come and get the easy win at some point? I mean, I don't know. There are topics that I think are way too dumb to be debated, like people who support this war in Iran. But I'll still come take the easy win because it's the thing that's going on right now. Seems to be the thing to debate. It's really not that hard to debate the topic and win. So, like, seems like you guys would do that if that was the case.

[D]

Yeah. Moral lunatic is a very bold claim that if you actually believe that and you think that that exists in reality, then that should be an easy debate for you. I mean, you know what I mean. Either you're lying when you say you don't even understand why people would criticize this, and the only reason they would is because they're a moral lunatic. Either you're lying when you say that, or you actually see the world through that perspective. And that should be a very easy argument to win. It's a little bit like when the bow tie guy was sitting on Rogan and refused to debate rfk. It's like, if you're the world expert on vaccines, why should this guy be a problem for you? This. You're the world expert, you're the scientist, you're the guy who knows everything about this. Why would you be afraid to. It shouldn't even be a debate. It should be you explaining to someone else what they're getting wrong because you actually have an expertise on the issue. That's the only.

[C]

Yes, absolutely. And 100% agree with you. And then especially when you're trying to use your platform to attack this guy, you're going on MSNBC to trash Bobby Kennedy. You're going on this show to trash Bobby, and then you got an opportunity to go on a much bigger show and trash him right to his face. It's only cowardice would explain why you won't do that also. I mean, look, like, I don't know. Look, I've never used the phrase moral lunatic or moral lunacy or whatever it is that he said. There's. But I think if you support what Israel did to Gaza, that'd probably be a pretty good term for you, in my opinion. Like, this is moral lunacy for you. But then, like, I'm happy to go debate that and demonstrate why. Okay. Anyway, it's just like, you know, like, this topic isn't like, what are you gonna say? It's not important enough to debate. Like, you're writing a piece about it. It seems like probably a good idea. Okay, let's back to the piece. First, my general attitude. I'm not interested in exploring all the ways that Israel has missed the mark, from Prime Minister Netanyahu's corrupt alliances with the far right, to the many crimes committed by settlers in the west bank, to the deaths of innocent non combatants in several wars. Because none of these failings, however grave, will alter my sense that, one, the ethical difference between Israel and her enemies remains vast, and two, the go. The global preoccupation with the Jewish state as though it were the worst villain among nations is contemptible, being the product of perennial lies and delusions. I mean, so you're basically just saying, I won't debate it because I'm right. You just. Well, here's the thing, Sam Harris. It's very easy to assert that you're right. That's the point of debates, is that a bunch of us over here are saying, no, you're not right about that. And I don't know, it's just. This is like the whole thing with Sam Harris that I always felt like. I always felt like as you just start to, like, peel away the demeanor and the presentation, you know, you peel away the fact that he does the. Like, I don't know. Now, a lot of people react emotionally when confronted with these issues, and that's why I always remain completely rational. Like, as soon as you strip that away and just go, yeah, yeah, but what is the actual argument here? It's just softest nonsense. So you do this thing. It's like the thing anyone does. Like, you know, you ask yourself really easy questions and then answer them. Like, are there some issues with settlement expansions? Sure. Have some people died who shouldn't have died in wars? Okay. But there's still a vast difference between the morality of Israel and these other states. We're like, okay, but, yeah, that. That's a. That assertion actually falls apart when given some pushback. So I. Yeah, this is why you won't debate it. I don't know. Any thoughts, Robert? Should I keep reading?

[D]

Yeah, let's keep reading.

[C]

All right, next, a simple heuristic. As I suggested in at least one community thread already, if my intransigence on these matters mystifies you, it might help to understand that for whatever reason, I think militant Islam is 10 times worse than you think it is when I talk about, quote, jihadists and their various groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, the irgc, etc, I'm talking about people who I consider to be worse than Nazis. Jihad being essentially Nazis who are certain of paradise. My view about the conflict in the Middle east will not fundamentally change unless my critics produce evidence that Israel has become as evil as her enemies. Okay, well there's lots of evidence that Israel has become as bad as her enemies. Even worse. Again, it's just a ridiculous non argument. I mean this is like the antithesis of intellectualism to just say I refuse to debate a thing because my mind won't be changed. All right, well, most of the time. And when I say most of the time, I mean 99.9999% of the time debaters opinions aren't changed through debate. The point of the debate isn't really like, like no one's going. No one in your own community here is challenging you to grow a pair and step up and debate someone because they think this is how we change your mind. Like if we were just interested in changing Sam Harris's mind, we'd probably send Sam Harris a book or send Sam Harris a letter or jump on the phone with Sam Harris or you know, like someone who knew him or something like that, or write him, you know, whatever. The point is that you're full of shit and you can't defend these assertions and that will be. That will be exposed. You ever debated someone competent who is a critic? That's the point. Just saying my mind won't be changed doesn't really mean anything. And I'm sure that's true.

