If these two facts were all that you knew about Qatar, you would not expect Qatar to be enormously wealthy and influential. But it is.

How does tiny and vulnerable Qatar manage to be wealthy and influential? Why does Qatar support Hamas and loathe the Abraham Accords? And why is Qatar experiencing a collapse in its revenue from natural gas exports this year?

I answered these questions and more in my presentation at the Israel on Campus Coalition’s National Leadership Summit in Washington, DC. I explained the geopolitics of Qatar, Doha’s hostile attitude toward Arab-Israeli peace, and the forgotten history of October 2023.

I invite you to watch the video and share your comments.

I plan to be in the United States this October for a speaking tour. If you’d like to invite me to speak on your campus or in your community, please be in touch.

I would like to tell you about someone whom I never knew, but miss every day. His name was Michael Levin. I usually tell this story to Birthright groups at his grave. Now, on Israeli Memorial Day, I will share it with all of you.

I’ve pieced this account together from things I’ve read, videos I’ve watched, and stories I’ve heard. When I shared a version of this post on my Facebook page in 2020, Michael Levin’s sister commented on the post: “Thank you, Daniel for your kind words.” I hope this means that I got the story – the facts and the myths alike – mostly right. Here goes.

Michael Levin was born in Philadelphia on February 17, 1984. He was a normal Jewish kid. Went to Camp Ramah. Loved Israel. He made aliyah in 2003. From the time he was a little boy, it was his dream to be an IDF paratrooper. It wouldn’t be easy. He was very small: 5’6” and 118 pounds. But this doesn’t give you a picture of who Michael was. He was strong. He was determined. He had ways of dealing with people who told him no. And he had ways of dealing with the Israeli bureaucracy.

When the draft office turned him away at the door because he didn’t have proper papers, he found a dumpster around back, pushed it against the building, and climbed in through a second-story window. An officer inside was impressed: Usually people are fighting to get out of the army, he said, not fighting to get in. Ultimately Michael made it into the Paratroopers Brigade and completed basic training. He was filmed at the ceremony and he said to the camera. “It’s a dream come true.” It was. Michael had every reason to be proud.

Michael was what’s known as a lone soldier – a soldier without immediate family in Israel. This status gave Michael the right to take one month leave to visit his family. In the summer of 2006, Michael flew to the United States for his month of vacation. Two weeks into that vacation, while he was having fun in Philadelphia, a war broke out in Israel.

On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah, the powerful Iranian-backed militia in Lebanon, ambushed Israeli soldiers on a border patrol. Five Israelis were killed in the attack; two were taken into Lebanon, their fate unknown at the time. As Israel launched an operation to rescue the two soldiers, Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel – 4,000 rockets by the end of the war. A million Israelis were living in bomb shelters. There was no Iron Dome.

Michael was thousands of miles away as this was happening. He immediately decided to cut short his vacation and fly back to Israel. He told his parents: If anything happens to me, bury me on Mt. Herzl.

When Michael landed in Israel, he wanted to go straight to the north, to the Lebanese border, in order to join his unit. He was told: No need. We need you somewhere else right now, dealing with equipment. Michael did not accept this answer. He was not going to sit on the sidelines as his unit was fighting. Just as Michael fought to join the army, just as Michael fought to be a paratrooper, he fought again to be allowed to join his unit in the north – and he succeeded. When he got to the border, his unit received orders for a mission inside Lebanon.

Before his unit began marching into Lebanon, Michael called his sister’s phone. She didn’t answer. He left a voicemail for his family. It said: “If anything happens to me, I just want to say that I love you and miss you and wish you all the best.”

His unit marched all night, deep into Lebanon, to a village where the two abducted IDF soldiers may have been taken. They walked for eight hours. By 7 a.m., they had not reached their destination. The soldiers were a bit lost. It was light outside. And they were spotted by Hezbollah. They sought cover inside a house in the village. It was not safe enough. A Hezbollah fighter fired into the house. Michael was hit in the head. The medic tried for 20 minutes to save Michael, but could not. Michael died in Lebanon, on a mission to protect what he loved. He was 22.

When Michael’s parents in the United States received the news, they flew to Israel immediately. The war was still going on. They were worried that there wouldn’t be a minyan (a quorum of 10) for Michael’s funeral. Michael was a lone soldier, after all. Who even knew him? When they arrived to Mount Herzl and saw big crowds in the parking lot, they were even more sad, because they thought that there were many other military funerals happening at the same time.

But that was not the case. Everyone was there for Michael. Not 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 people. There were 2,000 people at the funeral.

When Israelis heard that an American who moved to Israel by choice, who joined the army by choice, who joined the paratroopers by choice, who entered enemy territory by choice – when Israelis heard that such a soldier without family in Israel fell in battle, they said: We are all his family. We are all his family. Secular and religious; Reform and Orthodox and Haredi; young and old – they were all at the funeral. They were all inspired by Michael and they all came to honor Michael.

“When I think of him, I see him coming out of the base very tired but happy because the army was just everything for him and he felt very proud,” recalled his close friend Sara Kalker. “One of the last things he said to me in our last phone conversation when he was in Lebanon was, ‘Sara, never forget that life is a gift.’ He just loved life and loved his friends and really, really loved Israel.”

Michael was not the first lone soldier to die in battle, and unfortunately, he was not the last, but today there is nobody in Israel who does not know what a lone soldier is – and that is because of Michael. The Lone Soldier Center is named in his memory.

“Michael always said he was doing exactly what he wanted to do and he was exactly where he wanted to be,” his mother said. “There were no regrets.”

I hope now you understand what I meant when I said I never knew Michael, but I miss him every day.

A few days ago, Olivia Reingold, a staff writer at the Free Press, asked Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed if he believed in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

El-Sayed answered the question with a question:

“What do you mean by Jewish state?”

That question is, according to some popular anti-Israel commentators, a question that supporters of Israel cannot answer.

“What a brilliant question,” said historian Zachary Foster.

“It’s honestly crazy no one came up with this sooner,” said Briahna Joy Gray, former national press secretary for Bernie Sanders.

