The war in Gaza is dividing Israeli opinion, but not along the same lines that it divides American opinion. What are Israeli priorities? How important is the return of hostages relative to total victory? What is Netanyahu thinking? What is the Israeli Left thinking? Is there an anti-war movement in Israel? Do American categories make any sense within the Israeli political context?

Washington Post political columnist Jason Willick joins Shadi and Damir to answer these questions. He just returned from a fact-finding mission in Israel, and the news he brings is complicated. On the one hand, there is more widespread support for the war in Israel than there is anywhere else. On the other, the divisions within Israeli politics run deep, especially regarding the details of a post-war settlement.

As discussion of Israeli views develops into a critique of those views, Jason and Damir question Shadi’s abiding moralism, asking whether ideas like “just war” and “proportionality” are helpful in making sense of war and combat. The debate then turns to whether Hamas is a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Could the Israeli government ever accept Hamas as a negotiating partner in establishing a post-war Gaza? Would doing so give a tacit victory to Hamas, and legitimize political violence? Can anything be resolved without continuing this war? And will this war ever end? Tough questions, discussed with wryness and charm. This is a Wisdom of Crowds episode you will not want to miss.

Required Reading:

* “If Biden thinks Israel’s liberals are doves, he’s dreaming,” by Jason Willick (Washington Post).

* “Hamas’ Bid for Revolutionary Legitimacy,” by Damir Marusic (Wisdom of Crowds).

* “In the Israeli-Palestinian debate, you might be wrong. So be humble,” by Shadi Hamid (Washington Post).

* “Just War Theory” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

* “Occupation and Reconstruction of Japan, 1945–52” (Office of the Historian, US Department of State).

* “Give Peace a Chance,” by John Lennon.

What does justice mean for animals? Is justice for animals the same as justice for human beings? Why should we care more about the rights of animals when the rights of humans are so often neglected?

Martha Nussbaum teaches philosophy, ethics, and law at the University of Chicago, and is one of the most influential and cited philosophers of our time. She’s written dozens of books on Greek philosophy, the importance of emotions in politics, justice, feminism, and many other topics. She joins the podcast to discuss her new book, Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility.

Shadi begins the conversation by inquiring about the moral motivations behind Professor Nussbaum’s advocacy for animal rights. He also wonders how human beings can, given their finite resources and time, focus on animal rights over other issues, like war or poverty. Nussbaum pushes back, arguing that animal rights is only one part of a web of issues, like overpopulation and climate change, that have to be addressed holistically. Sam provides some philosophical background, placing Nussbaum’s thought within the context of her work as a whole, which is focused on justice, freedom, and human flourishing.

It’s an energetic episode, where three sharp minds constantly challenge each other to clarify their thoughts. Ultimately, the question of the meaning of life—both for animals and humans—emerges, as Nussbaum asks whether death should be perceived as something negative, and Shadi considers the significance of belief in the afterlife.

Required Reading:

* Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility by Martha Nussbaum.

* “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature,” by Martha Nussbaum (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research).

* “The Dilemmas of Living in a Post-Religious World,” by Shadi (Washington Post).

* 1966 Animal Welfare Act.

* 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

* R. M. Hare (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

* Epicurus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

* Lucretius (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Do Arab Americans support pro-Palestine protests because of identity politics? What about American Jewish support for Israel? Are both groups being “tribal” or are they fighting for universal values — as they understand them?

Recently, policy guru and Ur-Blogger Matt Yglesias pointed out that some of the political thinkers who, just a couple years ago, were aligned in opposition to identity politics today find themselves on opposite sides over Palestine. One of the names Matt mentioned was our own Shadi Hamid. What happened?

Matt joins Damir, and Shadi to figure it out. In their conversation, they discuss the demands of pro-Palestine protestors, whether conditioning aid to Israel would be effective, whether global justice claims are “nonsense,” and of course the nature of identity. Why do we believe what we believe, and how do come to hold the positions that we hold?

Towards the end of the episode, the conversation gets more personal, when both Shadi and Matt go deeper on how their own religious identities have been affected by the Gaza war. Matt, a liberal Jew who supports a two-state solution, says: “Playing dice with the existence of Israel is dangerous, it’s a lot for my heart.”

NOTE: We felt the final 20 minutes of the conversation with Matt were fascinating and surprising in the best way possible, capturing something important about this American moment — so we are dropping the paywall and making the full episode available for all subscribers. We hope you enjoy it.

Required Reading:

* Slow Boring, Matthew Yglesias’ Substack.

* “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” AKA “The Harper’s Letter” (Harper’s).

* Martin Luther King, Jr. and Israel (Washington Post).

* “Israel’s Two Wars” by Matthew Yglesias (Slow Boring).

* Shadi’s tweet, drawing on his book The Problem of Democracy, on how U.S. support for Israel undermines Arab democracy: “Our relationship with Israel distorts U.S. policy in the Middle East. We support Arab dictators in part because they are more likely to accept Israel's dominant position in the region. Democracy, however, would elevate anti-Israel parties to power.”

* Matt Yglesias on X: “It’s interesting that a bunch of people who I read who four years ago were in agreement about the perils of identity politics now sharply disagree about Israel/Palestine and the disagreements exactly track Jewish vs Arab or Muslim backgrounds.”

* The Mexican-American War.

This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets.