3532 - The Myth of Israel / Palestine Negotiations; Mamdani's Priorities w/ Robert Malley, Zohran Mamdani

Summary

---

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3532 - The Myth of Israel/Palestine Negotiations; Mamdani's Priorities
Guests: Robert Malley (co-author of Tomorrow is Yesterday), Zohran Mamdani (NYC Mayor-elect)
Date: November 25, 2025

---

EPISODE OVERVIEW

This episode dives deep into the ongoing mythologies around Israel/Palestine peace negotiations, featuring Robert Malley—veteran Middle East negotiator and author—and concludes with an interview with NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani about navigating the tension between movement and broader constituencies. The discussions interrogate the enduring myths of the peace process, America's role, and realistic pathways for Palestinian and Israeli futures. Interlaced are topical segments on the US economy, Democratic infighting, and the everyday politics affecting American listeners.

---

I. ISRAEL/PALESTINE: THE “MYTH OF NEGOTIATIONS”

Guest: Robert Malley
Timestamps: [19:09]–[53:59]

A. Why Write Another Book on the Peace Process?

• Context: Malley’s credentials (Clinton, Obama, Biden administrations, lead Iran nuclear deal negotiator).
• Motivation:
  • The book, Tomorrow is Yesterday, aims to highlight that the so-called "ruptures" (e.g., October 7) are instead continuations of a failed process that’s existed for decades ([20:41]).
  • Malley: "We're not at the end of the epoch. We're back to the epoch that we've lived now for decades..." ([20:41]).

B. Key Myths of the Peace Process

• The Two-State Solution as Gimmick:

  • Used to anesthetize the public and justify inaction while the situation deteriorates ([22:25]).
  • Quote: "It's invoked as a slogan. We call it a gimmick, we call it a lie because it's used to sort of anesthetize people and say yeah, don't worry, we're moving towards this outcome." – Robert Malley ([22:25])

• The US as Honest Mediator:

  • Deep-seated American biases for Israel; US pushes Palestinians to recognize Israeli “progress,” while viewing Palestinian demands as negation ([24:03]).
  • Quote: "Americans sort of bought into a narrative...any step that the Israelis took as a sign of progress and were pushing the Palestinians to recognize it as such." – Robert Malley ([24:03])

• “It’s Always the Palestinians’ Fault”:

  • Persistent narrative since Camp David 2000—Palestinians as perpetual rejectionists, scapegoated for the failure of peace ([24:03]).

• October 7 and Its Roots:

  • Current violence is not new but symptomatic of unresolved, systemic issues ([20:41]).

C. Self-Critique of Policy Insiders

• Both Malley and his co-author formerly “believed the slogans,” a self-delusion among policymakers until the cumulative evidence made the illusion too obvious ([26:32]).

D. On Oslo and Fundamental Misunderstandings

• Different Baselines:
  • For Israelis: Oslo = security and recognition, limited autonomy for Palestinians.
  • For Palestinians: Oslo = a major concession, expectation of a real independent state ([30:34]).
  • Quote: "It was based on a fundamental disconnect between what the two sides thought they were getting." – Robert Malley ([30:34])

E. Israeli and Palestinian Domestic Dynamics

• US/Israeli policymakers always viewed Netanyahu and predecessors as constrained by domestic politics, but seldom granted the same complexity to Palestinians/Arafat ([34:05]).
• Quote: "Arafat…his only basis of support was his domestic basis of support... that's the only thing he could count on." ([35:30])

F. The Core Paradox and “Needs” vs. “Wants”

• Israelis’ needs (security) seen as non-negotiable; Palestinian needs treated as mere “wants” ([39:04]).
• Obama quote: Israel has the "right to self defense... to defend itself by itself"—a formulation never applied to a hypothetical Palestinian state ([40:49]).

G. Structural Barriers and Future Pathways

• On One-State Solution:

  • Never seriously entertained on either side due to deep mistrust and structural imbalances ([46:00]).
  • Malley: "I don't think it's realistic today... There has to be something. Unfortunately the most likely outcome is the status quo only getting worse."

• Changes Needed for Change:

  • US: Must use its leverage and reevaluate unconditional support.
  • Palestinian side: Need for a legitimate, unified leadership, consistently undermined by outside actors.
  • Israeli side: Little impetus to change without external (US) pressure.

H. Shifts in US Politics: Democratic and Republican Trends

• Democrats: Pressure may fade once Netanyahu/relevant war ends; possibility for more robust conditions on aid in future.
• Republicans: Some America First types oppose aid for anyone, Israel included ([51:10]).
• Quote: "There may be a transpartisan view... that sees the relationship with Israel as having been abnormal and we need to normalize it." – Robert Malley ([52:25])

Notable Moment:

• Malley’s candor about self-delusion within the peace processor class—a rare admission in US policy circles ([26:32]).

Memorable Quote:

• "We're not at a rupture, we're back where we've always been." – Robert Malley ([20:41])

---

II. US POLITICS & ECONOMY—SEGMENTS & ANALYSIS

Timestamps: [00:02]–[19:09], [54:41]–[64:13]

A. Economic Realities vs. Political Spin

• Listeners hear statistics: Groceries up 85%, utilities 78%, gasoline 54%, etc. ([03:59]).
• Public does not believe administration claims that prices are falling; bipartisan discontent ([04:33]).
• Notable quote: "The facts show that groceries are more expensive as well as people's perception of it, which I think is pretty important to point out if you're a news organization." – Co-host ([06:48])

B. Democratic Infighting and Trump-Era Fallout

• New anti-Schumer/Gillibrand caucus in the Senate, Trump's revenge appointments creating chaos at EPA and DOJ, mishandled prosecutions dismissed embarrassingly ([55:42]).
• "If you become prosecutors, don't ever do any of this." – CNN analyst Ellie Honig on legal incompetence ([55:53])

C. Satirical Banter and Political Frustration

• Laments over superficial “revenge” prosecutions; humor about the Trump kids’ entanglements and the unlikelihood of the administration’s economic miracle claims ([07:13], [08:05]).

---

III. NY MAYOR-ELECT ZOHRAN MAMDANI: MOVEMENT STRATEGY & GOVERNANCE

Timestamps: [64:13]–[77:07]

A. Navigating Dual Constituencies

• Movement vs. City as a Whole:
  • Mamdani doesn’t see "New Yorkers" and "movement people" as enemies; both want tangible improvement in material conditions ([66:12]).
  • “I don't actually see these as two distinct constituencies innately... at the heart of both... is a concern for the material.” – Mamdani ([66:12])

B. Strategic Choices and Endorsements

• Addressed recent controversies: visiting Trump (to discuss cost of living, not to signal political alignment), DSA endorsement debates, and priorities for fulfilling campaign promises (rent freeze, transit, childcare, etc.) ([66:12]–[71:54]).
• On not supporting a Jeffries primary right now: “It's not a question of the ballot box of who you would rather vote for. This is a question of how you want to spend the next year.” ([67:34])
• He's focused on delivering wins that are “direct to our lives,” not just symbolic victories ([70:11]).

C. Short Window for Change: Transition and Implementation

• The urgency to have a functioning transition team to hit the ground running, as state and city politics will shift quickly ([73:30]).
• Mamdani: “The first year is a critical time in how we start to both share our plans for the implementation of these policies, but also start to deliver for New Yorkers.” ([73:30])

D. Cooperation Across the Aisle and Issue Focus

• Open to working with Trump (on utility rates), so long as it substantively helps NYC residents ([75:43]).
• Reiterates grounding policy in material improvements, not ideological purity.

E. Lighthearted Close: Snow Days and Campaigning Struggles

• Briefly supporters’ (and host’s son's) concerns about snow days: “I love them” – Mamdani ([76:37])
• Technical problems and behind-the-scenes campaign struggles make an appearance but don't dampen the mood.

---

IV. ANALYSIS: THE FUTURE OF LEFT POLITICS IN NYC

Timestamps: [77:07]–[87:43]

• Emphasis on the historicity and national significance of a leftist mayor succeeding in NYC.
• Acknowledges anticipated fierce opposition from all quarters—meaning ample resources are needed for transition and early administration ([79:41]).
• Successful delivery on campaign promises seen as the way to cement movement gains and fend off establishment/Democratic opposition.

---

V. MEMORABLE QUOTES (Speaker & Timestamp)

• “We're not at a rupture, we're back where we've always been.”
  – Robert Malley ([20:41])

• “It's invoked as a slogan. We call it a gimmick, we call it a lie...”
  – Robert Malley ([22:25])

• “Americans sort of bought into a narrative... any step the Israelis took as a sign of progress...”
  – Robert Malley ([24:03])

• “I don't actually see these as two distinct constituencies innately... at the heart... is a concern for the material.”
  – Zohran Mamdani ([66:12])

• “The first year is a critical time in how we... start to deliver for New Yorkers...”
  – Zohran Mamdani ([73:30])

---

VI. RECOMMENDED LISTENING – KEY SEGMENTS

• Economic Analysis & Biden/Trump Blame Game: [03:56]–[07:13]
• Robert Malley on “The Myth of Negotiations”: [19:09]–[53:59]
• NYC Politics, Democratic Infighting: [54:41]–[64:13]
• Mamdani Interview – Strategy & Governing Priorities: [64:13]–[77:07]

---

SUMMARY

This incisive episode interrogates the longstanding narratives used to justify stagnation in Israel/Palestine negotiations, as explained by Robert Malley—who admits to his own past “self-delusions” as a peace processor. The show calls out the American role as enabler and the cynical use of the “two-state solution” mythology. Closing out, NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani details his approach to governing for all of New York—a synthesis of movement politics and pragmatic, universal citywide improvements. Co-hosts maintain their signature irreverence, but the stakes—political, material, and humanitarian—are foregrounded at every turn.