[D]

I see two dirty tricks being played here. First is there's a difference between the innocent civilian population in these countries and the people that engage in jihadism. And you're grouping them both together and you're indicting all of the people as if they are extreme jihadists, which is not true. And then you're also putting the extreme on Israel if Israel as is as bad as the jihadists, which is not really a fair criteria to whether or not you can criticize Israel. I mean, what some of the settlers are doing in Israel is reprehensible. What some of the military has chosen to engage in, in civilian targeting is reprehensible. Like you can, you know what I mean? I don't know. You could have a guy who killed 25 people and a guy who killed one, and then you don't point and go, well, the one didn't kill 25. We should. Let's talk about the guy who killed 25. They're both a problem. That doesn't give the guy who killed one person a pass on account of the fact that somebody killed 25 people. So it's just. It's just two dirty tricks. One is not all Palestinians or people who believe in Islam are these jihadists. And so you've grouped that entire population together as being guilty of extreme jihadism, and then you refuse to even criticize Israel for anything they've done. If it's not on the level of what the extreme jihadists have done. It just seems like a very unfair framing. Yeah.

[C]

And, I mean, it's just. Honestly, it's just kind of dumb. I mean, like, for. For Sam Harris, who, like, prides himself on being this intellectual, once again, I don't think he actually is, but he brought. It's like. Well, just so you know, I hate them even more than you hate them. Them. I hate them more than Nazis. Okay, like what? All right. It's like they're even worse than Nazis. They're just Nazis who believe in paradise or something. It's like, okay, have they. Have they pulled off a holocaust, though? Did they get us into a world war? Like, what are you even basing this on? It's just worse than Nazi. Okay, worse than Nazi. So if Israel's not worse than Nazi, then Israel better than worse than Nazi. Wow. Amazing argument, Sam Harris. Okay, anyway, is what Israel's doing to the Gaza justified or not, is a more reasonable, you know, starting point. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Stopbox. I love this company. I actually own the product, and I've used it from before when they came on as a sponsor. So I was thrilled to have them on. Okay, it's 3 in the morning. You hear a noise in your house. What's your move? Do you freak out with no plan? Are you fumbling with safe keys? Were you just hoping that the batteries in your safe didn't die? Or worse, is your firearm just out? There's a lot that people don't think about. Even experienced firearm owners sometimes don't think about this stuff. Well, this is why I started using the Stopbox Pro to safely store my firearms. And it's a game changer. The battle with how you keep your guns was always over, whether it's locked up or whether it's just out. Now, if it's just out, you worry about, you know, kids getting a hold of it. You worry about it accidentally being discharged. You worry about a potential intruder getting hold of it. And if it's locked away, the problem is that in those moments where seconds count, you have to now go fumble for keys and start opening saves. The stop box solves all of these problems. Now your guns aren't out and accessible to anyone except you, but they're also very easy to get to. There's a five button interface and it's designed for muscle memory so you get immediate access while keeping others out. So essentially it's like a code that you press with your fingers and if you sit there and just mess with it for like five, 10 minutes, when you first get it, it just becomes comes muscle memory. You grab the box, put your fingers in a certain way, and it opens up only for you. So your firearm is completely safe and secured. But it's also very easy to get to in the event of an emergency where you really want to be able to get to it. I swear by this thing, you guys got to check it out. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off at Stopbox when you use the promo code problem at checkout, head to stopboxusa.com and make sure to use that promo code problem for 10% off your entire order. All right, let's get back into the show. Okay. However, you can rest assured that the IDF morphs into a death cult. However, you can rest assured that if the IDF morphs into a death cult that uses its own civilian population as human shields and yet somehow remains widely popular, if ordinary Israelis begin to celebrate martyrdom above every every earthly priority, producing generations of bright eyed suicidal fanatics, if the residents of Tel Aviv condone that taking of Palestinian infants, old women and other non combatants as hostages and then gather in crowds of thousands banging for their blood, if in other words, the Israelis began to resemble the Palestinians, then I won't care who wins this war short of this, there remains a world of difference between the two sides. And I believe that we should focus on how brutalizing it is for any free society to conf. To confront enemies that can sincerely claim to, quote, love death more