“When confronted... in the form of a simple question, Olivia Reingold, in true form, had no answer,” said Julian Andreone of Drop Site News.

For Jews (0.2% of humanity), the idea and the necessity of a Jewish state is so self-evident that most of them have not thought about how to put the concept into simple terms that non-Jews (99.8% of humanity) can understand.

Allow me to help. I’m an Israeli tour guide and educator. I’ve put some thought into this.

What do Jews mean by “Jewish state”?

“Jewish state” is shorthand for the idea that Jews are a people, that the Jewish people are from a specific place (the Land of Israel), and that in at least part of that specific place, the Jewish people will be responsible for their own fate.

“Jewish state” means that there will never again be a Jewish refugee.

“Jewish state” means that any Jew who needs a home will have a home.

In one sentence:

“Jewish state” is the idea that Israel is and will continue to be the one place in the world where the Jewish people are responsible for their own fate.

That’s it. That’s the definition of the Z-word. That’s Zionism.

You can “yes but what about” the principles that I have written here until you are blue in the face.

You can throw whatever academic jargon you want at us.

But it will not change the meaning of “Jewish state.”

The overwhelming majority of Jews in the world agree with what I have written here.

Yes, I speak for them.

This was a short post. I hope it helped.

When I started working as a tour guide in Israel a decade ago, potential clients would ask me: “Are you okay guiding progressives?”

I was known as the guy who guided the “difficult” groups.

These were the years when the culture of American college campuses was changing – the years when students started attending “microaggression-awareness training,” demanding “safe spaces,” and stating their pronouns when introducing themselves.

Such things were unknown in Israeli culture, and they did not exist when I was a college student in the United States. Israeli tour guides had to be aware of this American cultural language if they wanted to be in a position to educate these young students about Israel and the Jewish people.

My advantage was that I was an American who followed American politics closely, and I had a political communications background. The more challenging the group of students, I said, the better. Offers poured in. For years, I guided countless groups of progressive students, Jews and non-Jews alike: University of Vermont, American University, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, just to name a few.

I got along with nearly everyone. I remember moments in the field when my patience was tested, but never broken. Once, a very kind and well-meaning trip leader began day one of the tour with a “land acknowledgement,” the substance of which I do not remember, because I was literally squeezing my tongue with my teeth and struggling to keep a straight face. I did not crack. After I had a chance to calmly explain the timeline of this region going back 4,000 years – this land changing hands so many times among so many different civilizations and local rulers (and by the way, the earliest human remains found in Israel are 1.5 million years old) – the matter of “land acknowledgements” was never raised again.

I was good at guiding progressives. How do I know that I was good at guiding progressives? I was invited to guide the same schools again and again. Trip leaders would ask for me a year in advance. In 2019, AIPAC entrusted me to lead a group of progressives. I felt like I had made it. Then I started hearing about a spike in pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, and… you know the rest.

A Polarized America

The concern that American Jews have today about the left flank of the Democratic Party did not begin after October 7, 2023. A decade ago, American Jews – a left-of-center group, on average – were worried about their fraying relationship with their fellow left-wing Americans. Barack Obama was a popular two-term president, and he did not get along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. American progressives did not need to know anything about Netanyahu in order to decide who of the two was right. Obama was their guy, their guy was against Netanyahu, and Netanyahu was against their guy. If you wanted to be a progressive in good standing with other progressives, you needed to be against Netanyahu. That’s just how politics works. I don’t make the rules.

When Donald Trump, enemy number one to progressives, became president and did get along with Netanyahu, this confirmed the progressives’ belief that Netanyahu was an enemy.

The hostile Obama-Netanyahu relationship (2009–2017) and the friendly Trump-Netanyahu relationship (2017 to the present) ensured that progressive Americans would be the most difficult Americans to guide on politically oriented tours in Israel.

So what changed? The progressives are still progressives. Benjamin Netanyahu is still the prime minister of Israel. Donald Trump is still the president of the United States.

What changed is that the phone calls I’m getting now begin with: “Are you okay guiding conservatives?”

The New Right

During one recent Zoom interview, a potential client wanted to see if I was a fit for his right-wing, MAGA-friendly group. He emphasized that this Israel trip would be off the record. There would be no social media posts about it. Why? The right-wing participants feared the blowback that would come from right-wing spaces if anyone heard that this trip was happening.

The interviewer opened my social media accounts during our Zoom call. “I see you’re a big critic of Qatar,” he said. “Will that be a problem?” The implication was that if I was perceived as a critic of any of Trump’s policies, I would not be a match for the group.

I have more examples.

Last June, I was guiding a group of young professionals affiliated with a conservative non-profit organization in the United States. The organization sent a videographer to film the tour. I was happy that I would have professional-quality content to post on my social media accounts.

For the first few days of the tour, everything went great. Then one night I was awakened in my Jerusalem hotel room at 3 a.m. by a loud emergency alert on my phone, which I thought was odd because my phone was on silent. The IDF Home Front Command sent a message to every cell phone in Israel with instructions to stay near a bomb shelter. I checked the news and saw that the Israeli Air Force was targeting Iranian nuclear sites. I understood immediately what was happening. It was a scenario that I had been thinking about for more than 20 years. (I texted a close friend at 3:06 a.m.: “It begins.”) I ran down the stairs to the lobby in order to confirm with the front desk that the bomb shelter was open. Then I informed the group what was happening and made sure they were staying calm.

Our plans for the next day were cancelled. We had to stay near the bomb shelter. That evening, as predicted, the Iranian regime started firing ballistic missiles at Israel. After repeatedly running to the hotel’s underground shelter, the participants were evacuated the next morning by sea.

All of this sounds like it would make for an amazing story, right? The trip was never mentioned on the organization’s social media accounts. No video of the tour was ever published. I was told that the video was “caught up in senior management deliberations.” It was obvious to me that the senior leadership of the organization was deeply divided on the issue of US support for Israel and the organization was moving in the wrong direction in the culture war taking place within the American right.