---

Transcript

[A]

The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Tuesday, November 28, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Robert Malley, co author of the new book Tomorrow is Yesterday, Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Palestine. Also on the program today, Trump's concept of an idea for a plan for an ACA fix is causing spasms for Republicans on the Hill. US hold secret meetings with Russia as Rubio's peace plans are in chaos. James Comey, Letitia James Prosecution collapses. Judge tosses and voids all of Halligan's work.

[B]

Gosh, they can't even do their revenge tour right.

[A]

Democratic mutiny in the Senate as the anti Schumer Gillibrand caucus forms Trump administration to review refugees admitted under Biden. 200,000 refugees supposedly unvetted. Less than one third of those arrested in Charlotte by the Border Patrol were classified as border Patrol as criminals. Also on the program today, the former chemical lobbyists Trump have appointed to the EPA approve a new set of forever chemical pesticides for use on your food. Maha Kristi Noem ends temporary protected status for Myanmar immigrants. Pentagon investigating Senate Democratic lawmakers over their video encouraging the military personnel to uphold the Constitution. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks so much for joining us.

[B]

It is news Day Tuesday, News Day Tuesday.

[A]

But in fact, we have a great guest on today. Robert Malley, co author of new book Tomorrow is Yesterday, will be on the program. He was the former lead in the well, he was the chief negotiator in the Iran nuclear deal and has served under three administrations working with Israel and Palestine negotiations. We'll be talking to him. And then we very malware. We very well may have a special guest later in the program. But before we get there, we're just two days out from Thanksgiving, ladies and gentlemen. And for those of you who have got the Walmart Thanksgiving meal, which apparently which is cheaper than it was last year, but of course comes with about 75% of what you could get last year for that. Harry Emden has looked at some of these prices. This is going to come as a shock to you because Donald Trump has been saying that gasoline is down. It's not year over year, it is higher amongst many other sundry things that we pay for.

[B]

Harry Emden, take it away.

[C]

I mean just your costs are up versus a year ago. Groceries 85%, utilities 78% health care, 67% housing 66% gasoline, 54%. The bottom line is this. Americans feel like prices are rising in each and every single part of their lives. Rising, ever climber. And they just don't feel like Kate Baldwin, that they can catch a break.

[B]

The Treasury Secretary in new comments kind of dismissed the impact tariffs is having on inflation, also saying that prices are going to be coming down in weeks, some of the prices are going to be coming down in months. What, what do Americans think about that?

[C]

Yeah, they think he's full of it. That's exactly what they think. I mean, just take a look here. Tariffs rise. Raising prices. Are raising prices right now. Click over Kate's side of screen. 71%. How dare I do that? 84% of Democrats, 74% of independents and even a majority of Republicans. When you can get a majority of Republicans to agree with majority of Democrats, you know that the pain is being felt by the American public right now. The treasury secretary tell the people something, but they can feel in their pocketbooks, they simply put don't buy what he and this administration is selling when it comes to tariffs.

[B]

You know, and Harry, one thing we've heard over and over again is the president and many of those around him blaming the Biden administration for where inflation is right now. Do people agree with that?

[C]

No, no, no, no. You know what, I want to quote Judge Judy, but I'm not going to, I'm merely going to try and say it's like they're trying to sell ice up at the North Pole when it comes to this. More responsible for the current economy. 62% of Americans say it's Donald Trump. Just 32% say it's Joe Biden. Look, Donald Trump did in fact inherit an economy from Joe Biden. But now we are nearly a year into the Donald Trump administration. If the Trump administration is trying to push, push the book over there, that simply put, the American folks aren't buying it. They say at this point it is Donald Trump's economy and we what is happening in terms of inflation is his responsibility.

[B]

That's what happens when you become president.

[A]

Who knew?

[B]

It just I like these segments. But I also the reason that 85% or whatever, over 80% of people feel like groceries are more expensive is because groceries are more expensive. Like the polling data is important to point out. And that was that devastating FOX poll that we gone through a little bit last week. But there's also the facts that back up what people are feeling. They're not just in the midst of a mass Psychosis or Trump derangement syndrome. Newsweek aggregated this. Beef is up 14% from January. When you look at September numbers, a coffee increase up 30%. If you compare to January to September 2025. Eggs have decreased. Because we were talking about at the time there was that the bird flu.

[D]

Right.

[B]

But. And bread has decreased slight. Poultry. Chicken has increased by 5.1% over that time period. Bananas up 8%. Milk is up 2.6%. Like, the facts show that groceries are more expensive as well as people's perception of it, which I think is pretty important to point out if you're a news organization. But I do like Harry's flair for the dramatic. I will say.

[A]

Yeah. And I think, you know, he. The bottom line is Trump has not. There doesn't even seem to be an attempt to, I don't know, pitch Americans otherwise. I mean, he keeps repeating over and over again that there are billions of dollars that are coming in, in investments into the United States. Trillions. I think he's up to now, nobody believes it because half the time they're citing trillions of dollars of investment or billions of dollars in investment that are larger than the GDP of the country that they're coming from. Like, literally, if they sold off everything in their country, they couldn't. They still wouldn't have the money to invest what he says they're investing there. You know who we don't see very much on. On, on TV anymore, it feels like, is Howard Lutnick. I was going to say Letnick said, give me a year or two.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, and then it's going to blow your mind. He is. Yeah. He's taking a pause and he's just basically sitting with his sons waiting for that judge to say the tariffs are illegal and then they're just going to buy an island or two down the yellow brick road. As a reminder, Lutnick Sons bought up a bunch of, I guess you could say, redeemable coupons is where, in the event that tariffs are found to be illegal, the government is responsible for paying back all of that money to the entities from which they collected those tariffs. People weren't sure whether they were going to get that money back or they needed cash at the time. So they sold these on 30 cents on the dollar. And it was Lutnick Sons that bought a ton of them. And so they're just waiting for the tariffs to be found illegal. The government pays back that money. But since the Latin Uday and Koussay, I think of their names, they own those redemptions. They'll get it. But it's been since the Epstein thing that we haven't seen Lutnick, remember? Oh, right.

[B]

But his, his sons are in business with the Trump kids. There you go. It all is in the same slimy pool.

[A]

You should try it. In a moment, we're going to be talking to Robert Malley, author, a co author, I should say, of a new book, Tomorrow is Yesterday. Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel and Palestine. First, a couple of words from our sponsors. Today's episode brought to you by HelloFresh. You've definitely heard us talking about HelloFresh and the delicious meals that I get from them. They're the number one meal kit in America. They make home cooking easy with chef crafted recipes and fresh ingredients delivered straight to your door. Now they're serving up even more to love. Check it out. They're bigger, they're healthier, they're tastier. I did like a, a chicken and rice dish for Saul 2 weeks ago and he ate it. Wow, that's huge. I mean the thing is it's healthy, it's fresh, there's not a huge amount of, of waste. The portion size are really sort of perfect. They really have nailed this. But the menu's really huge and the beauty is like I don't have time to cook. So I can get like 15 minute recipes. I get 20 minute recipes, I get 30 minute recipes. I tend to go for the 15 minute but nevertheless, occasionally I'll do a 20, 25 because I just don't have that much time. But I also feel bad that like you want to give your kid a home cooked meal. And so this allows me to have the best of both worlds. I don't have to shop for this stuff. It comes, it's, the packaging is mostly all recyclable. It is really an easy process. And they have now doubled its menu. You can choose from 100 options each week, including new seasonal dishes and recipes from around the world. Dig into bigger portions that keep everybody satisfied. Feel great with an even healthier menu. Choose from 15 high protein recipes each week with options like grass fed ribeyes or lamb chops. HelloFresh now helps eat greener with new veggie pack recipes that have two or more veggies per dish. You can get steak seafood recipes delivered every week for no extra cost. And now with three times the seafood options, the shrimp dishes, actually we had a, it was like a Mexican style, I don't know what you call it. Fajita style shrimp dish. Delicious Savor, hearty seasonal fall recipes like Figgy Balsamic Chicken or Cranberry Dijon Pork. Discover new seasonal produce each week, from leeks to broccolini to asparagus and more. Want to thank HelloFresh for supporting the majority part and making it easier for me to make a home cooked meal? The best ways to cook just got better. Go to hellofresh.com Majority10FM now to get 10 free meals. That's what the FM comes from. And a free breakfast for life. One per box with active subscription free meals applied as discount on the first box. New subscribers only. Free varies by plan. That's hellofresh.com/majority1.0FM. That's Majority 10 FM. All one word. Get 10 free meals plus a free breakfast for life. Check it out. You will not be disappointed. We'll put the links in the podcast and YouTube descriptions. Also sponsoring the program today, a product that I use everywhere. Like from the bathroom at work to my bathroom at home. Twice two different ways in my bathroom at work and at home. I've got the hand soap, we've got the toilet bombs. You know, what do you call them? Cleaners. Like you drop them in there. But I have all sorts of cleaners from Blue Land. I've got, I use the dishwashing tablets, I use the laundry tablets. And here's the deal. I want to get rid of plastic. I don't want to be like using all of this one time plastic stuff. I don't want to be lugging these huge containers home for laundry detergent or for dishwashing liquid back from the supermarket. And Blueland has made that incredibly easy. Let me see, I haven't been reading the copy at all. They got cleaning sprays, they got toilet bowl cleaner, they got dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets. Blueland formulas are 100% microplastic free. They're made with certified clean ingredients, free from chlorine bleach, free from harsh chemicals that are safe for us to use around my kids, my cat, me. I mean it is the, the cleaning stuff is much safer than other stuff. But honestly, I don't like, I don't go to the recycling. I don't drop my recycling down as much anymore because I don't have these huge containers and incredibly reasonable. You get with the sprays. You get the everything cleaner. What do you call it? All purpose all purpose cleaner, the window and the bathroom cleaner. They give you three bottles. They're color coded. Then you get tablets that are also color coded in the paper packaging. You drop them in water Boom. And it's a couple of bucks. They got hand soap which is getting festive upgrade with cozy scents like wintry pine, toasted vanilla and winterberry. I of course we get the no scented one. I'm very sensitive. The dishwasher tablets are awesome. They're proven to perform on baked on burnt on stains. I use Blueland laundry tablets and the toilet tablets. All of it great. To stock up on sustainable cleaning products for yourself or to give a beautiful sustainable gift to your friends and family this holiday season. Go to blueland.com majority and save up to 30% during Blueland's holiday sale. I may give this for Myla for Hanukkah.