than everyone else loves life. For this has been the Israeli's predicament for the better part of a century. Okay, let's take this apart a little bit. Another dirty trick. It's all Sam Harris is doing here. But if you know what he's doing here is he's going, okay, When Israel becomes all of these caricatures that I have of the Palestinians, then I'd. Then I'd have An issue with it, but it's like, like, wait, why do they have to be these specific ones? What if they just did something else really horrible and evil? Like, for example, just hypothetical thing, let's just say, like, Israel legalized baby murder. I'm not talking abortion, just like running up and killing someone. Six month old. They made that legal. Okay, they don't have any of these other qualities that you've just mentioned here, but that's still pretty cartoonishly evil, Right? So would that be bad, too? Like, why does it have to be exactly these parameters? And then the double whammy is that the Israelis almost fit these parameters identically. Like, if you actually look into the things he's saying and then objectively measure it, they've done more of it than the Palestinians have. Let's go through this a little bit here. Okay? If. If the Israelis. Let's say the Israelis morphed into a death cult. Well, Rob, what's the objective definition of a death culture? Like, what do you mean? They started slaughtering people? They like death. They brought death to a lot of people. Okay. They've done that 10x the Palestinians. Like, that's just objective. Okay, so that was your first death cult, uses its own civilian population as human shields. That's an interesting one, Rob. You know, I don't know if you saw when Glenn Greenwald got the IDF spokesman on Piers Morgan to admit that, yes, Israel puts military installations in civilian areas. Just to be clear, they use human shields every bit as much as the Palestinians use human shields. The difference is that the Palestinians don't have an air force, so they can't. It's not like they have the option to bomb them and then use the most pathetic justification ever that, oh, they hid behind human shields and therefore it's okay to just carpet bomb Tel Aviv or something like that. Both Gaza and the west bank have been military militarily occupied since 1967. They're occupied by the military that has bases in civilian areas in. In inside Israel proper. So that's just factually speaking. He's just wrong about that. The human shields arguments applies both ways. Okay, that was the next one. Human shields. If ordinary Israelis began to celebrate martyrdom above every earthly priority. All right, I mean, yeah, maybe they don't celebrate martyrdom in the same way. They sure do. I mean, I don't know. They sure do seem to celebrate the things that even you admitted were wrong. Right? Like the expanding settlements in the West Bank. I've seen all types of celebrations over the war in Gaza, Rob. I'm sure you've seen a ton of the videos where like Israelis were going and like watching the war, like watching Gaza and watching the explosions during it and rooting for it at politicians signing bombs. There's all types of examples of just really sick, kind of like worship. This is what, but again, this is what happens in wars on all sides. It's just not unique to the other side. Okay. If the residents of Tel Aviv condone the taking of Palestinian infants, old women and other non combatants as hostages, I mean they just call them prisoners. They take way more. Like you could make this a distinction, but, but let's say the people living in the west bank, they face military tribunals. You know what their conviction rate is? It's like over 99%. Like is there really a meaningful difference between prisoners and hostages? You know, Hamas also captured some IDF guys, but we still look at them as hostages and we still look at some 8 year old Palestinian as a prisoner. Are, Dude, Israel's sitting on thousands and thousands of, of pal over the years. Thousands and thousands and thousands of Palestinians who did not get a fair trial. Some of them didn't even get military tribunals, by the way. Thousands of them got nothing, just held without, without charges, without a trial, nothing. So yes, actually they do do that. They do that as well. That gather in, what do you say, non combatants and hostages then gather in crowds of thousands, bang, for their blood. Yes, they also do that. I don't, I don't know, I go look at public opinion polls in Israel. Yeah, there's, there's huge support for what they do to the Palestinians. So anyway, I don't know, Rob, anything you want to add to this, but it just goes through a whole list that if Israel does exactly my caricature of what the other side is doing, then I'd hate them. Thing is, they do most of this.

[D]

Yeah, I, I, I guess initially I didn't gravitate so much to that. Israel violates all these specific things as much as it's a specific list and it doesn't justify killing of innocent civilians. So the fact that, you know, I guess unless like you got some weird idea of ritualizing a specific way of murdering people and being evil towards another group of people and so that, that's specifically the only thing that actually makes it wrong, this seems like a very stupid perspective.