Last month, I learned that another conservative organization that I have worked with for a decade is dramatically reducing the number of student groups that it is planning to bring to Israel. Top donors to the program are reassessing their priorities and asking themselves if Israel trips, at scale, are as important or useful as they once thought. The focus of this organization is shifting from quantity (bringing as many buses of students as possible) to quality (bringing participants who are likely to be in leadership roles in the future).

I sympathize with the donors. We can’t continue as we were. During the past decade, generous Jewish philanthropists donated millions of dollars to a number of organizations that focused on bringing non-Jewish students to Israel. Their thinking was that if these non-Jews (whether secular progressives or conservative Christians) could escape their toxic social media environments, experience Israel’s diversity for themselves, learn the story of the Jewish people, and realize that the simple narratives they have been fed on college campuses were lies, then they would become allies of American Jews and support a strong US-Israel relationship – and if they wouldn’t go that far, at least they would push back against the poisonous anti-Israel and anti-Jewish voices in their political camp. Of course, there were no strings attached to any of these trips; participants were not expected to embrace any particular narrative or political agenda upon returning home.

We saw how this experiment went. Most of the non-Jewish alumni of Jewish donor-funded trips in the past 10 years remained silent after Hamas’s October 7 Massacre as the worst libels were thrown at the Jewish people and the Jewish state. In some cases, Israel trip alumni joined the antizionist campaign of hatred against Jews. They accused Israel of the g-word, the a-word, the c-word, and shared whatever anti-Israel posts were trending on social media at the moment. Only a small percentage of non-Jewish alumni of Israel trips publicly stood with the Jewish community after October 7. I am thankful for those who did.

What Now?

After a pandemic and a two-year war, it is clear that there is no going back to the world that existed before 2020. There will be no “return to normalcy.” This is the new normal.

It is 2026. There are college students today who were born in 2007. This new generation of students lives in a highly polarized, emotionally charged, and very online political climate. That is a real challenge not just for Israel education, but the very idea that Americans are part of a common civilization.

Our challenge as Israeli tour educators who work with Americans is not about how to “handle progressives” or how to “handle conservatives.” It is not about left versus right, or Israel versus left and right.

It is about how to add value to people’s lives by transmitting a foundation of historical, religious, and cultural literacy to a divided society whose citizens do not think they have anything in common with their political opponents.

Tourism will return. Programs will resume. Students will come back. The real question is whether we keep waiting to return to a world that no longer exists – or we prepare ourselves for the future.

I have some ideas. Do you?

They had invited me to speak on a panel discussion about the “delegitimization of Israel.”

I asked the audience a question: “How many of you know that on the afternoon of October 7, 2023, while Hamas’s massacre was ongoing, Qatar condemned Israel?”

In a room of about 70 American Jewish leaders, one hand went up. One hand. It was a man who followed me on X and had seen me make this point many times.

What does this simple and forgotten point about Qatar have to do with the delegitimization of Israel? In a word: everything.

Most people have no idea that Qatar is waging a massive information warfare campaign against Israel. If you don’t know who is fighting you, how can you win?

Please understand: It’s not possible to talk about the “delegitimization of Israel” without talking about the role that Qatar plays in that delegitimization.

Know your enemy.

Since most of you are unaware of what Qatar is doing, allow me to share a few simple points.

At 3:15 p.m. Israel time on October 7, 2023, long after it was clear that Hamas was carrying out barbaric atrocities and taking hostages, the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a statement that said Israel was “solely responsible for the ongoing escalation.” Yes, you read that right. On October 7, as Hamas terrorists were breaking into Israeli homes and livestreaming their savagery from victims’ phones, Qatar condemned Israel – not Hamas. In fact, Qatar has never publicly condemned Hamas for anything, ever.

You’ll never guess where Hamas’s leaders were on October 7. They were living comfortably in Doha, the capital of Qatar. There is video of them watching the Qatari royal family’s international television network (Al Jazeera) and prostrating themselves as they thanked God for the success of their invasion of Israel.

If Qatari government officials were anything like the civilized people that they want you to think they are, they would have walked down the street (or maybe down the stairs) to the office where Hamas leaders were celebrating and told them that the invasion and massacre were horrible and Hamas must release all of the hostages immediately. Qatari government officials did not do this.

On the contrary. There is every reason to believe that Qatari government officials celebrated the October 7 Massacre. You know what? I’ll say it without equivocation: Qatar celebrated the October 7 Massacre. I’ll stop saying it as soon as the Qatari government publicly condemns Hamas for literally anything. Let me know. Until then: Qatar celebrated the October 7 Massacre.

What was Qatar saying one day after the massacre, on October 8, 2023, after it was clear to everyone the extent of Hamas’s war crimes and crimes against humanity? We got one answer last January when Qatar’s prime minister, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani, aka Sheikh Mohammed, sat down for an interview with Israeli journalist Arad Nir. The Qatari royal wanted to bolster Qatar’s image among the Israeli public as the benevolent and irreplaceable “mediator” between Israel and Hamas – and blame the Israeli government for the lack of a hostage deal.

Sheikh Mohammed said to Arad Nir: “We’ve been calling since the beginning, since October 8th, that we need to get this done as soon as possible.” Get what done? A deal. In other words, the Qatari government thought that the proper response to the October 7 Massacre, while Hamas terrorists were still on the loose in Israel, was a deal that would ensure that Hamas leaders would survive what they had just unleashed the day before, that Hamas’s army of terror would remain completely intact, that countless convicted Palestinian terrorists would be released from Israeli prisons, that Hamas would be in a position to carry out another massacre (or fire rockets) at a time and place of its choosing, and that Hamas’s popularity in Palestinian society would surge.

That’s what Qatar wanted to “get done” one day after Hamas terrorists gunned down hundreds of people at a music festival, burned families in their homes, and took grandmothers and toddlers as hostages. In plain English: Qatar wanted Hamas to win.

Is it not obvious? Every day, the Qatari royal family’s international television network (Al Jazeera) boosts Qatar’s information warfare campaign against Israel, in Arabic and in English. It has been wildly successful. From the beginning of the war, the phrase “genocide in Gaza” has appeared on the screen while Qatari agents in Gaza (Al Jazeera “reporters”) broadcast only the images that Hamas wanted them to broadcast. These images and messages have shaped Western public perception of the war. We’re seeing the consequences of this information warfare campaign every day. What starts on Al Jazeera does not stay on Al Jazeera.