[B]

That's a good idea.

[A]

She's living off campus. This is savings for me ultimately don't wait. That's only once. They only do this once a year. That's 30% off during Blue Lands holiday sale by going to blueland.com Majority blue land.com/mainior 30% off also lastly, last sponsor of the day, Aura Frames. It is a great, great gift. I gave this one. I gave one to my mom in the years before she passed away. She was able to see the kids even when she was a little bit, you know as she got closer was a little bit out of it. But the kids, you know she could hear the kids. Sometimes she would talk to the frame. The it is just an amazing gift. I gave one to my girlfriend's parents. They ended up buying like four more and now they're giving them as gifts to all their kids. Aura Frames provides you unlimited free photos and videos. All you gotta do is you download the Aura app, you connect to the frame. It's super easy to do. You can actually preload the videos or the photos onto the frame with never taking it out of the wrapping. And so when you send it to your your parents, your uncles, your friends, your your sisters or your brothers, whoever it is, your cousins, you can send it to anybody and you it will become preloaded with photos on there Also make a probably pretty good wedding gift. If you were close to the bride and groom you could stuff it full of pictures of them. That's actually a great gift. I hadn't even thought about that before. So you preload the photos before it ships and you can keep adding at any time anywhere for a limited time. Right now aura frames.com you'll get $45 off of Aura's best selling Carver matte frames named number one by wirecutter. Use promo code Majority at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com promo code majority aura frames.com promo code majority this is an exclusive Black Friday Cyber Monday deal. It's the best of the year, so order now before it ends. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. We'll put the link to that in the podcast and YouTube description. Quick break. When we come back, Robert Malley, conflict resolution specialist, co author of Tomorrow Is Yesterday, Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel, Palestine. Sam.

[E]

We are back.

[A]

Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. Want to welcome to the program Robert Malley, conflict resolution specialist, co author of Tomorrow Is Yesterday, Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel, Palestine, co written with Hussein Aga. I don't know if am I pronouncing that right?

[D]

That was good.

[A]

Okay, that's it's a rare win for me. Robert, thanks so much for joining us. I should just also say, just by way of introduction, you served in the Clinton administration and the Obama administration and the Biden administration on in dealing with not just Israel and Palestine questions, but you were also the lead negotiator on the Iranian nuke deal during the Obama years. Thank you for that. I'm sorry it didn't last, but honestly, it was, I thought, one of Obama's best achievements during his presidency. But let's, let's move on to the book that you've written. Like what, what inspired you at this point to write this is essentially a history of the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, more or less starting with the oslo Accords in 1993. But why now? Are we at the end of an epoch or what?

[D]

Well, I think as first, thanks for having me, but I think as the title of the book suggests, we're not at the end of the epoch. We're back to the epoch that we've lived now for decades and decades, which is I mean, at least since the peace process began in 1993, has been this pretense that we were moving towards a two state solution. And under cover of that pretense, all we've seen is greater fragmentation of the Palestinian national movement, greater fragmentation of Palestinian territory and a further distance from that vaunted two state solution. And we wrote it for many reasons, partly because on October 7 and after October 7, so many commentators were saying, as if this was a rupture in the relations between Israelis and Palestinians, whereas Palestinians desires for revenge, for liberation, even at the expense of Israeli lives, is nothing new. And Israeli, the kind of violence that they've inflicted on Palestinians, which now I think a majority of experts call a genocide. Not much new there either. And so what we're saying is history is not, we're not at a rupture, we're back where we've always been.

[B]

Well, I mean starting with Oslo I feel like is important in that way. Right. In examining the devolution of I would say the two state solution myth. But I mean the talking about it as a basically something that's internationally imposed without really buy in from particularly Palestinians on the ground is fairly, I mean from your end, I would say novel. Like we have academics who speak about it in this way, particularly the Israeli new historians. But we're not even seeing most Democrats speak about the two state solution in this manner.

[D]

No, and I think, you know, I get it Democrat and even the sort of, the more, some of the more progressive Democrats, they want to show that there's hope. They want to show that there's something out there that they're fighting for that is realistic. It's the most conveniently available outcome out there. And frankly I would sign onto it if I thought it was realistic. At this point I'm not sure ever was realistic. But you look at the situation on the ground, every step, everything that is happening is moving us away from that two state solution. And it's invoked as a slogan. We call it a gimmick, we call it a lie because it's used to sort of anesthetize people and say yeah, don't worry, we're moving towards this outcome. Whereas in fact as I say, everything on the ground is moving in the opposite direction. Even the recent plan for Gaza is now you have the Palestinians who are divided between the majority of refugees. Now you have a separate status for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, separate status for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem, separate status for the West Bankers who themselves are fragmented now divided from Gaza. Now Gaza's partitioned in two. How are you going to make a state out of all that?

[A]

Okay, so let's, I want to go back to just sort of like some of the broader things before we go through the history. What have been the most enduring myths throughout this process? Obviously the two states solution is perhaps the largest. But what are the other enduring myths that were present both like in 93 and then have continued on through the attempts, I guess at the peace process?

[D]

I mean, let's start with the biggest, maybe the second biggest one, which is the US as a facilitator, mediator, moving the two parties in some kind of equitable way towards a fair solution. I mean we could spend hours about the biases of US policy, some of them very conscious, some of them subconscious again, and we talk about them in the book. I think Americans sort of bought into a narrative, tend to be the Israeli narrative, and so saw any step that the Israelis took as a sign of progress and were pushing the Palestinians to recognize it as such. And any Palestinian demand was viewed as sort of a negation of a willingness for peace. Which leads to the next myth, which is it's always the Palestinians fault. And that started at Camp David, where I was present in 2000. And all along that the Palestinians, you know the slogan never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And the reason that they are now living in the horror that they're living is somehow their fault. And then the more recent myths again that I got to, which is that somehow all of this is just because what happened on October 7 is because of Hamas and the extremists on the Palestinian side and that the Israeli reaction is just the handiwork of Netanyahu and his right wing allies, whereas both October 7th and the response were viewed positively by majority of their respective communities. So we go through all these myths, I would say sort of one of the ones that is most important for this audience is the role that the US has played. And given the power the US had and the leverage it had. The fact that we are where we are today tells us something about how it exercised that power and that leverage.

[A]

When was it in the course? I mean, you've worked for the Clinton administration, you worked for the Biden administration, the Obama administration. At what point were you. Did this, did you realize this was a myth or was it, was it clear from the beginning? I mean, and how did you, like, how do you deal with that? I mean, you know, I mean, I feel like it came out quite a bit during the Biden years where, you know, just even I'm just thinking about the State Department guy who was, was accosting somebody selling, you know, on a food truck up Upper west side. But it's become, you know, really apparent in many respects that it's been throughout all of these administrations. When did that become like and how, how definitive was it for you at different stages?