[C]

Yeah, agreed. All right. The problem in the Middle east is not and has never been the existence of the State of Israel. The problem is jihadism, Islamism, Islamic extremism, Islamo fascism, militant Islam or whatever words you want to use to describe the belligerence and triumphal lunacy of those, the most pernicious doctrines of Islam too.

[D]

Seriously, why is every single person that lives in these regions guilty of that?

[C]

That.

[D]

And why don't, and why don't you assume the same thing about Arab Israelis? Why is it that some kid that's just born in, in Gaza is automatically guilty of this?

[C]

No, that's right. And, and of course this is again, it's just so dumb. This is, it's just a giant assertion. And then you just what you came up with. Seven. Seven. It's literally like Mark Levin. Like you sound like a nine year old playing with action figures. Like you just came up with every word you can. It's Islamo, fascism, Islamism, Islamic, Islamic this. And he goes, all you've left me with in this paragraph is the problem isn't Israel, the problem is them. That's all you've said. Okay. I mean, by the way, I'm not nearly. There's an asymmetry as always is the case here because I'm not making the equal opposite point of Sam Harris. Like I would never say, like the problem has not the problem in the Middle east is only Israel and has nothing to do with radical Islam. And obviously there's elements of all of these things that these are the dynamics of the region. And yes, of course there's problems on all sides, but to pretend that the military occupation has nothing to do with what's going on here. It just has nothing to do with the issue is absurd. It's an absurd assertion that you could not defend in a debate and that's why you don't want to have the debate. It's easy to write a paragraph that essentially just says my side good, your side bad. That's essentially what this says. It's a lot, it's a lot tougher to have to come defend that idea. Okay, next paragraph. I won't debate the history of the Middle east because it's relevant to resolving the conflict there. That's convenient. Of course, many people insist that we must disentangle and reconsider every strand of this history going back at least a century. The reason I'm convinced this is a fool's Aaron is simple. Palestinians and Israelis have discrepant accounts of the past and no amount of study or debate will reconcile them. Wow, that might be the most anti intellectual sentence that's ever been written. Rob, let's stop doing history. I say the world is flat. Sam, you say it's round. What are we going to get into this? We have differences. You can't get into debating this. You feel one way, I feel the other way. There's no reconciling that. Yes, that might be true, but one of those positions is correct and the other one is not. And whether you're like, if I were to say I'm a flat earther and my mind's not going to be changed, that's why I won't debate this issue. Is that a really compelling argument? Sam Harris? Maybe if I say it in my. I was a flat earther. I simply refuse to debate round earthers. Our differences are simply irreconcilable. And I'm not going to get into the history of whether the world has always been flat or always been round. Now, is it a great point or is it still really fucking stupid? This is ridiculous to go, history is history. Are you advocating that we give up on history as a field because people have differences? Lots of people have different arguments about what happened historically. But then what you do is you look to the firsthand sources, you look to the firsthand accounts, you work to histor, you look to historians, you read books about this shit. You make arguments like, I don't know, what are we even talking. Sam Harris is making an argument against arguments. They have a difference. They have a difference in the understanding of the history. Therefore, I won't debate it.

[D]

I guess if you want to frame that the entire reaction to Israel is just violent jihadism and that it's just that this group of people would be looking to exterminate the Jews no matter what, then you wouldn't want any historical context. You wouldn't want a concept of something like blowback. You wouldn't want, you know, and I'm not justifying Palestinian aggression towards innocent civilians in Israel, but I am saying that someone might become a jihadist because of military activities that took place in their area against them. And so it could be that if the military engagements against them and innocent civilians in their area didn't exist, people wouldn't be brought to extremist jihadism. And so to go, hey, let's not look at the history at all. I don't know, it's a little like if someone stole my keys and started running to my car and then I ran up and I hit them in the face. And the cop showed up and goes, oh, this guy attacked me. I go, well, he just took my keys. Well, let's not look at the history of how we got.

[C]

Yeah, he's Got one history, you have another history. I mean, Rob, what are we going to do? Is there, is there a method for solving this? But it's literally like, I mean, I don't know, it's just like, like, you know, I, you know, I believe in gravity. And you go, yeah, you believe in gravity, but then somebody else doesn't believe in gravity. I mean, what's the point of even debating this? Like, was. I don't know, we got like a physics department down at the local university. I think they.