You don’t have to take my word for it that Qatar-sponsored Hamas and Qatar-funded Al Jazeera work together. After the last Gaza war in May 2021, Hamas honored Al Jazeera for its “highly professional” coverage of the conflict.

It’s been nearly two years since the October 7 Massacre. Qatar refuses to pressure the Hamas leaders who live in Doha to order their army of terrorists to surrender, release the hostages, and end the war. There’s a reason for that. It’s because Qatar told Hamas to keep the hostages until Hamas gets a deal that allows Hamas to remain in power in Gaza.

Qatar wants Hamas to win.

It was not an accident or an aberration that Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, the mother of the emir of Qatar, praised Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the October 7 Massacre, after Sinwar was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.

“The name Yahya means the one who lives,” she wrote. “They thought him dead but he lives. Like his namesake, Yahya bin Zakariya, he will live on and they will be gone.”

Last year, a Qatari representative to the Arab League said:

“There can be no peace or negotiations with the Zionist entity, for one reason and one reason only: Their faith does not allow for negotiations. Rather it [condones] deception, the violation of agreements, and lies...

The Al Aqsa Flood operation is only the introduction to the annihilation of the corruption that the Zionist entity has spread in the land for the second time. Inshallah, this will be the beginning of the end of their state.”

Do I need to keep going?

It’s time to demand that Qatar put Hamas leaders on a plane and send them to Israel. Until Qatar does so, Qatar should be considered a state sponsor of terrorism.

Sadly, Qatar’s information warfare campaign against Israel is working. Qatar faces no reputational damage for its support of Hamas.

When Qataris are hosting panel discussions in Doha about the “delegitimization of Qatar,” then I’ll know we’re making progress.

Until then, repeat after me:

Qatar told Hamas to keep the hostages.

We discussed Eurovision, President Trump's visit to the Middle East, Qatar, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the war in Gaza, humanitarian aid, and more.

The episode was recorded on May 19, 2025. It is available on a number of different audio platforms.

Here it is on Spotify:

You can watch it on YouTube:

If you have not yet seen my first appearance on Eylon’s podcast from a few months ago, you can listen to the audio or watch it here:

Thank you for listening! Please share the links with your friends. The more views that I get, the more likely that it is that I will be invited back again soon.

In the summer of 2022 I gave a speech to a group of international students in Israel. They were participating in a weekend geopolitical seminar with an organization called Onward Israel. My speech was called “Five Things You Should Know Before Talking to Anyone About Israel.”

I shared my thoughts about why conversations about Israel can be so difficult, especially with people who define themselves as progressives. I explained why it is important to see where people are coming from, assume good intentions until proven otherwise, and focus on basic principles. I offered some suggestions for how to educate others about the Jewish people, Israel, and Zionism. I finished the speech with the feeling that I nailed it. Audience feedback was excellent. My email signup sheet was full.

Two years later, in February 2024, I posted on social media that I was going on a speaking tour in the United States. I received a direct message from a woman named Sarah Milgrim.

“Hi! I met you in summer of 2022 on an Onward geopolitical program. I now work for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC, doing outreach with progressive Americans.”

She invited me to come to the Israeli Embassy to speak to the staff. “I think they’d like to hear about your experience working with college-age students.”

It was four months after the October 7 Massacre. I had never been invited to the Israeli Embassy before. My lectures are intended for college students who want to learn about Israel, not Israeli diplomats who already know Israel better than I do. But Sarah remembered my speech, had seen all of my social media posts since the war began, and thought I had something to offer her colleagues who dealt with public diplomacy.

At the end of March, I told Sarah that I would be passing through Washington on my campus speaking tour. We agreed that I would come to the Israeli Embassy on April 1.

I asked Sarah if there were topics I should prepare to discuss. She sent me an email with a list of ideas: my background, social media strategy, the challenges I faced as a reservist in the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit during the early months of the war, Israel education, how to talk to college students, and antisemitism on college campuses. Small topics.

“Everyone knows it will be very informal and they are excited to speak with you,” she reassured me.

I spent time preparing my notes. On the morning of April 1, I got in an Uber to Van Ness. As I approached the Israeli Embassy, I was surprised to see what was on display outside the gate: many large Palestinian flags and banners with slogans such as “When you stand with Israel, you’re supporting genocide,” “Israel is an apartheid state,” and “Free Palestine.” Loudspeakers aimed at the embassy blared sirens and high-pitched noises.

After I made it through the embassy’s security checks, Sarah greeted me at the entrance and brought me upstairs to a conference room where a table full of Israeli diplomats was waiting for me.

After some introductory remarks, all my preparation went out the window. In true Israeli fashion, the people around the table interrupted each other, argued, complained, criticized people who were not in the room, criticized people who were in the room, went on tangents, and ultimately reached the conclusion that everything was terrible and beyond repair — but also that everything would be ok.

The next day, I received a Whatsapp message from Sarah:

“Thank you so much for coming and speaking to us yesterday. It was very interesting and we learned a lot!”

I said it was a big honor to be invited to the Israeli Embassy and that I hoped everyone got something out of the conversation.

I followed up with Sarah a few days later by referring to a news story that showed that I was right about a war-related issue that was discussed in our meeting — and her colleague was wrong. I said it was nice to confirm that I’m not losing my mind. “Crazy!” she said. “Thanks for the clarification.”

That was our last communication.

When I woke up in Tel Aviv on Thursday, May 22, I saw a New York Times alert on my phone. It said that two Israeli Embassy staff members were shot and killed outside an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington.

Could Sarah have been one of the victims? Yes. I soon saw photos on social media.

The Jewish world is very small. We are 0.2 percent of humanity, and a significant portion of humanity would like to bring that number down to zero. We all know that it could have been any of us on the street in Washington that night.

Sarah and her soon-to-be fiancé Yaron Lischinsky understood the threats to the Jewish people very well. They dedicated their lives to defending Israel and the Jewish people in the diplomatic arena.

Thank you, Sarah and Yaron, for everything.

There are two things that we must do in their memory: seek common ground with everyone — and be prepared to stand alone.

And from now on, when I give my “Five Things You Should Know” speech, it will be in their memory.

הי״ד

YouTuber NickShirley (393,000 subscribers) came to Israel and asked people on the street what they thought about Trump’s vision for Gaza. I was one of the people on the street.

Nick asked me three questions:

1. Would it be good or bad for the people of the Middle East if the United States took over Gaza?

2. Do you think Donald Trump will be successful in taking over Gaza?

3. What’s your message to people who say that Israel has carried out a genocide in Gaza?

My four-minute segment starts at the 9:34 timestamp. Watch it and let me know how you think I did.

The podcast is also available on a number of different audio platforms.

Here it is on Spotify:

Thank you for listening! Please share the links with your friends. The more views that I get, the more likely that it is that I will be invited back soon.

I have a question for you, Piers Morgan.

Stay with me for a moment. I just listened to your conversation with Tucker Carlson.

You said that what the United States did to Japan in World War II was morally justified. This includes killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, whether with nuclear weapons or firebombs. This includes killing 100,000 people in Tokyo IN ONE NIGHT by firebombing the city.

Carlson asked you: "Why wouldn't you bomb just military installations? Why drop these bombs in the middle of a city when you know that overwhelmingly the incinerated people will be civilians? Why would you do that?"

You answered: "Because when the enemy is not making that calculation, you have to stop them."

"Stop them from what?" Carlson asked. "Not being invaded?"

"Stop them from killing your civilians, killing your people," you replied.

Tokyo is 5,000 miles from the west coast of the United States. In 1945, Japan was in no position to kill American civilians. Japan and the United States are separated by the world's largest ocean. Why was it morally justified to kill so many Japanese?

You answered this question clearly: It was morally justified because Japan refused to surrender and you had to bring the war to an end.

Here's my question, Piers. When you speak about Gaza, why does your logic change completely?

You said: "I have no problem saying that I think Israel's response has gone way too far. Way too many civilians have been killed."

Do you see the problem, Piers? Hamas hasn't surrendered. Hamas targets civilians and livestreams it from GoPro cameras. Hamas is proud that it is barbaric. Hamas is promising more October 7th-style massacres until Israel is destroyed.

Please understand: The densely populated residential areas of the Gaza Strip that Hamas turned into military positions, rocket launching sites, and cover for its vast network of underground tunnels are walking distance from Israeli homes. Walking distance, mate. Tokyo is 5,000 miles from the west coast of the United States.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Japan targeted a US Navy base – and you say it was morally justified to nuke them because they refused to surrender. Hamas terrorists gunned down hundreds of people at a music festival, burned people in their homes and cars, and then they drove or walked back to Gaza – but your position is that Israel's response has gone too far.

By your logic, how has Israel's response gone too far?

How many times have you watched the following conversation play out on television in some form over the past 25 years?

It’s a debate between an Israeli and a Palestinian.

The host asks the Palestinian: “What do you want from Israel?”

The Palestinian says:

“We want an end to the Israeli occupation, an independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just solution to the refugee issue in accordance with UN resolutions and international law.”

It is an answer that sounds clear, tangible, specific, reasonable, and negotiable.

The host asks the Israeli: “What do you want from the Palestinians?”

The Israeli says:

“Peace.”

At this point, the average viewer says to themselves: “Ok, how about Israel just gives the Palestinians the list of things that the Palestinians say they want and then Israel will get peace? Why is this so hard?”

The host then presses the Israeli about why the Israeli government has not said yes to peace. The Israeli responds with one or more of the following sentences: Palestinians have turned down many generous offers, Israel’s security requires defensible borders, Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, Jews have the right to live in Judea, and Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

You’ve heard it all before. By this point in the conversation, the two sides are talking past each other, the host is yelling, the viewers are frustrated, and nobody is learning anything.

The purpose of my writing is to change that.

In my first essay, I presented what I said was a flawed paradigm for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I said I would present a better theory that is based on a deeper understanding of the identities of both sides.

In my second essay, I explained who the Jewish people are and what they are looking for in a peace agreement.

In this essay, I will explain who Palestinians are, how Palestinians see the Jewish people, and what Palestinians are looking for in a peace agreement.

This essay is a good-faith effort to “steel man” the Palestinian perspective – in other words, to present Palestinian identity and political demands in the most fair, authentic, and compelling manner possible.

We must start from the beginning.

Who are the Palestinians?

Palestinians answer this question in the same way that Jews answer this question:

Palestinians are a people.

There is a logical question that follows.

Where are Palestinians from?

Palestinians have a simple answer:

Palestinians are from Palestine.

Palestinians are a people from Palestine.

When Palestinians speak about Palestine, it sounds something like this:

Palestine is an ancient land. It has been home to many cultures and civilizations for thousands of years. Palestine got its current borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. The British and the French drew lines on the map and created new countries. Whoever was living in the borders of Palestine at that time was Palestinian: Muslims, Christians, and a small number of Jews. Palestine had a huge Arab majority. In other words, Palestine was Arab.

Everything changed when the Zionists started immigrating to Palestine. The Zionists were a group of Europeans – mostly Russians at first – who claimed that they were part of the Jewish people returning home after 2,000 years of exile.

The Zionist claims could not possibly be true, according to Palestinians, for three reasons:

1. Jews are not a people. “The Jewish people” is an invention of the Zionists. Judaism is a religion, but Jews are not a people. Jews are not a nation. There are Polish Jews, Iraqi Jews, American Jews, Russian Jews, Moroccan Jews, and many other kinds of Jews. Jews come from many nations. They are not one nation.

2. Jews are not from Palestine. Since Jews are not a people, they cannot be from one place. Jews are from many places. There were Jews in Palestine before the Zionists arrived, but the Zionists who came from Russia were obviously not from Palestine. The Zionist story is one of immigration, not indigeneity.