[D]

That's a great question. And we don't have all that much time to give a whole biography, but I think in some sense the book is also a self, to large extent a self criticism by me and by Hussein because he was also involved in the quest for two state solution, advising the Palestinians. So we both were in it. I think, you know, once you're in that world and we could talk about it at length. You sort of buy, you drink the Kool Aid and you get, you believe that. You believe your own slogans, you believe your own mythology. And I don't. That's why I don't think that it starts off as a lie. I think it starts as a self delusion. Over time it becomes a reflex. You say the same thing. We're working on this irreversible path to solution. Everything else you sweep on under the carpet. I don't know when it sort of dawned on me. I think over the years it seemed more and more apparent that this quest, it's not just that the quest was an illusion, is that it served as cover, as I said earlier, for policies that were working exactly in the opposite direction. I think the last time that there really seemed to be a chance was under Obama. Even then I was, as I said, I was quite cynical about the chances that we were going to reach a solution. I felt that Israelis and Palestinians were telling us what we wanted to hear, but they didn't really mean it. And we were not prepared to exert the kind of leverage, particularly on Israel, that it would have taken. And after that, I think it just became a complete, complete farce. And when the Biden administration started talking about the two state solution, which by the way, they only did after October 7, before then, President Biden himself had said the conditions are not ripe. Then suddenly after October 7, because they were scrambling for something and they needed to assuage a domestic public opinion that was getting inflamed, Arab public opinion, they suddenly decided they rediscovered the two state solution. And that's when it really became sort of a gimmick that was used for purposes that had nothing to do with the objective purportedly pursued.

[B]

Well, you mentioned the Obama administration. One of the turning points may have been when Benjamin Netanyahu basically decided to throw all in with the Republican Party, I'd imagine as well where circumventing Obama and speaking directly to Congress in part in response to the deal that you helped negotiate, the Iran deal as well. Like, do you see that really also as the death knell of even, you know, the, well, liberal Zionism more broadly too, but like the Democratic Party being able and that side of things, being able to have that severance, I guess, between Netanyahu and the Democrats, I'd love.

[D]

To be able to blame Netanyahu for all of this. I think if you go back to the Obama administration, I know President Obama had a lot of admiration for him but he once told us in a meeting that those who believe that Israel is going to change course simply because it sees the light, because it's good for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and give them a sovereign state. That's irrational. Israel's conduct is not irrational if you don't pay a price for a policy that you're pursuing. And so the real issue was why the US didn't exert more pressure, leverage.

[A]

I was just going to say, like Obama, it's, it's fascinating that Obama would be so explicit about that realization and then just deliver all sorts of weapons to Israel, despite Netanyahu doing that. I want to get to, like, you know why that's the case. Like, like, like what is that dynamic of that relationship? But let's, let's go back to Oslo. What is the, from your perspective, the greatest misunderstanding about what happened at Oslo, and we should say this is Yasser Arafat and I guess Rabin at that time. And what was the greatest misunderstanding as the way that people perceived what was happening during the Oslo Accords?

[D]

So, I mean, in some ways, people depicted the Al Accords as a peace accord, which it wasn't. And it was, you know, it was some kind of understanding between the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat, and the State of Israel, the Prime Minister, Rabin. But it was based on a fundamental disconnect between what the two sides thought they were getting. Israel thought that it was getting security that would be provided to it by the Palestinians, what became known as the Palestinian Authority, that the Palestinians would sort of police their own. And the Israelis felt that their main conception was basically accepting that, that there would be some kind of Palestine entity. They weren't prepared to call it a state. It would have some kind of self governance. And that was the bargain that they saw. They had won the wars and now they were giving the Palestinians something that they could at least call autonomy, self governance. The Palestinians felt that at Oslo they had made their huge concession, which is they were prepared to recognize Israel on the borders of 1967, 78% of Mandatory Palestine. They were going to take only 22%. And they thought that was their concession. And now it was up to the Israelis to reciprocate by giving them a real state with meaningful borders, meaningful sovereignty, and some kind of reparation for the refugees. So both sides were looking at it from very different angles. The Israelis thought that they had made a big gesture by recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization as a representative of the Palestinians and giving them some self governance. And they thought that what they were going to get in exchange was full security with the Palestinians policing their own. And the Palestinians thought that, again, they had made their concession and now it was their turn to get something from the Israelis. And they never resolved that contradiction at its core. And that got played out time and time again, which is why they were negotiating with, like, parallel lines that never met.

[A]

Was that a function of. I mean, because I grew up, you know, the idea of 67 borders. That was the only thing you ever heard. You never heard 1948 borders. You only heard 67 borders because ostensibly, the Palestinians, who both at once were not a. Considered, you know, in conventional wisdom, considered not to have had a society that existed there, were also responsible for. For, you know, a war in 48 that, you know, they sort of got it on both ends in terms of like. Of what was attributed or not attributed to them. And so everything was focused around 67, which in and of itself was considered a concession by the Palestinians, but never acknowledged by, it seems to me, almost the rest of the world on some level, because. And so they were. When they were taking 22% of what was ultimately their mandate from 48, they're like, okay, we're making a big. How much is. I mean, because we. We understand right now, we make all sorts of excuses. We have for, it seems to me for like a decade about Netanyahu. He's being pulled from the right. He's saving. He's the moderating force against the sort of like, growing literally fascist elements of the Israeli society. There never seems to have been a notion of looking at Arafat as having similar political constraints like that.

[B]

He.

[A]

As if there was no domestic politics within Palestinians.

[D]

So you made many really important points. First point I'd make, and now just mention an anecdote that happened at Camp David. President Clinton asked the Palestinian negotiator to show him a map. He said, you know, you've been here for several weeks already. I want to see. What do you mean by a Palestinian state? And the map that he was shown was A map of 67 where Israel had sovereignty over all of Israel of pre 67, and the Palestinians had full sovereignty over Gaza, the West bank and East Jerusalem. And President Clinton erupted and said, this is a joke. This is not a map. It's your maximalist position. And the Palestinian reaction was, it's not a maximalist position. It is our position. We want two states, but we want two states based on the borders of 1967. We don't accept the legitimacy of the settlements. Now, over time, they even compromised on that and they said they would accept territorial swaps. But again, that captures that disconnect between what the starting point is. Is it 67, the Israelis have won and they're now giving something, giving land to the Palestinians, or is it 1948 where the Israelis are giving back only a part of the land of the Palestinians believe is theirs? Again, that was never resolved. Yeah, sorry, I remember you raised another question, but which now I'm forgetting what it was.

[A]

It was the domestic pressures on Arafat.

[D]

So in our book we describe Arafat as the most democratic of undemocratic leaders. He, I mean, think of him as a leader who didn't have a territorial base, didn't have funds, had no friends. All the Arab world was hostile to him. His only basis of support was his domestic basis of support. That's the only thing he could count on. So it's true you didn't have democratic elections until quite late. But to call that a system in which he could just decide, which is the way Americans and Westerners often look at it. Netanyahu, as you say, has his domestic politics. So not just Netanyahu, all his predecessors have to cater to their right wing. That's why settlements have to take, construction has to take place or he's going to lose touch with his electorate. Whereas Arafat, he's the autocrat, he could do whatever he wants. That's a misunderstanding that has plagued American foreign policy, not just on the Palestinian issue, but time and time again. Yes, Palestinians have their domestic politics and Palestinians leader can't simply do whatever they want by virtue of the fact that the Americans have asked them to.

[B]

Well, that's the convenient framing, I think, from the Americans perspective, if it's the way that they like to handle other, you know, Arab countries in the region dealing directly with a despot and none of the democracy that would have to go into it. How would you characterize in those meetings the Israeli reaction to the concept of Palestinian statehood? What are their major concerns about that? Is it the fact that it would necessitate a military from the Palestinians or is your understanding kind of the idea that it would foreclose further settlements, Which. Or it could be both.

[D]

I think it's both. And it depends on who you're talking to. I think there's sort of a unanimity today, certainly, but I think it goes back quite some time on the Israeli side that a sovereign Palestinian state that has control over its borders, over its foreign policy, over its and that has a military self Defense, the means of self defense, that is anathema. It was anathema back in 2000. It's even more so today after October 7th and after, well after the second intifada. So I think that at a basic level, Israelis would say, why would we? Again, we won the wars. We won wars that were waged by people who denied our right to exist. And now we're going to give them a state where they could have guns and they could have tanks and they could attack us. Look at what they do to us without all of that. I think that's a consensual position among Israelis. And then of course, you have many Israelis for whom the attachment is not just to the land of 67, it's to all of Israel. And by the way, many Israelis would say parts of the west bank like the city of Hebron is much more sacred and important to them than Tel Aviv, which has no religious connection, certainly not compared to areas in the West Bank. So I think both of them are there. And I think from an Israeli perspective, many say there never was a Palestinian state to begin with. They attacked us when we accepted the partition plan in 1948. Giving the land to them is just going to expose us to greater risk. What's the point?

[A]

That's the sort of central paradox too. There was never a Palestinian people, yet they were cohesive enough to attack us. I mean that, that to me seems a little paradoxical. And one other thing that I think sort of like infuses the book. And then I want to talk about, you know, sort of where we might go from here. But this idea of like Israel had needs, in this case security and Palestinians had wants.

[D]

Yes.