[D]

Right.

[C]

Isn't there an idea here that there's a system, there's a science? No, I mean, look, this is, it's obvious. The reason why Sam Harris doesn't want to get into the history of it is because that might be kind of humanizing toward the other side. And clearly what he's in the business of doing is dehumanizing them. That's the whole game. It's like, you know, I don't know, like you, you, you kidnap a 5 year old and keep him in your basement for 10 years and then he comes out and He's a crazy 15 year old and you go, look at the other side's crazy, you know, and, and you go, well, look, you kidnapped him. You say, I don't want to get into history. Well, yeah, obviously you don't. Yes. I mean, like, if you get into the history, you're going to have to admit it. Some uncomfortable facts like Israel ethnically cleansed a whole bunch of Palestinians in order to create the state of Israel. That they started militarily occupying them after they won the 67 war and have been doing so ever since. And as soon, because as soon as you admit that part of the history, then you go, oh, oh, okay. You know, it's, it's the same as, like when they would go after 9, 11, they'd say they hate us because we're free.

[E]

Free.

[C]

Like they would say that because that's a way for you to shut your brain off. If someone hates you because you're free, well, then what are you going to do? Other than kill all of them? But if someone hates you for earthly reasons, then you might go, oh, I get it. They're a human being. You know, that doesn't mean they're justified. It doesn't mean they're a good human being, but it just means like, oh, yeah, oh, you ethnically cleansed a whole bunch of people and then brutally, militarily occupied them for 60 years. Okay, that's why they hate you. That makes sense. And so Sam doesn't want to talk about that, so he just goes, I won't. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Super Power. It is summer, or it's just about summer. And this is the time of year where people think about health. People are out in the nice weather and try to be healthier usually than they are in the winter. Well, if you really want to level up your health game, you got to check out Superpower. It's unlike anything you've ever heard of. Superpower sends a licensed professional to your home, or you can visit a nearby lab. Okay. It's one simple blood draw with over 100 biomarkers, way more than what you usually get. And it unlocks so much about your own body. Then they have an app. So their app includes detailed information on your heart, your liver, your thyroid, hormones, metabolism, vitamin and mineral levels, even environmental toxins. So from disease prevention to treating that annoying brain fog, or simply optimizing your gym game, Superpower is the most comprehensive and advanced system out there. You're going to find out what supplements you should be taking, how much sleep you actually need, what diet should you focus on, and then the app is going to give you an actionable health plan. So they'll suggest supplements, nutritional guidance, lifestyle and behavioral adjustments. You even get your true biological age that you can track over time. So Superpower not only gives you an initial plan, but it tracks your results over your lifetime. So each test builds on the last one. So this isn't just like getting generic health advice. This is finding out specifically what's going on with your body and then giving you specific health advice that will work for you. And they're here to help you get there. Now, Superpower used to cost $499, but right now it's just 199. For the full experience, it's more affordable than anything else out there. Other Test services charge 500, even a thousand dollars sometimes or more. Oh, and by the way, not only did Superpower reduce their price to $199, but for a limited time, our listeners can get an additional $20 off when they use the promo code problem. Just head to superpower.com and use that promo code problem at checkout, out for $20 off your membership. All right, let's get back into the show. Okay, what's far more important to understand than the history? This is because history ain't that important, Rob. Obviously, what's far more important to understand and I think is And I think it really is the only thing worth considering is what the current inhabitants of Israel, the Palestinian territories and the surrounding Arab states want out of life. Life. Not what they pretend to want or what a handful of the royal families want, while their populations want something quite different. What do the Jews and the Muslims in the region really yearn to accomplish? What are they willing to sacrifice for? What are they willing to die for? And what are they willing to let their children die for? When we focus on the present this way, if we're being honest, we must concede that there are two very different realities on either side of this conflict. Culturally, psychologically, ethically, spiritually, in every way that matters. Yes, Israel has its religious fan fanatics too, but they aren't the same sort of fanatics we find in Hamas or Hezbollah. And they're far less representative of the surrounding culture. None. With notwithstanding everything that can be said against Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Israeli far right and the settlers in the West Bank. And there is much to condemn, I believe the following remains true. True. If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace. There could be a two state solution. There could even be a one state solution. It wouldn't matter if the Palestinians simply supported killing, simply stopped killing Jews and stopped building a culture that celebrates pointless murder and martyrdom as its highest value. There could be a diverse, tolerant and prosperous society between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. There could have been one 80 years ago. Go. But if the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be a genocide there. This was Obviously true on October 7th. And for anyone who's been paying attention, it has been true on every other day since the founding