3. Jews from Russia had no connection to the Jews of ancient times. The Russian “Jews” were not descended from ancient Israelites. (It is Palestinians who are the real descendants of the Israelites.)

These three points are a key part of Palestinian national political identity.

Palestinians say: Jews are not a people, Jews are not from Palestine, and Jews today have no connection to people who lived in Palestine more than 2,000 years ago.

Most Jews have trouble understanding how Palestinians could believe these things about Jews and Zionism. Allow me to try to explain the Palestinian viewpoint.

Imagine you are taking a class on comparative religion. It’s the first day of the semester. The students are introducing themselves and summarizing their religious beliefs and traditions.

One of the students says the following:

“Hi everyone, my name is Gaga. I am Babylonian. I pray in the Akkadian language. My people, the Babylonian people, dream that one day we will return to the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, the land of Babylonia. When this day comes – may it be in our time – we will be ruled by a king who is a direct descendant of our great king, Hammurabi. Our Temple will be rebuilt. All the nations of the world will know our gods. There will be peace on earth.”

How would you react if you heard such a person today? Be honest. You would think they are crazy. What do you mean you are Babylonian? The Babylonian Empire ceased to exist more than 2,500 years ago! How can you be Babylonian today? Nobody can trace their ancestry that far back. That sounds fake.

I think you know where I am going with this.

That’s exactly how Jews sound to others. Many people think Jews are fake. It’s hard to believe that Jews – Judeans – exist. Where are all the other ancient nations today? The Babylonians, the Philistines, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Nabateans – today they are only in history books. The Jewish people, the people of Judea, are alive and revived.

That’s a lot to process. It is unprecedented in history that a people that lost its homeland remained a people for the next 2,000 years, remembered where it was from, and dreamed that one day it would return. Nobody has ever heard of such a thing from any other people. It’s understandable that Palestinians would not see Zionist immigrants from the Russian Empire as what the Zionist immigrants claimed to be: a people coming home.

Besides, Zionism was not a theoretical exercise for the people of Palestine. The Zionists were not moving to an empty land.

The people of Palestine saw the new Zionist immigrants as insane. Most Jews in the world at the time thought the Zionists were insane, too.

Now you understand where Palestinians are coming from. They say:

Palestinians are a people – an Arab people.

Palestinians are from Palestine.

Jews are not a people.

Jews are not from Palestine.

Jews – Zionists – are foreigners in Palestine.

Really, Zionists are worse than foreigners. A foreigner can be a guest.

Zionists are not guests.

Zionists are colonizers.

Of course the Zionists are colonizers. Who do you think let them come to Palestine in order to build settlements? The British – a colonial power if there ever was one. Zionism was a British plot all along.

This is how Palestinians say it happened:

During World War I, Arabs in the Middle East revolted against the Ottoman Empire. The British, who had encouraged the revolt, promised the Arabs that they would achieve independence in their own unified nation. But the British also promised Palestine to the Jews – before the British had even conquered the territory from the Ottomans. Once the British became the rulers of Palestine, they allowed Jews to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers. The local Arabs did not want Jewish immigration, but the British held Palestine’s doors open and allowed the Jews to enter. The British kept their promise to the Jews, but not to the Arabs.

Over the next 30 years of British rule in Palestine, the Jews went from being 10 percent of Palestine to being one-third of Palestine.

In 1947, the British announced that they were going to leave Palestine. The big question at this time was: How should Palestine be governed when the British leave? The Arabs of Palestine had a simple answer: majority rule. The Jews did not agree to this. They wanted a state of their own in Palestine.

With no ability to bridge the gaps between Arabs and Jews, the British invited the United Nations to send a special committee to Palestine in order to study the situation and make a suggestion for how the territory should be governed when the British leave. The United Nations proposed that Palestine be partitioned into an Arab state and a Jewish state, and that the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be part of a separate international zone.

It was a ridiculous idea, the Arabs said. There was no justice in carving out a piece of Palestine for the Zionists who were a foreign minority, installed by a colonial power.

The British said they were going to leave Palestine with or without a political solution. Palestine was not their problem any more, they said. Everyone knew that the departure of the British would leave a power vacuum. Even before the British left, the security situation in Palestine collapsed. Panic spread. The intercommunal violence intensified everywhere in Palestine.

When the British finally left on May 15, 1948, Palestine should have remained a single territorial unit, led by the Arab majority. The Arabs of Palestine would have put an end to Jewish immigration. But history would play out differently. 

This is how Palestinians explain what came next:

The Jews – the Zionists – declared independence and named their secessionist state “Israel.”

The Zionists – a fake people, a foreign people, a colonial people, an infidel people – stole the land of Palestine.

The Zionists expelled the Arabs of Palestine – the Palestinians – from their homes.

Around 700,000 Palestinians became refugees – in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and beyond. This trauma and humiliation is known as the nakba, or catastrophe.

In 1967, the Zionists occupied more of historic Palestine (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem). Palestinians call this the naksa, or setback.

The Zionists settled in this newly occupied territory just as they had settled in pre-1948 Palestine.

On top of all of this, the Jews occupy and defile the third holiest site in Islam – Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

In order for there to be peace, Palestinians say, all of these injustices must be reversed.

Palestinians demand:

• Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem

• A sovereign and independent state in these territories

• A capital in East Jerusalem

• Sovereignty over the holy sites in Jerusalem (the Old City and the Mount of Olives)

And most importantly:

• The Right of Return for Palestinians displaced in 1948 and their descendants, who today number five million people.

These are the things that Palestinians are looking for in a peace agreement with Israel.

How to achieve these rights and how the future state of Palestine should be governed are issues that divide Palestinians. But there is virtually no disagreement among Palestinians about the rights themselves.

The purpose of negotiations with Israel, according to Palestinians who favor negotiations, is to discuss how these rights will be achieved in practice.

I asked in essay one: Why do Palestinians want a state?

The answer is: in order to fulfill what Palestinians say are their rights. (Scroll up if you forgot the list.)

Before deciding whether or not to accept any offer from Israel, Palestinians will ask themselves: Will such a state be the fulfillment of our rights or will it mark the surrender of our rights?