[A]

Will you just like elaborate on that?

[D]

I mean, I can't put it better than you just did. I think we quote some, one of the US negotiators at one point, point said that, he said, you know, this is not a matter of competing rights, it's a matter of needs. And from their perspective, Israel has security needs. And again, it matters what perspective, what prism you adopt. And if the prism is Israel is isolated, it's weak, it's surrounded by Arab countries again, it's being, it's going beyond what it should do because it won wars of aggression against it. So it has a need, it has a need of security and that is a primary need. And that means that if Palestine land has to be annexed to Israel, that's what's going to happen. If it means that Palestinians don't have the means of self defense, that will happen. Too, of course Israel will have the means of self defense. And I just was looking back to a quote by President Obama. Again, it shows that this is kind of bipartisan in which he said Israel, like every state, should have the right to self defense and to be able to defend itself by itself. And he was saying that in the context of a speech that was arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state. But nowhere anyone has ever suggested an American side that the Palestinian state should have a right to self defense because that's not a Palestinian need. So there really is an internalization, which I understand of the plight of the Jewish people and of the need for security. No such understanding in terms of the Palestinians who've been victims of dispossession and liquidation and assassination attempts and as we see what experts call a genocide. But the notion that they would need to defend themselves is sort of foreign to the repertoire.

[A]

I do want to move on to the extent that there is ideas of where we go from here. But is that dynamic a function of. It seems there were just more constituencies of Israeli constituencies sometimes represented, I think by Americans, frankly. At least I'm talking material and almost emotional constituencies as opposed to the Palestinian side where there again, it was just Arafat. And we're not going to contemplate what the lived experience of Palestinians is. I mean, and I think so many Israelis seem to not have any awareness of what goes on just in even the west bank, which is, you know, miles away. It's like, I don't know, it's not even, you know, Rhode island is further away from where we are right now than the west bank, but it is a world away. Is that, was that a sort of a deliberate construct in some way like that the Israelis were. There was, there was. It was developed in such a way that Israelis did not have an awareness of what was going on there, that these concerns, these lived experiences did not in no way sort of would get infused in these talks or the broader awareness.

[D]

I mean, certainly on the Israeli side, what you say is right, as you said, it's also true of the American side. And I would say anyone who's watching this, just take a trip to the west bank, visit Hebron for a day and come back and tell us whether your experience has not shaped your vision. It is just you can't come out of that trip and not view the whole conflict through a different lens. But you're touching on something that has so many different layers. Certainly in terms of the Americans, there's a cultural affinity and historical affinity to the Jewish people and to Israel, which is understandable but doesn't exist at all when it comes to Arabs or Muslims in general. There's a strategic partnership with Israel. Israel is seen as a serious country with whom the US can build an alliance. Certainly not the case with Palestinians, probably not even the case with Arabs, other than, as Emma, you said, despots in power, but not at any deeper level. And then of course there's a domestic politics which we could also spend a long time talking about, but which has weighed very heavily on the policy and on the perspective that American policymakers have on the conflict. So that explains, you know, blindness is sometimes sort of is witting and sometimes it's unwitting. And here it was a little bit of both, but the block.

[A]

Yeah, sorry, just one more thing, like where have been the other Arab countries? Because it seems like in the past there was pressure exerted on talks on the United States, on Israel, by the reaction of the so called Arab street, which is, you know, even in and of itself is a sort of a weird construction. You'd never hear like the American street or, you know, the Israeli street. It's what they're saying is the population, but there is that sort of like I, I, it's a weird construct, but.

[D]

Well, it's a connotation of a mob. Right.

[A]

I mean, that's what like, you know, it's racist. Yeah, yeah, it's racist, yeah.

[D]

To find a point on it.

[A]

Yeah. But, but, but where, where have been the other Arab countries in this? Because they seem to completely be hands.

[D]

Off, largely because they've been complicit, because it served the leadership, it served their interest to pay lip service to the Palestinian cause. Say that they're putting pressure on the Americans, have good relations with the U.S. military assistance, economic assistance, security assistance. And when things boiled on this Arab street, then they might raise their voices, but not do that much. Now, in fairness, the power imbalance with Israel is such that there's not much that they could do anyway. But this has been a game that has suited almost everyone other than the people themselves. It suited US foreign policy interests, it suited Israel, it suited the Arab states, as I just mentioned, it's even suited the Palestinian Authority because it has been living on the largesse of foreign assistance, Western assistance, and it has sort of developed its own corrupt inner circle. So that's why it's survived, it's been sustained for so long because so many interests have converged and sort of finding a benefit and profiting from the status quo.

[B]

But the overall Interest that I just is, it's just so frustrating to talk around is the idea that the land could be shared, the idea of one democratic state and what that could look like. And that is in my view really the most realistic option going forward. When we see the hundreds of thousands of settlements that are already built up in the west bank, we see obviously Gaza is segmented from the rest of Palestinian territory by design, but that appears to be maybe the non starter for the Israelis. Is that your experience in your negotiations and is there even a consideration on that front from the Israeli side or even the Palestinian side that you know, it would have to be imposed. I understand, but I'm curious if that even came up.

[D]

Never. No, it never came up. I mean, and even one can understand why. I mean Israeli Jews would never even, would not countenance it at all. I think a number of Palestinians, in the name of self determination, believe that they should have their own entity that they govern and they fear that if it's one state, at least at the beginning, it would be dominated economically, socially, in every way by Israeli Jews. You asked me sort of when I came to the realization and I started off as a believer in the one state, by national state, I mean that's much more consonant with our own moral and ethical view and our, I mean the theoretical American ethical and moral view. I don't think it's realistic today. I don't know what generations from now Israelis and Palestinians will do. But one of the core messages of our book is so let's stop sort of bang our head and say two states, two states, two states. When there's no mechanism that's going to make it happen. You mentioned the settlements. There's so many other reasons. There has to be something. I mean it could. Unfortunately the most likely outcome is the status quo only getting worse with more ethnic cleansing, more displacement of Palestinians, more land grabs. But there hopefully is some other way that is not two states. That may not be the one state as you just described it, but which allows both sides to govern themselves, to live, to coexist peacefully. I don't have that answer right now. And who knows how it will come, when it will come. It will require changes on the Palestinian side, on the Israeli side and on one place where the change may be coming, which is on the American side.

[B]

Well, that's the one thing where I just like the two state solution. I'm so in agreement with you on the sense of it being unrealistic, but there's also a more nefarious element to it. Which is that it bides time for the exact ethnicity cleansing that we're talking about here. So the book, the book, your book is so important in that it explains all of this. But I also just feel like the urgency is not necessarily reflected when people continue to talk about it in this manner.

[D]

No, absolutely. And I mean it's hard to break from that habit. Like if you're a Western, if you're a leader, even an Arab leader and you say I'm going to move away from the two state solution. It looks like you're moving away from anything that could happen. And so that's why even, I mean I speak in private officials who would agree with what you just said Tuesday solution is not going to happen. They don't want to admit it because if they admit it, it looks like they've given up all hope because they can't imagine something different. Now that's laziness in some or inexpediency. There has to be something else. And you know, there've been many cases in history where the most unexpected occurs because people fight for it. But right now we're in this logjam where people think it's either ethnic cleansing as we've seen, or two state solution. And so the right minded pick the two state solution, even if they have no concept of how to get there.

[A]

You mentioned that there have to be changes in the US and the Israelis and the Palestinians. The US I get a sense of what that would be and we actually may be headed towards that, you know, where a. I would imagine maybe Democrat, it's conceivable Republican Party, but more likely Democratic administration might finally say we're going to use some of our leverage and who knows where the chips fall after that. But that would be a change. What would be the change in the Israeli side and what would be a change in the Palestinian side that would precipitate whatever, you know, which put a big question mark as to what the sort of like a relative equilibrium looks like. But what would be the changes?

[D]

So first, I think it's going to be hard to imagine a change on the Israeli side without a change on the American side for the reason that President Obama articulated, which is why would they, I mean again, the status quo suits them. Just as a footnote. I think what's happening on the Republican side in some ways may be arguably more significant than on the Democratic side. We could come back to that. I think one change that has to occur is that Palestinians need and people need to allow them to have a representative Legitimate, credible national movement. They don't have it. And that's partly their fault. But to a large extent it's because outside interests have done everything to fragment the Palestinians, to prop up those Palestinians who looked and acted more like moderates, quote, unquote. So they were more to our liking, but who have no legitimacy, no representativity, and therefore no credibility. So they're just there as actors who are maintaining the status quo, but they can't voice Palestinian demands, they can't represent the Palestinians, they can't have any, any active agency because right now they don't represent the people who they're supposed to represent. But part of that has been because of American and Western policy towards the Islamists. Part of it has been preventing elections or discouraging elections on the ground that those elections might yield the wrong result, fragmenting the Palestinians and again, maintaining a leadership that does not have the capacity to do anything, which suits many people quite well.

[A]

I'm curious about your thought about the changes in the Republican Party and how.

[D]

That being more significant, you mentioned on the Democratic side and I'm very welcoming of what I'm hearing. My fear is that once you have a different leadership in Israel, once the war really ends in Gaza, then we might go back to business as usual. There'll be some voices who will say no air is led out of the.