of the state of Israel. Look, all, all I can say is this. I've done a lot of these debates, a lot of debates on Israel, Palestine. I think I have a pretty good record in those debates, but, you know, that's for the audience to decide. But I've had tons of people come at me with this garbage. There's a reason why you can't bring this in a debate against a competent debater. Because it's just, this is just the, this is pure political talking points just totally removed from the reality of the situation. And so let, look, let's. Well, he yada yada's over the history. The history ain't important important that says the true intellectual history isn't important. And then he says, well, what is important is the mindset of each side of this conflict and what they really want, what they're really willing to die. For what they really care about. But then of course, it's just a buried assumption in there that the Israelis all just want everything good and noble and that's, you know, and we're not to judge them based on their actions. We're not like, what if I were to say the Israelis want to kill a hundred thousand Palestinians? You say, no, they don't, they don't want to do that. Okay, well I say they did and they did it. So there's some evidence that that's what they want. Maybe I were to say that the Israel's want to control large swaths of Syria. They want to annex the west bank, they want to annex Gaza, they want to annex southern Lebanon. What if I were to say that? Is that what they want? Want? Is that not what they want? They're doing it. The Knesset voted to annex the West Bank. They've had the biggest years of, of settlement expansion in Israeli history. In recent years. They've announced that they're annexing, I believe 65% of Gaza as of now. Netanyahu said it might be more the other day they announced that they're taking southern Lebanon and they already took parts of Syria. I think it's pretty reasonable for me to say that what they want is the Greater Israel Project and that they're willing to kill real live babies in order to expand their, their political faction. But then again, you'd have to come debate that to actually get into any of these topics. And then this. I'm sorry, I mean, I've literally, I've had people come at me with this in debates and it's just the easiest thing in the world to smack down. First of all, when you say things like if, like this is a dirty trick. I know I've take, I've taken this on, on the show before, but they'll say this thing right? If the Palestinians were to lay down all their arms, we'd have peace. If the Israelis were to lay down all their arms, we'd have genocide. Well, this would almost be like on the level of, you know, let's say you were alive in 2003. Well, I guess we were all alive in 2003. Let's say it was 2003. George W. Bush is making his, it's early 2003. He's making his case for why he has to invade Iraq. And he's like, you know, they have weapons of mass destruction. They're, they're friends with the terrorists. They were in on 9, 11. We can't allow them to get a Nuclear weapon and hand it off to a terrorist. And then we got a nuke exploding in Kansas. Also, the war will be quick and easy. We'll be greeted as liberators. It'll be paid for in oil. It'll be a cakewalk. Okay, so George Bush is saying all of that and then someone correctly comes out and counters and go. It will not be a cakewalk. It'll be a catastrophe. It'll cost trillions of dollars. It'll kill hundreds of thousands of people. They don't have weapons of mass destro destruction. They're not in bed with the terrorists. Right. So like you have these two arguments. Clearly one in hindsight turned out to be correct. The other is what we did. And let's say someone in the middle of that argument went, no, no, no, no, no, Everyone stop everything. I want you to imagine a thought experiment. Imagine all of the Iraqis disarmed. Tomorrow there'd be peace. But imagine all of Americans disarmed. Tomorrow there'd be war. War. It's like, what does that have to do with anything? Is there any plausible reality where all of Iraq disarms? Is there any plausible reality where all of America disarms? Is anyone advocating that every Israeli give away their guns and just all sit there as, as, you know, sitting ducks? Yeah, that probably wouldn't work out. Well, also, like in the large scale of things, things, the Palestinians essentially have been disarmed. Like what do you even mean by this? What? Like if their air force stepped up, they don't have an air force. If their army disbanded, they don't have an army, they don't have a navy, they don't have any military, they don't have a government. They're essentially have been disarmed. There's been about as big a power imbalance between the Israelis and the Palestinians as two neighbors could have. I mean, you know, like, do we have more of a palance and balance with Mexico? Probably not. Mexico has a government, they have an army. May not be the most effective one, but they've got one. They have some degree of, of ex expectations of sovereignty. Palestinians have none of that. There's, there's obviously a huge asymmetry between this in this conflict and what have the Palestinians gotten for that? Have they gotten peace? No, they've gotten subject subjugation in perpetuity. And so again, the question isn't what would happen in a thought experiment if the Palestinians disarmed or if the Israelis disarmed. By the way, there's no evidence to suggest that if The Palestinians disarmed, they'd get a two state solution tomorrow. I don't even. Netanyahu isn't even saying that. All of the people in control of the Israeli government are saying a two state solution is never going to happen. But again, that's not. This is all just a distraction from the real question, which is, was Israel what Israel just did to just Gaza justified? Does Israel have a right to southern Lebanon? Does it? Is Israel pulling the Americans into a war? Is Israel trying to thwart the, the current negotiations? These are questions that matter. This dumb thought experiment is nothing. And this is why you won't come debate it, because it's easy to tear this apart.

