The more serious and detailed the topic, the worse Stewart is as an interviewer. But he did give Fetterman every opportunity to offer a more nuanced position.
I wish the middle ground was discussed and championed by more people. I understand why Israelis and Palestinians sometimes have trouble being objective and empathetic of the other - danger, fear, and grief causes that challenge to all human beings. And even to Americans with friends and family there.
But it would be nice is the rest of America kept some curiosity about alternative viewpoints and investigating which”facts” presented were real and which are exaggerated or even just false. The truth is hard enough to distinguish without wading through partisans repeating already debunked and even retracted statements.
Eli your last paragraph is the one I keep coming back to. The Knesset has dissolved. On October 27, Israelis get to vote.
I recently wrote about what I called the mechanism—the accumulation of settlements, violence, ideology and political choices that can gradually turn what was once unthinkable into an irreversible reality.
But mechanisms can be interrupted.
That is what is so important about Eli’s reminder here. Israel is not simply Netanyahu, Smotrich or Ben Gvir. Millions of Israelis are citizens of a functioning democracy who can say: enough; this is not the country we want to become.
Jon Stewart and John Fetterman can argue about Israel from America. Israelis themselves will soon get a vote.
And perhaps the mechanism can still be interrupted.
Kudos to Fetterman for standing up for Israel and not falling for the common trap being set by the imbecile jon stewart. The trap being, "give them an inch, they will take a mile." Stewart's brand of humor and biting sarcasm has taken a drastic downturn since his return to broadcasting. the only worthwhile stance he has taken was advocating for first responder and other victims of 9/11 via renewal of the various federal compensation funds.
Although obnoxious and wrong on most everything concerning Israel, most notably the bullshit and oft repeated genocide allegations lodged against Israel, stewart is still better than the even more obnoxious dave smith.
Stewart would not dare interview an actual expert who could take him down. And that says everything about him monopolizing the narrative. Had I know 20 years ago that this would be his trajectory, I might not have bothered to have been such a fan. How much do I want to replay to him his takedown of Fucker Carlson back then and say: Today, Jon, YOU are Carlson and YOU hurting the world.
I sort of felt like the narcissistic monster with myopic and lopsided smugness was creeping into the crowd having known people who worked on the show in different capacities. That sense was rooted in anecdotes shared and observation of the self-importance that was growing. He seized on the fracture and wedged an even deeper abyss.
It’s really unclear to me wtf he thinks he is adding except to his back account. It’s almost like he forgot who did what to whom on 9/11 (as he kind of did back in the day). He stood up for the firefighters and first responders dealing with abandonment and contempt from their insurance companies - but he isolated their experience from the original crime. And that was a grave error. He was more concerns about “Islamophobia” than he was terrorist cells in the US and around the world (particularly given the number of terrorist actions of the decades around the world and Islamist and jihadist violence and colonialism.)
So, fuck him.
And yes, while I appreciate Fetterman, I would like to see more articulate and debate-capable courage in the political, media and entertainment class who know that Stewart is as doll of shit as many in the right.
Has he ever bothered to take down the likes of Piker? (Both asking genuinely and rhetorically because I stopped watching him and the show after Noah left and it was getting all very high school petty.)
The biggest gap in Stewart's and Fetterman's exchange is that neither spoke to how the US should respond to Palestinian-Americans who decry the deaths, injuries, and displacement suffered by their relatives and countrymen.
Joe, I think that’s an important question. Palestinian-Americans whose families and communities have suffered terribly in this war deserve to be heard. And because American weapons and support are involved, our government absolutely has a responsibility to care about how that support is used and what it enables.
But I think the obligation runs in both directions. American policy also has to take seriously the security of Israelis after October 7, the hostages, and the continuing threat from Hamas.
That is precisely the “middle ground” Eli is arguing for: neither unconditional support for every decision an Israeli government makes nor indifference to Israel’s legitimate security needs. American policy should be capable of defending the latter while using our considerable influence to challenge policies and actions that undermine the possibility of a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
That middle ground may be harder to articulate than either of the absolutes Stewart and Fetterman offered, but I think it is where responsible policy has to begin.
Agreed, but I rarely (ever?) see Eli explicitly address Palestinian-Americans in his analysis. They are a critical consideration in US policy and a critical consideration in US politics. My apologies if I've overlooked something Eli has posted in the past.
The same goes for "people living thousands of miles away, in safety and in comfort" providing weapons used against people engaged in a "matter of life or death."
Those people living thousands of miles away--us--are morally obligated to "micromanage" how our aid is used and what it enables.
Thomas Sowell: "There is something grotesque about people living thousands of miles away, in safety and comfort, loftily second-guessing and trying to micromanage what the Israelis are doing in a matter of life and death."
https://substack.com/@robertmoisescu/note/c-309906378?r=7a02yu
https://substack.com/@robertmoisescu/note/c-307289962?r=7a02yu
Fetterman has done one thing Stewart has never done: met with and talked with families of hostages taken on October 7th.