[A]

Tire, as it were.

[D]

Exactly. We dodged a bullet. So sort of the centrist Democrats who now are talking about withholding or conditioning aid to Israel will say, well, that was true when you had Benjamin Netanyahu and his right wing allies. It's not true when you have somebody else. Whereas in fact, again, as we describe in the book, there's nothing new. Israeli policy has been pretty consistent for decades on the Republican side. What's interesting is that you have people for whom it is a core value, America first. And I don't agree with them on a hundred things, but America first for some of them means the US should not be giving this kind of money to any country, not Israel, not anyone else. And it should not be dragged into foreign conflicts by any country, not Israel, not anyone else. And it doesn't matter to them whether it's Netanyahu or Yair Lapid or Benny Gantz. That's not so that seems to be pretty solid and pretty intrinsic to that America first school of thought. And you know, for me last week I was talking to the American conservative, this week to the Majority Report. I think that says something about how there may be a transpartisan view we have to exclude all the anti Semitism which exists on the right, but a trans partisan view which sees the relationship with Israel as having been abnormal and we need to normalize it.

[A]

I'm skeptical that that movement's going to survive. After we attack Venezuela this weekend, we may revisit the idea of how deep that America First. But, but I think at the very least, even if there is a sort of rump part in the Republican Party that is, that is pushing in that direction, it may make it harder for the Democratic Party to sort of settle in a sort of comfortable zone of continuing on with this policy. I also think that there's, the changes in the Democratic Party are, are happening, have been happening since, you know, Tim Kaine refused to go see Netanyahu speak to the Congress. Well, I think we have so much more to ask you and so I hope that we can have you back relatively soon. But hopefully it's maybe with some element of optimism, although it seems very, very difficult to imagine that right now. But it's a fascinating book and I really appreciate you coming on Robert Malley. The book is Tomorrow is Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel, Palestine. We'll put a link to that@ Majority FM and in our podcast and YouTube description. Thanks again so much. Really appreciate it.

[D]

Thanks to the two of you. Bye.

[A]

Bye. Bye. All right, folks, we're going to take quick break. We're anticipating a special, special guest. But you know, the, the, you know how it is with special guests.

[B]

If, yeah, as soon as you call.

[A]

Them special, they're like, well, maybe, maybe we'll do it at that time or maybe we'll do it a different time. Right. I mean, we've all been there like. But let's, oh, I know what we can do. Oh, yeah, let's. I don't want to get into the shoe because that'll take like, we'll do.

[B]

It in the fun half.

[A]

We'll do that in the fun half.

[E]

The heat is on them when they do this.

[A]

However, yesterday during the show, news broke that the both the Comey prosecution and the Letitia James prosecution. Vengeance, like, vengeance. That's what this was about. They were going to take revenge on Letitia James for bringing an action in New York State. They were going to take revenge on Comey for, I guess, helping Donald Trump get elected. Was that being a nerd. Being a nerd.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And here is CNN's legal analyst on how humiliating of a loss this was for the Trump administration. Understand they appointed Trump's like insurance lawyer to do the prosecutions because they couldn't find anybody else to do it, apparently. Not only did she lie about the indictment, she was not even appointed properly.

[F]

Your legal analyst, Ellie Honig. And Ellie, obviously you heard Pam Bondi saying the Justice Department will be appealing this. Given what the judge said, though, I mean, what would that route look like? What are their options here?

[E]

So they do have the right to appeal up to the 4th Circuit, but I don't like their odds, because if you look at this ruling, I will tell you, as a Justice Department alum, Kaitlyn, it's painful the way this broke. I was 10 minutes into teaching a class of college students in a class about DOJ and the need to be independent of politics. And so we stopped, we did. Breaking news is what happens if you take my class, put it up on the screen, and started sort of reading the highlights. And at some point, I just turned to them and said, guys, if you become prosecutors, don't ever do any of this. Because what this decision does is it calls out the two fundamental flaws with both of these prosecutions, the Comey and the Letitia James prosecutions. One, malice. The only reason Lindsey Halligan was there as the prosecutor in the first place is because the real prosecutors refused to charge it and got put, pushed out. And then second, on top of that, just incompetence, the inability to return a grand jury indictment, and to follow the basic rules. So it's a dark day for the Justice Department. Sure, they can appeal, but I don't love their chances.

[F]

So you're saying if this was you, it would be pretty embarrassing, basically.

[E]

I mean, thankfully, I never had a case dismissed. Not that I would believe I was far from perfect as a prosecutor. But to lose not just one, but two to your two biggest cases, again, on such a basic defect that you couldn't follow the basic law of just installing somebody who was technically qualified. And when I say qualified, I don't mean resume. I don't mean how good a lawyer. I just mean met the basic requirements of law. That's humiliating.

[F]

Yeah. I mean, Gene Rossi has been saying this basically every night when we've had him on, that this is going to be illegal, that she was not going to be able to stay in that role. But I think the question is, I've been talking to people at the White House and around the world, the President. Maybe they'll refile to James. Do you think the Comey case is dead, though? Because to remind everyone, it was running up against the statute of limitations when they actually came and filed it, that's why there was so much pressure on Lindsey Halligan to do it. Her what? Her second week on job. First week on the job.

[D]

Right.

[E]

So four days in on Comey, I'm.

[A]

You've heard the phrase, you don't want to put a hat on a hat when it comes to jokes. This was a hat on a hat. When it comes to absolute legal failures. Halligan was not appointed properly. Because she was not appointed properly, every single thing she did, even if it had been done correctly, would be null and void. The statute of limitations ran out on Comey and Letitia James. But on top of that, everything Halligan did was completely botched. If you could say completely incompetent or you could say completely nefarious because she. The grand jury lied about what the grand jury indictment was. She had. There was numerous flaws in everything that she brought to. Just be thankful that to the extent that this is a fascist regime, they are not bringing their best. Like sometimes fascists come and they're a lot smarter, competent, incompetent. But there is, there is something about having a total fraud as. As the leader of your organization. It's that other fraud like competence is.

[B]

Not loyalty is what fascists like this and not loyalty that goes both ways. Please. We see how Donald Trump. Yeah. This is not bisexual loyalty here. But it. Whatever they went off the whistle sound. I thought we were having jokes here.

[G]

The bisexual whistle sound.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

That it doesn't go both ways because Trump throws people under the bus all the time. But it is amazing to see essentially that incompetence kind of come back to bite them because he's relying on things like people having checkered past so he can hold it over them. Just basic proximity to Donald Trump and they have some competent fascists in there. Like Russ Vogt is unfortunately a competent fascist. But not this day. No.

[F]

So you're saying if this was you, it would be pretty embarrassing.

[A]

You gotta follow that up with. No, it's good. I like it. All right, we're going to take a break and if we get the guest, we get the guest. If we don't get the guest, we're going to come back and say goodbye and then go to the funnel. Yeah, that's the way we're going to run this. We'll be right back after this. We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Viglin, Majority Report. I want to welcome back to the program the now Mayor elect Zoran Mamdani. Mr. Mayor elect, thanks for joining us.

[H]

Very welcome. They tried very hard, the Internet gods.

[A]

To keep us off.

[H]

They Couldn't we have.

[A]

We have successfully. And that is, I know that the.

[H]

People know we're calling in, calling in live.

[B]

Yes, yes.

[A]

We should say that you're in the middle of your transition team. I know you guys are raising money for that because apparently there's no city money for that. And it's showing in the context of the Internet. And so hopefully we can get folks to come and contribute to that effort. But we don't have you for very much. So I want to jump right into it. There's obviously a little bit of controversy since you've been over the past week or so, you went to go visit Donald Trump. He's the president United States. And there's also been, you know, talk about the, your you were asked about supporting Hakeem Jeffries this weekend. I'm really curious as to the. It seems to me you have two constituencies. You have the citizens of New York City who elected you on four major material platforms. And then you also have movement people and who are looking for you to be, to bring a, you know, a politics that's associated with the DSA and progressive left of the Democratic Party. And, you know, there's, there's people who are in both parts of that Venn diagram. I think we are probably. How do you serve both those things? Like, like, like, do you feel that, that there have to be concessions made on one side or another or both? I mean, how do you what, what Trumps, forgive the pun.