If a Palestinian state is the means by which Palestinians achieve what they say are their rights, then Palestinians will say yes to that state and have no further claims.

If a Palestinian state does not result in Palestinians achieving what they say are their rights, then Palestinians may say yes to that state, but their conflict with Israel will continue.

This is my theory, and I’m sticking to it.

In my next essay, I will answer the questions that may be on your mind at this point:

If Palestinians achieve what they say are their rights, where does that leave Israel?

Is there any middle ground between the Israeli and Palestinian positions?

Is a two-state solution the obvious solution – and the only solution – to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I welcome your comments.

As reports indicate that Iranian attack drones and maybe some missiles are on their way to Israel, now is as good a time as any to ask:

What is Israel trying to secure?

What do Israelis really mean when they talk about their security needs? Security for what, exactly?

In order to answer these questions, we must take a closer look at what Israelis say about themselves. More precisely, we must understand the identity of the majority group in Israel – the Jews.

Who are the Jews?

That is a big question.

The answer that I’m going to give you is the most important sentence that I’m going to give you.

It’s a simple sentence. 

Are you ready?

The Jews are a people.

Yes, that’s it.

Jews are a people.

If I can teach my tourists in Israel one thing in ten days, it’s that the Jews are a people.

This is the premise of everything that follows. The Jews are a people.

For most of history, it was uncontroversial and unnecessary to say that the Jews are a people. Jews considered themselves a people, and non-Jews considered Jews a people.

Nowadays people are confused about who Jews are. Most people consider Jews to be only adherents of a religion called Judaism. It is common for people to see Judaism as a religion just like Christianity is a religion and Islam is a religion. But this kind of thinking misses a key component of Jewish identity, which is that Jews are a people. (It also misses the fact that the category of religion is actually a Christian idea.)

What does it mean to be a people? Being a people means that the Jews are a family. An extended family is a tribe. An extended tribe is an ethnicity. Jews are these things and more. But in the most simple language, the Jews are a people.

There is a logical question that should follow when anyone tells you that a group of humans classify themselves as a people.

For example, if I tell you that the Zulu are a people, what might you want to ask about the Zulu?

Don’t overthink it. It’s a simple question.

Where are they from?

The Zulu are from South Africa. Easy.

Ok then. The Jews are a people. Where are Jews from?

A few years ago I was guiding a group of college students from a prestigious American university. I was having this exact conversation with them about how Jews define themselves. I explained that Jews are a people.

Then I asked: “Where are Jews from?”

It got real quiet.

Silence.

Finally a brave student said: “I thought Jews are from Eastern Europe.”

“Thank you,” I said. “That’s a very reasonable answer. In fact, all eight of my great grandparents were from Eastern Europe.”

Then somebody else chimed in: “I thought Jews are from North Africa.”

A discussion ensued. Somebody mentioned that they knew a Jew from Iran. The elite college students were confused.

Where are Jews from?

It’s not a trick question. If Jews are a people, there must be an answer to the question. A people cannot emerge from different points on the globe. A people, however spread out they may be today, must have had a starting point somewhere.

Where are Jews from?

Jews are from the Land of Israel.

Allow me a few sentences to fill in what you forgot (or never learned) in Hebrew school.

Before Jews were Jews, they were Israelites. Israelites called themselves Israelites because they claimed descent from the patriarch Israel (birth name: Jacob). The descendants of Israel – the Children of Israel – called the land on which they lived the Land of Israel. There is archaeological evidence of a people called Israel already in 1200 BCE. (Watch my video about it.)

So why are Jews called Jews? 

According to the Biblical narrative, the United Kingdom of Israel (~1000 BCE) was ruled by King David and then his son Solomon. After Solomon, the kingdom split into the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah. A bit over 200 years later (~722 BCE), the Assyrians invaded and destroyed the northern Kingdom of Israel. Ten of the 12 Israelite tribes were taken into Assyrian captivity and were lost to history. The southern Kingdom of Judah survived the Assyrian siege, thanks to the preparations of King Hezekiah. If he hadn’t prepared, our story would end here. (Watch my video about that, too.)

Judah existed as an Israelite kingdom until the Babylonians destroyed it in 586 BCE and forced the people of Judah into exile in Babylon. Judah became the common tribal identity of the exiles who began to refer to themselves as Judeans. Judea was the territory of the Kingdom of Judah. It’s the hills around Jerusalem. Judea and Judah are the same word in Hebrew – Yehudah יהודה. People from Yehudah are Yehudim, or in English – Jews.

Now you know where the English word “Jew” comes from. Anyone who says “I am a Jew” is claiming descent from the Kingdom of Judah. I told you that Jews are a family.

Jews remember where they are from.

Jews remember the Land of Israel.

Not just for centuries, but for millennia, Jews have remembered the Land of Israel. Jews remember Jerusalem, their ancient capital. Wherever they are in the world, Jews pray facing Jerusalem. At the end of the Passover seder, Jews say “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Another word for Jerusalem (and the Land of Israel) is Zion. In exile, by the rivers of Babylon, Jews remembered Zion.

For most Jews, for most of history, a return to Zion was a dream. The Land of Israel had a small Jewish population throughout the centuries, but nothing more than that. A few ambitious Jews in the late 1800s wanted to restore Zion in their own time. These Jews called themselves Zionists.

In the following decades, Jews returned to the Land of Israel and built a state.

The Zionist Jews purchased land, drained swamps, made deserts bloom, built thriving communities, revived the Hebrew language, learned to defend themselves, aspired to national independence, and sought peace with their neighbors.

On May 14, 1948, Jews in the Land of Israel declared the establishment of the State of Israel.

Why? 

What was the point?

I started this essay by asking: What is Israel trying to secure?

In other words, what do the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where half the world’s Jews live today, want?

It’s this:

The Jewish people want to be responsible for their own fate in at least part of the Land of Israel.

That’s it. That’s the whole point in one sentence.

That’s Zionism. 

Zionism is the idea that the Jews are a people, from the Land of Israel, and they have the right to be responsible for their own fate in at least part of the Land of Israel.