[D]

I don't also point out that prior to the creation of the State of Israel, when Rothchild went over there and he bought up a bunch of land and he made investments in real estate and he put up Jewish settlers there, were they exterminated by the native population?

[C]

I mean, very fair point, man.

[D]

I mean, if you want to delete history from it, I guess you wouldn't

[C]

have to look at whether or not you're getting into history here. No fair.

[D]

Whether or not Israeli actions have changed, changed, you know, the nature of Arab aggression towards, you know, the Jewish people living in the State of Israel. But I do believe that there's a historical example of them living there without just being exterminated.

[C]

Yeah, no, there was a Jewish population there. I mean with con. With. There was a continuous Jewish population in Palestine for all of those years. Yeah, now that's right, Rob, that's a very good point. And, but again, like just to say that like in, in this hypoth also what they do is they set up a standard that will never be met. So like the Palestinians have to disarm. What does that mean? Like I said, they don't have a military. What does that mean to disarm? No one has a rifle. There's not a single Palestinian with a rifle. Like when, when is the level of, of disarming that a two state solution automatically kicks in? And of course over the years there's been lots of examples, examples where Palestinians entered negotiations with Israel. We had the Oslo Accords, we had Hebron and Camp David and all these meetings, it didn't magically result in a two state solution. And of course, Rob, as we know, right, like even again, I'm sorry, I'm breaking the rule and getting into some history here, but Netanyahu admits that he was propping up Hamas in order to thwart the creation of a Palestinian State. So, so like, doesn't that just. I know, I'm sorry. This is why Sam says we're not allowed to talk about history. But doesn't that completely blow up this narrative that like, oh my God, if the Palestinians would just not support these terrorists, then they could have their own state. But then why is the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history intentionally propping up the terrorists so that he can say exactly what Sam Harris is saying right now? Oh no, no, no, we can't give him a state because look, they haven't disarmed. They have these terrorists wrists such man. Here, let's, it's all just cowardice. But let's, let's play the clip before we have to wrap up the show here because this was the other clip that was going around of Sam Harris talking about this issue still. Look, all this is is Sam Harris going, I'll talk about this issue on shows. I'll write about this issue on my substack. I'll smear the people who are critical of Israel as misinformation artists. But I won't ever go debate verbatim. I won't ever go engage with their ideas. How do you just not feel pathetic as you're saying this out loud? Yeah, let's play the clip though of Sam Harris.

[E]

There was no famine in Gaza. That's a lie. We've been the victims of a comprehensive and amazingly successful psyop. People have analyzed the average calorie count that got into Gaza throughout the whole war. Is something, something like, you know, 3,000 calories per person a day. I mean it's just like not, we're not talking about a condition under which

[C]

we're going to cause dark animals. I mean, again, this is why this guy can't debate. Man. I really, that's, it's this. First off, there's something so cruel and crude about the way they do this, but like there is no starvation in Gaza. This is all a big op. And look, the evidence that there's starvation in Gaza has been the journalists that are there on the ground who have interviewed doctors and talked about the starvation and that people have died of starvation. It was at its worst right after the period where Smotrich publicly was saying that not one ounce of grain will be allowed in Gaza. There was nearly three months where they let absolutely no aid in. And yeah, there were lots of reports of starvation as a result of that. Now we don't know that much about the details because Israel doesn't let international journalists into a war zone, unlike all the other wars that are fought in modern times. And so we don't have as much information as possible, but for Sam Harris to go, well, they said 3,000 calories per person per day were getting into Gaza. It's like, all right, dude, but how many of those were getting to the people? Because that's actually what matters. You could count the calories that you send into an active war zone, but, you know, supply chains don't function perfectly in the middle of a fucking destruction of a society. Anyway, let's keep going.