Has he met with and talked with the families of Palestinians slaughtered in the west bank by violent Jewish supremacists
Thanks for your perspective.
The more serious and detailed the topic, the worse Stewart is as an interviewer. But he did give Fetterman every opportunity to offer a more nuanced position.
I wish the middle ground was discussed and championed by more people. I understand why Israelis and Palestinians sometimes have trouble being objective and empathetic of the other - danger, fear, and grief causes that challenge to all human beings. And even to Americans with friends and family there.
But it would be nice is the rest of America kept some curiosity about alternative viewpoints and investigating which”facts” presented were real and which are exaggerated or even just false. The truth is hard enough to distinguish without wading through partisans repeating already debunked and even retracted statements.
Eli your last paragraph is the one I keep coming back to. The Knesset has dissolved. On October 27, Israelis get to vote.
I recently wrote about what I called the mechanism—the accumulation of settlements, violence, ideology and political choices that can gradually turn what was once unthinkable into an irreversible reality.
But mechanisms can be interrupted.
That is what is so important about Eli’s reminder here. Israel is not simply Netanyahu, Smotrich or Ben Gvir. Millions of Israelis are citizens of a functioning democracy who can say: enough; this is not the country we want to become.
Jon Stewart and John Fetterman can argue about Israel from America. Israelis themselves will soon get a vote.
And perhaps the mechanism can still be interrupted.
Kudos to Fetterman for standing up for Israel and not falling for the common trap being set by the imbecile jon stewart. The trap being, "give them an inch, they will take a mile." Stewart's brand of humor and biting sarcasm has taken a drastic downturn since his return to broadcasting. the only worthwhile stance he has taken was advocating for first responder and other victims of 9/11 via renewal of the various federal compensation funds.
Although obnoxious and wrong on most everything concerning Israel, most notably the bullshit and oft repeated genocide allegations lodged against Israel, stewart is still better than the even more obnoxious dave smith.
Stewart would not dare interview an actual expert who could take him down. And that says everything about him monopolizing the narrative. Had I know 20 years ago that this would be his trajectory, I might not have bothered to have been such a fan. How much do I want to replay to him his takedown of Fucker Carlson back then and say: Today, Jon, YOU are Carlson and YOU hurting the world.
I sort of felt like the narcissistic monster with myopic and lopsided smugness was creeping into the crowd having known people who worked on the show in different capacities. That sense was rooted in anecdotes shared and observation of the self-importance that was growing. He seized on the fracture and wedged an even deeper abyss.
It’s really unclear to me wtf he thinks he is adding except to his back account. It’s almost like he forgot who did what to whom on 9/11 (as he kind of did back in the day). He stood up for the firefighters and first responders dealing with abandonment and contempt from their insurance companies - but he isolated their experience from the original crime. And that was a grave error. He was more concerns about “Islamophobia” than he was terrorist cells in the US and around the world (particularly given the number of terrorist actions of the decades around the world and Islamist and jihadist violence and colonialism.)
So, fuck him.
And yes, while I appreciate Fetterman, I would like to see more articulate and debate-capable courage in the political, media and entertainment class who know that Stewart is as doll of shit as many in the right.
Has he ever bothered to take down the likes of Piker? (Both asking genuinely and rhetorically because I stopped watching him and the show after Noah left and it was getting all very high school petty.)
The biggest gap in Stewart's and Fetterman's exchange is that neither spoke to how the US should respond to Palestinian-Americans who decry the deaths, injuries, and displacement suffered by their relatives and countrymen.
Joe, I think that’s an important question. Palestinian-Americans whose families and communities have suffered terribly in this war deserve to be heard. And because American weapons and support are involved, our government absolutely has a responsibility to care about how that support is used and what it enables.
But I think the obligation runs in both directions. American policy also has to take seriously the security of Israelis after October 7, the hostages, and the continuing threat from Hamas.
That is precisely the “middle ground” Eli is arguing for: neither unconditional support for every decision an Israeli government makes nor indifference to Israel’s legitimate security needs. American policy should be capable of defending the latter while using our considerable influence to challenge policies and actions that undermine the possibility of a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
That middle ground may be harder to articulate than either of the absolutes Stewart and Fetterman offered, but I think it is where responsible policy has to begin.
Agreed, but I rarely (ever?) see Eli explicitly address Palestinian-Americans in his analysis. They are a critical consideration in US policy and a critical consideration in US politics. My apologies if I've overlooked something Eli has posted in the past.
The same goes for "people living thousands of miles away, in safety and in comfort" providing weapons used against people engaged in a "matter of life or death."
Those people living thousands of miles away--us--are morally obligated to "micromanage" how our aid is used and what it enables.
Two morons.
Thomas Sowell: "There is something grotesque about people living thousands of miles away, in safety and comfort, loftily second-guessing and trying to micromanage what the Israelis are doing in a matter of life and death."