Zionists also want to be responsible for their own fate in a democratic country.

If Jews are going to be responsible for their own fate and be a democratic country, then a majority of the people in the country need to believe in the idea of Zionism or it gets outvoted. In short, the Jews – the Zionists – need to be a majority in their state.

That’s what the overwhelming majority of Jews in the State of Israel want. That’s what Israel is looking for in any peace agreement with its neighbors.

Remember this point, because I will come back to it in future essays.

I will end with some breaking news:

The Jews are not the only people living in the Land of Israel.

In my next essay, I will explain Palestinian identity and political goals – and how Palestinians react to everything I said above about the Jews, namely:

1. Jews are a people.

2. Jews are from the Land of Israel.

3. Jews remember the Land of Israel.

4. Jews returned to the Land of Israel and built a state.

5. Jews have the right to be responsible for their own fate in at least part of the Land of Israel.

Still with me? Let me know in the comments.

Continue to the next essay.

Most people will begin their answer by saying, “It’s complicated.” Well, so is quantum physics. You have to start somewhere. The job of an educator is to start teaching.

That’s what I’m going to try to do here in these essays.

In normal times, I work as a tour guide. One of the benefits of being a tour guide is that I get to do a lot of listening. I pay attention to how people who don’t know anything about Israel are experiencing Israel for the first time and forming opinions about it.

I can’t be a good educator if I don’t know who I am talking to. Listening to tourists helps me understand where they are coming from and how they make sense of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Everyone these days has opinions about Israel. Some people have informed opinions about Israel. Some people have uninformed opinions about Israel. But everyone has opinions about Israel because everyone feels like they must have opinions about Israel. People don’t feel like they must have opinions about Mongolia or Uruguay or Ethiopia or Cyprus.

You don’t have to sound like you’re an expert on the Czech Republic when you return home from Prague. But people who have been to Israel one time want to be able to explain “the conflict” and “what US policy should be.”

I know how these conversations go. I’ve listened to enough opinions about Israel to last a lifetime.

There are two big questions that everyone wants to be able to answer when they talk about Israel.

The first question is: Why is there a conflict?

The second question is the most American question: What’s the solution?

Why is there a conflict, and what’s the solution?

Because I’ve spent so much time listening to other people talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have a pretty good idea of how most normal, reasonable people attempt to answer these two questions.

When Israelis talk to foreigners about their problems, the one word that they use more than any other is security.

When Palestinians talk to foreigners about their problems, the one word that they use more than any other is occupation. “End the occupation,” they say. “Palestinians want a state.”

Israelis want security; Palestinians want a state.

This is what reasonable people hear again and again and again. They hear it from official spokespeople on each side. They hear it from the White House and the State Department. They hear it from the European Union and the United Nations. And they hear it from everyone they talk to.

If you are a reasonable person who is hearing these two messages again and again – Israelis want security; Palestinians want a state – then it’s pretty easy to predict how you are going to explain the conflict and its solution.

You are going to say: The conflict continues because Israel doesn’t have security and because Palestinians are occupied and don’t have a state. How about as a solution, Palestinians give Israel security and then Israel gives Palestinians a state – and then that’s it. Conflict over.

If you want to sound a little bit smarter, you can add: Everyone knows what the solution is. The two sides just need to work out the details.

With very little effort, you have answered question one – why is there a conflict? – and you have answered question two – what’s the solution? (Congratulations, you are now qualified to work at the State Department.)

The solution that you have come up with after listening to the two sides is called the two-state solution.

It’s a comfortable place to be in any conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s because policy debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are often framed around this question.

In your conversations about Israel, you may be asked: “Do you support a two-state solution?”

If you say yes, you are a good person. You are somebody who wants peace.

If you say no, you are a bad person. You are somebody who is against peace.

So far, everything is clear and simple.

At this point in the thought process, a reasonable person will ask: Which side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict supports the two-state solution, and which side does not?

Let’s find out.

If you ask Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he supports a two-state solution, the answer is no.

If you ask Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas if he supports a two-state solution, the answer is yes.

Very interesting, says the reasonable person.

If a two-state solution is the obvious solution to the conflict, and the Palestinians support it and the United States supports it and the European Union supports it and the United Nations supports it and the Arab League supports it, but Israel doesn’t support it, then why is there a conflict?

Mostly because of Israel.

Are you following me so far?

Let’s summarize how the thought process of the Reasonable Person™ works:

1. Why is there a conflict? Israel doesn’t have security; Palestinians don’t have a state.

2. What is the solution? A two-state solution, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace.

3. Who is to blame? Mostly Israel.

This is how a lot of people understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don’t blame them. It’s the conventional wisdom.

But there is a problem with this way of thinking: It doesn’t explain the behavior of both sides. The theory does not hold. In fact, it’s insulting to both sides, each of whom are fighting for something much bigger than security or a state.

When I am asked, “Do you support a two-state solution?” – I answer by asking: “A solution to what problem?”

What is the problem that needs a solution? Is it as simple as Israel’s lack of security and the Palestinians’ lack of a state?

The answer is no.

The comfortable framework of the Reasonable Person™ is missing two important follow-up questions:

1. What is Israel trying to secure?

2. Why do Palestinians want a state?

These questions sound simple, but they aren’t. We must leave what we think we know aside and listen deeper.

In order to answer these questions, we must examine what Israelis and Palestinians say about themselves, to themselves, rather than listen to the State Department, the secretary-general of the United Nations, or Thomas Friedman.

The answers to these two questions – What is Israel trying to secure, and why do Palestinians want a state? – can teach us a lot about the core reasons for the conflict – and the viability of the “two-state solution” for solving the conflict.

In essays to follow, I will suggest a different theory for why there is a conflict and why the “two-state solution” is elusive.

It is a theory that shows more respect, awareness, and empathy for the positions of both sides than you might expect to hear from someone like me.

Stay with me.

This was the first essay in a series.

Keep reading:

Essay two is: What Israelis really want in a peace agreement.

Essay three is: What Palestinians really want in a peace agreement.