[H]

I think what, what gives me hope, frankly, is that I don't actually see these as two distinct constituencies innately of themselves. I think at the heart of both New Yorkers at large and of the movement that I am so proud to be a part of is a concern for the material. What does any decision actually mean for working people's ability to live a dignified life? And that to me, has to be the framework through which I approach any decision or conversation. And, you know, there's been a lot of questions I've been asked of who won in the conversation you had with President Trump. And it is all geared towards a sense that it has to be one politician or the other politician. And what I've said is, in fact, that it was New Yorkers who won, because it's New Yorkers that we actually spoke about. And I went, I actually told the president directly that, you know, we launched our campaign on October 23rd of last year, but there were far more people who actually heard about us after the president won election, where we went and interviewed New Yorkers in The hearts of the neighborhoods that swung towards him in New York City, like Fordham Road in the Bronx, Hillside Avenue in Queens. And I spoke to the president how it was cost of living, it brought those New Yorkers to his campaign, and cheaper groceries. And how we sought to build a campaign looking to answer the question of how do we bring those voters back into a Democratic primary and back into the politics of our city? And we did so by listening to their concerns and looking to build a platform that spoke directly to them as opposed to had to be translated to them. And even in the conversation around the question of primary challenges. And much of this, I would say, is typically private within dsa. But everything I've said has been reported publicly, so I might as well just speak about it to you directly. Is I went to the endorsement forum that was considering whether or not to endorse fee in that primary challenge. And what I said there is that this is not a question of the ballot box of who you would rather vote for. This is a question of how you want to spend the next year. Do you want to spend the next year fulfilling the agenda at the heart of this movement, or do you want to spend it defending the caricatures of that movement? And the decision that I made and the one that I shared with other members that night as they were considering how to participate in that democratic process is to maximize every chance we have to fulfill the promises we made door after door, call after call with many New Yorkers who had otherwise lost faith in politics years ago, so that we can tell them that success isn't just measured in the election we've already had, but also in our fulfillment of the agenda at the heart of that election. And I think that this.

[B]

Oh, sorry, go on.

[H]

And I was just going to say that I don't ever presume that everyone will come to the same conclusion as me. I don't think that dissent or critique is something that I'm above in sharing these decisions, but they do come from this as my framework. And I think it's honestly helpful to be able to share it with people.

[B]

No, I appreciate that. And I'm just eager to ask you these things because we have you for such a limited time. Really. Is one. Is it your kind of belief, basically, that delivering on your agenda in terms of the macro constituency that Sam was just speaking about is the best way to kind of show. Show how the movement can expand and have more politicians like yourself across the country run in that way. And I would imagine that was motivating you and what you said to dsa. And two, does that mean that you're ruling out supporting primary challenges broadly throughout the city?

[H]

No, I've made no sweeping decision on something at, like, a larger level as that. And to your first question, I think often about what Bernie said at our rally, which was that what our opponents in the campaign feared the most was the power of example. And that example is not of just winning the election. That's the example of delivering a rent freeze of fast and free buses, of universal childcare, because those are things you can hold onto. Those are things that you can actually feel and see in your life. And so much of politics is this game of translation, where a politician says something and then you have to jump through 10 hoops to understand how it relates to you or if you're eligible or if you hit the threshold. And these are not things that require that kind of a translation. These are things that are direct to our lives. And I think that it's. You know, I remember when I was running for Assembly, a friend of mine, Kara McCurdy, who's an incredible photographer who works on our campaign, I gave her the palm card that we had just designed with Aneesh, who continued, who actually created the logo for this mayoral campaign. And I thought it was the best palm card we'd ever made. And she looked at it and she said, what do these words mean? And we were just using a language that speaks only to a very specific set of people. And I think it just comes back to that. You need to speak directly to people, need to speak about policies that are also direct to their lives. And it all needs to be without translation. And so, to me, once we succeed in the fulfillment of any part of this agenda, it becomes an example of why New Yorkers made the right decision to believe that politics could be more than this, as opposed to that they were wrong to have hope.

[A]

Again, I don't want to put too much pressure on you, but I am quite convinced that your success in achieving these, the four main planks of affordability that you ran on, I think are really fundamental to the future of the movement. And so, you know, that's why my interest in where you feel like you have to make those decisions that are focused on delivering that material thing. About six months after you won the primary, we were talking that you have a limited window of peak leverage, not just because you're coming off of the win, but also because Albany is tied up in the governor's race and the present governor has a candidate running to her left in some fashion and that it might provide you with more leverage. I'm curious. And it ties into this fact that, like, it's nuts to me that there isn't transition funds that.

[H]

Because it's nuts to me, too, brother.

[A]

I would imagine. I mean, it's. Honestly, it's. This isn't. This isn't. You know, with all due respect to my hometown, this isn't you not becoming mayor of Worcester, Massachusetts. This is a big city. And. But your need for transition to be running on day one, because what do you see is like the, the. The. Your window of, of peak leverage to get what you need for the city.

[H]

I think New Yorkers are rightfully an impatient people, and I think what New Yorkers need to see is an urgency in how our administration is treating this work. And it actually all comes back to the transition. We want this transition to be a time where we can do the work of preparation so that January 1st is not the day where I'm asking myself, I wonder who's going to be my first deputy mayor? Or I wonder who's going to be running my omb, or I wish I had staff so that we could have done the vetting of the 70,000 applicants from our portal. And it means you have to ask people to invest in you in advance of your opportunity so that you can actually seize that opportunity when you're presented with it. And to me, I think that the first year is a critical time in how we start to both share our plans for the implementation of these policies, but also start to deliver for New Yorkers, because we often talk about President Trump in the context of disagreements that we have around policies or personnel. But one thing that I've often reflected on is that it seems as if the speed that Washington moves at right now is thought of as if it's exclusive to this specific presidency or this party or this ideology, when, in fact, it could be a marker for any kind of politics. And that's what New Yorkers also need to see. It's not, you know, I'm not going to announce, you know, on day one that we're going to establish a study or something. It's that we actually have to be doing the work of delivering and doing it in a way that New Yorkers can feel it in their lives, as opposed to something that they have to understand, an intellectual level. I can feel Amelia hovering over me.

[A]

Letting me know that, okay, really?

[B]

Last question on this. Were you surprised when Trump joined you in calling on Con Edison to cut rates? Because for people that don't know Con Ed's the electric, gas, utility monopoly in New York State. Do you feel that there are avenues to work with him on lowering Con Ed prices? Because my bill, everyone's bill in this office has been insane recently.

[H]

I am interested in exploring that further with the president. And when we were talking about what the cost of living crisis means for New Yorkers, when we got to the question of utilities, we were speaking about the fact that they only ever go up, they only ever increase on an annual basis. And you know, I have been a participant in a rate case before where I've advocated against an increase and spoken about the fact that at that time one in four of my constituent cases in Astoria had to do with Con. 1 in 4. And that is before they raised gas and electric by more than 60 bucks a month. So I have hope that's something that I want to explore and I will always look to explore anything frankly that can address the cost of living crisis. And utilities are a big part of it.

[A]

All right, one quick one. I got a 12 year old son. Where are you on snow days? He wants me to ask.

[H]

I have not even talked to the policy team but I'll just tell you I, I love them. Where I may have to clean this up later. We'll find out soon.

[A]

Where can people contribute to the transition.

[H]

If they want to transition2025.com and you can give whatever you're able to just so long as you are a permanent resident of the United States of America.

[B]

Great. Thank you.

[A]

Thank you so much.

[B]

Amazing stuff, Mayor elect. It feels good to say.

[D]

Yep.

[G]

You still feel like you have to knock on wood.

[B]

I do. I'm like I can't even believe it.

[A]

We had some technical difficulties up front obviously so we lost a little bit of that time. They don't have an Internet. A terribly good Internet connection there. I, I've literally live streamed from that building. Fine. On my phone. So I don't know what they're doing. That same building. Yeah. That's where that. But that happened last time before the election too. He came on. He just completely the same building as campaign. You know what I think it is? It's the computer.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

They may have.

[G]

They used two separate ones.

[D]

Future.

[A]

I'm going to tell him to do it through the phone. Yeah. That's a better idea.

[G]

Or just buy him a phone.

[B]

He's just committed to leftist audio as a true left wing non sellout.

[D]

Right.

[A]

Okay. I mean he's, he's, he's following in the.

[G]

On the co op the aesthetic.

[A]

The aesthetic that we've established on this show.

[B]

Exactly. It just means he's a fan.

[D]

Leftist patina.

[A]

Exactly. Exactly.

[B]

I did not get that one.

[A]

So Saul is going to. Saul is going to really appreciate the snow day comment because he's.

[B]

Yeah.

[G]

There's one day I think I was probably 2006, it was my birthday, December 5th, and I woke up and it turned out that a pipe had frozen and there was no school that day. And it was also my birthday. The greatest birthday I've ever had.

[A]

Wow.

[G]

It was awesome.

[B]

A pipe, December 6th.

[A]

Because it froze.

[D]

There it is.

[G]

Yeah.

[B]

Well, we have two birthdays coming up pretty soon here in the Mr. Office. Is your birthday on Thanksgiving this year? No, it's the day after.

[A]

The day after I. I had it on Thanksgiving last year. Black Friday. Exactly. That's right. The years are on sale, ladies and gentlemen. They get cheaper and cheaper every year. We will put transition2025.com in the podcast and YouTube notes. I would. Look, I. After Bloomberg left, I had friends who were architects who would do work for the city, and they told me that what Bloomberg did is spent a lot of his own money to just bypass all this stuff.

[B]

Stuff. Yep.

[A]

And. And the challenges that are going to be facing Momdani are going to be huge. They are. They are going to come from, you know, it's not like Bill Amman's like, well, okay, you know, you're going to see. You're going to see Mom, Donnie being fought from literally 360 degrees to prevent his agenda from succeeding. Not just because of the implications, not just because Bill Ackman doesn't want to pay 2%, you know, marginal tax rate over his first million dollars. It is because of the implications of a successful mayorality by a democratic socialist.