[E]

No, starvation is a specific thing. Like, famine is a word that has a meaning, right? It doesn't mean that some people are hungry. It means people are dying because they're malnourished.

[C]

Right?

[E]

There's so little food that you see children with bloated stomachs and people wasting away due to caloric insufficiency. Right. And nutritional insufficiency. That didn't happen in Gaza. Right? It's again, it's another blood libel, like genocide. Genocide didn't happen in Gaza. Genocide. The word has a meaning, right? So we're surrounded by liars and hysterics and ideologues and people who are willingly bamboozled by genuinely sinister movements and organizations. I mean, the. The role that the IRGC and the Muslim Brotherhood. This was a war that was largely fought on social media, and Israel lost it. Absolutely lost it on social media.

[C]

Okay. I just love that as the closing. This was a war that was fought on social media and Israel absolutely lost it. Maybe that's because guys like you are such pussies that you're unwilling to even enter the space. Like, if you're saying there was no genocide, there was no starvation, all these things, you're making all these assertions and saying that everyone's crazy and has fallen for an op who believes any of these things? I guess, by the way, Rob, amongst the people who fell for this op would be the world's leading genocide scholars, killers, where there's a pretty strong consensus that this did constitute a genocide. But Sam Harris is going to say, no, the real war was fought over social media and Israel lost it. Well, a big part of that is because all of the Israel supporters keep getting destroyed in debate after debate, and then they write garbage pieces like this. The ones like you who know you'll get destroyed, and so you're too much of a coward to even have the debate, but you'll write a garbage piece like this on why you're going to avoid a debate, and what do you have for Us, Rob. Oh, my God, we are falling for this op, right? The. The guy who's got the truth on his side, refuses to debate is what we're supposed to believe here. And what is the truth that he's got on his side? History doesn't count. Like, I've got some ideas as to why Israel might be losing this propaganda war on social media. Media. Because just sitting here and saying, nuh, it's not happening. No one's starving. It's not a genocide. I mean, Rob, hasn't everyone who's paying attention seen, like, literally. I'm talking to you, I'm talking to Natalie, I'm talking to everyone listening this. Haven't you seen enough horrific images out of Gaza that, like, you really don't need to be convinced anymore that something really horrible is happening there? Like, this is what you got. No, no, no, no. There. There was no starvation. Yes, they. They. There were some kids who starved to death, but they had other medical conditions. And no, it doesn't constitute a genocide. It was just killing tens of thousands of kids. No further debate, no talking about history. That's all. I don't know, Rob. I can't believe this hasn't won you the argument. Sam Harris, final word to you, Rob.

[D]

This guy's a loser.

[C]

It really is. I'm sorry. I just. I do. I have. I have no respect for this stuff. I. I find Sam Harris to be a contemptible person. And I'm sorry, but, like, people listen, people notice this stuff. You know, Sam Harris is really. He's smeared me quite a bit and called me every name under the book. Despite all that, despite the fact that I think Sam Harris is guilty of blood libel, or I think he's, you know, pushing a bunch of, like, really horrible ide. I would accuse him of moral lunacy. I'm still willing to have the debate with him. I'll do it tomorrow. We could schedule it for later today. Why is it that I'm willing to do it and he's not willing to do it? Well, I could tell you 100% why I'm willing to do it because I know I'll win. I don't know. I. I'll do it because I believe what I'm saying. Saying I have a much stronger argument than him, and I know he won't be able to counter what I have. I've been through enough of these debates and I can read this piece and know you got nothing, bro. You got nothing new. So that's why I'm willing to do it. Why are you really not willing to do it? Sam Harris let's all think about that for a little bit. Are we to believe here that Sam Harris knows that he could come in and just win this democracy debate? He knows he could come in and just just devastate someone, but he just won't do it for reasons. Seems tough for me to believe. Anyway, we will be back tomorrow at 1pm with a brand new episode. Catch you guys then. Peace. Foreign. Support for this podcast comes from Progressive, America's number one motorcycle insurer. Did you know Writers who switch and save with Progressive save nearly $200 per year. That's a whole new pair of writing gloves. And more. Quote today Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $197 by new customer service surveyed who saved with Progressive between October 2024 and September 2025. Potential savings will.