[G]

I mean, the CIA almost exists to stop this sort of thing from happening in other countries.

[A]

Yeah. And look, you know, this is why what happened with Trump was so impressive, because Hakeem Jeffries out there was, you know, telling everybody, I can't endorse Mamdani, I'm afraid, because he's going to our midterm election. We're going to lose the midterm election because everybody's going to run against Mamdani.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And the framing was such that, you know, and eventually Jeffrey's like, I got to endorse him anyways, and that's my fate. But that was going to be the attitude. So you were going to have Democratic congresspeople running for office, challenging people or staying in office. And the Worst of the worst of them or even the mediocre of the mediocrest of them were going to run against Mamdani too. They were going to try and get out ahead of that criticism that they anticipated from the Republicans. And now it is Donald Trump's words and video and just attitude can be weaponized against those Republicans as a shield. And so you're going to see and they're going to be able to adopt the affordability planks. They're going to creep towards a populism and it's going to be a creep because a lot of them don't want to go there and a lot of them, it's going to be disingenuous. But this is how ideas change. This is how mainstream, you know, conventional wisdom shifts. And the worst thing that can happen to that sort of very slow tide is for those who want to stop this tide to be able to point at New York and go, he's a failure.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And so this is really, really important that a. If you can help resources for the transition just from Brian having put on a bunch of productions, knows this too. Pre production, it doesn't guarantee that you're going to have a good film or show or whatever it is, but you cannot have a good one without a solid pre production. And, and then also it's, you know, it's important. And I appreciated what he said about the Chiase.

[B]

Yeah, he's very upfront about that. Yeah.

[A]

Because, you know, it's clear he's making a calculation that the number one thing that he can do both for New Yorkers and for the movement and he doesn't see necessarily a difference in those is to deliver on those material things.

[F]

Your legal analyst, Ellie Hoenig. And Ellie, obviously.

[B]

Oh, and I also. Yeah, so you were right about that. I just want to correct myself. I think, you know, we were all. There was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to AOC first coming out and then Zoron then later kind of, you know, saying that they were not going to be supportive of Chiase it leaking out, apparently. Yeah. And then, well then there was Zorin at the DSA meeting that he kind of touched on there where he spoke his piece about why he want, you know, it seems to be the case that Jeffries basically said, I won't get in your way as long as you don't endorse a primary challenge against me. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Jeffries has to remain leader of the Democrats in the House. He could retain his seat. I think it's difficult, very difficult to dislodge him, though. But if there's a leadership change in the Senate, it makes those conversations easier. And then having that answer from Zoron right off the rip, just about how he's not ruling out supporting other primary challenges. That's it. That's basically the answer there. AOC and Zoron stood down on Jefferies in particular, and then they're still saying game on. I think for Dan Goldman's district and other districts across the city, that's pretty good. That's a pretty good outcome. And, I mean, the Art of War.

[G]

Says you should open up all fronts of war at all times. Just, you know, start every single battle possible. No, you have to prioritize which ones you want.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

You were being facetious because I was like, wait a second. That's not what Sun Tzu says. Empty the clip.

[B]

Right, right, right. Don't even think about it.

[A]

Just go, turn around. Empty the other one.

[B]

Nuts. That's what Sun TZ said. No. So I. It's. It's a. It's a bitter pill to swallow, especially because Jeffries is. Has vulnerabilities. And if Zoran actually decided to go all in, I don't know if that contest would work out well for Hakeem Jeffries. But in terms of the time frame that we're talking about here, that limited six to nine months or whatever, that Zoran has to try to get a lot of this stuff done, and that is also prior to this primary actually happening. And Jeffries would still be in office, and it could present some real challenges for him. So. And I would imagine Jeffries endorsing, even though it was at the last minute, was a bit of an. Like, the. The. The final handshake on this. Is detente. The right word for it, I think.

[A]

Look, you know, if I were Jeffries, I will tell you that this is what I would have said at that point once it became clear that, like, oh, my God, people are calling my. My head because I've been such a. An ass about this, I would have said, I'll make your life miserable and not like, I will ruin your mayor.

[B]

I'm sure that's what he did. And.

[A]

And, you know, Hakeem Jeffries is the leader of the Democrats in the House. He assigns people committees.

[D]

He.

[A]

Has a lot of power within the context of New York state politics. And the question just becomes, do you want that to be a roadblock to fulfilling the agenda which is ultimately going to help the movement?

[B]

And one more point, on that, too, is you're seeing Zoron pick his battles very strategically prior to getting into office at the start of next year. That also includes Tish as the commissioner. He was basically, it seems to me, is making a calculation that I don't want to get embroiled in my first year with the NYPD and with the police union when I'm trying to deliver affordability to the. To. To the rest of the. The city. And Tish, I know, has done some reforms, but if you were to, like, pick that battle on that front in this critical time, it would be very difficult. So he's chosen to basically strategically stand down on the Jefferies thing and on the. The. The NYPD folks.

[A]

It's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member. Jointhemajorityreport.com but today I would go. If you are a US citizen, to transition2025.com Throw in a couple of bucks. We can. We could have set up some. I can. I don't. If we. If we had the ability, like a coupon. You get one month free. The majority party first month goes. But I wonder if that's even legal. Never mind. That sounds. Never. I never even said a word about that. That sounds like I end up in jail with Dinesh d'. Souza. Forget what I just said. You know, if you want to go contribute to the transition, we'll put the link in the podcast and YouTube description. In the meantime, when you work out.

[B]

Your little schemes on air just without any forethought and then just tripped into something illegal.

[A]

Yeah.

[G]

Improvisational scheming.

[D]

Often his schemes are a way to.

[A]

Funnel money out of majority.

[B]

They're very successful.

[A]

My business prowess are a little bit lacking, but nevertheless, just coffee.co op, Fair Trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority, get 10% off. Send some coffee to the transition team. I'm sure they need it. Yeah, I don't think he can do that.

[B]

I saw that Zoron's a Red Bull fan, although that's not.

[A]

That stuff is very unhealthy for you.

[B]

I know, I know, I know. I mean, but tastes good.

[A]

I saw him on that Adam Friedland show like he did.

[B]

Yeah, right.

[A]

I was the healthiest way to not sleep.

[B]

I will say. One of my good friends works for Red Bull, so I did. He spoke. He spoke about that and, like, how it kept him going. And. And I'm like, there you go. This. This should be an ad for you. I know. You can't use an ad for it. But like, how does this guy get all this energy? Red Bull.

[E]

Matt.

[A]

Left reckoning.

[G]

Yeah. For left reckoning, [e-mail] left reckoning. We had a harvest report featuring Kowalski from Nebraska talking about the year in trade war and how farmers have been eating it. And also Jackman show. There's not gonna be a left reckoning today. We're taking the week off because of Thanksgiving. So go check out the Jacobin show with Brendan James if you haven't. And also Robin Wansley, independent socialist in Minneapolis. They're forming a caucus up there.

[B]

Folks.

[A]

Folks, see you in the fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a sec. Emma. Welcome to the Pro A Fun pack.

[C]

Matt.

[A]

Fun pack. What is up, everyone? Fun hack.

[H]

No.

[A]

Me.

[B]

You did it.

[A]

Fun pack.

[B]

Let's go, Brandon.

[H]

Let's go, Brandon.

[A]

Fun pack. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

[B]

Fundamentally false.

[C]

No.

[B]

I'm sorry.

[A]

Women's talking for a second. And let me finish.

[B]

Where is this coming from? Dude?

[A]

But. Dude, you want to smoke this?

[B]

7A. Yes.

[H]

Hi. Me is me.

[A]

Yes.

[H]

Is this me?

[A]

Is it me? It is you?

[H]

Is this me? Hello, that's me.

[A]

I think it is you. Who is you. No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm gonna go Libertarians.

[D]

They're so stupid.

[A]

Though common sense says. Of course.

[B]

Gobbledygook.

[A]

We nailed him.

[B]

So what's 79 plus 21 challenge?

[A]

Man, I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7. 2, 1, 0.

[C]

35.

[A]

5 0, 11 half. 3, 8, 9, 11.

[D]

For instance.

[B]

$3,400. $1900. 5, 4.

[A]

$3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.

[B]

Actually. You're making me think less.

[C]

But.

[A]

But let me say this poop. You can call it satire. Sam goes satire.

[H]

On top of it all. My favorite part about you is just like every day.

[B]

Like every.

[A]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you all right, folks, folks, folks.

[B]

It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.

[A]

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know.

[B]

But you should know.

[D]

People just don't.

[G]

Like to entertain ideas anymore.

[A]

I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks. I love it.

[B]

I do love that.

[A]

Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. Two o', clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick.

[D]

So screw him.

[A]

Sent to a gulag.

[B]

Outrageous.

[A]

What is wrong with you? Love you.

[B]

Bye.

[A]

Love you.

[B]

Bye.

[A]

Bye.