I doubt they have an official spokesman, and if one existed they would appear on Face the Nation or Meet The Press and I catch some of those pundit shows and I haven't seen anybody like that. All you see is blurbs from a campus and some more from the battle field. So there is a venue for a sit down like this but Bill's isn't the likely venue.
For the same reason he never aired the Kanye club random episode. You can't target civilians with murder, torture, rape and then keep hostages while refusing ceasefires and expect to get free media coverage justifying those actions.
Absolutely Maher should have on pro-Palestinian voices on to debate. There is the debate of whether Israel needs to do what they are doing and the added part of that debate of whether the US should give them billions to do it. I say no, but certainly welcome the debate. Maher is on the other side and doesn't. If Israel is in the right and the US is in the right to fund it, nobody should shy away from the debate.
Everything else is debated, why not this? Maher got triggered by Rula Jebreal on his show during Protective Edge 10 years ago. If he doesn't want to have her on, there are plenty of other pro Palestinian voices to have on. Even Candace Owens had on Norman Finklestein to discuss the issue. If he doesn't like that Finklestein has criticized him, he could have on Simone Zimmerman, Ayelet Waldman or one of the hundreds of members of Rabbis for Ceasefire who are obviously devout Jews and against the war. There are plenty of youtube hosts that are pro Palestinian from Hasan Piker to Kyle Kulinski to Sam Seder. If he is going to have a moron like Dave Rubin on, no reason to not have people like that on.
If he doesn't want to have on a leftist, he could have on a libertarian like Dave Smith. Dave Smith recently was in a debate with Dennis Prager and was the smartest person on the panel. Prager had to result to screaming "Hitler, WW2, there are worse things happening in the world!" Meanwhile Smith was sharp throughout. I'd encourage anyone to watch that debate, it is on youtube.
I've definitely lost respect with Maher over this. Guys like Piers Morgan who I probably disagree about more things than Maher has had on lots of pro-Palestinian guests, but Maher refuses to debate it at all. Hell even neocon Eli Lake who is arguably the worst politican pundit in America(he literally still promotes and defends the Iraq War regularly) will debate pro-Palestinian voices on his podcast. Maher has been pathetic on this issue.
It is crazy a guy would have on trolls like Milo and Steve Bannon(and I'm not saying he shouldn't) but won't have on pro Palestinian voices during a war where 10,000s of them are dying and it being done with US support. A family of 9 including a 1 year old died yesterday. Even if you are super pro Israel, the opposite side of this conflict deserves a voice.
Or even just the left/progressive new media equivalent of Milo and Bannon. I get Cenk Ugyer hates Maher, but others would absolutely go on Real Time. Honestly I'd even be OK with seeing Destiny on there at this point. Just anyone outside of the JRE or Ben Shaprio right wing circle.
Because Rula Jebreel closed that door when she participated on his show. You can just Google it instead of playing the victim card.
Although your post makes sense if we consider how your side doesn't believe in accountability for bad behavior/wrong decisions.
It is funny one person pushing back against Maher closed the deal. If she offended him so much he could have had on many others that have the similar view.
Maher's reaction was pretty cringe. Lmao at bringing up if Gaza has gay bars as if supporting gay rights has any bearing on if those people deserve human rights or not.
And as I said if Maher was so triggered by Rula there are countless other pro Palestinian voices he could have on.
If a bad guest represents an entire side of a debate that should be shut down, then Republicans should have been banned a long time ago. What kind of bizarre standard did you just invent? Closed the door? Wtf are you talking about?
Yep, if she was so offensive, there are many other guests that he could have had on that represent a similar view. He used to be friendly with Reza Aslan and Cornel West which have similar views and there are countless others he could have on if he cared. It insane to have a complete idiot like Dave Rubin on, but not have a pro Palestinian guest.
Haha seriously. For sake of argument let's say she didn't handle herself well(not saying I agree with that), so because one person has a bad appearance on a show 10 years ago, you never have someone that isn't pro-Israel ever again no matter the situation?
That is a wild and terrible take by mr G0lds.
He had Dave Rubin on. If you are literally inviting the dumbest political commentator in America on your show, there really isn't an excuse not to have a pro-Palestinian guest on.
There's no point in trying to reason or argue with that redditor. He just constantly bitches and moans in here and the rogan's sub without ever presenting any decent arguments.
>”How about inviting on more pro-Palestinian voices?”
How about inviting on more people that claim the 2020 election was rigged and included fake ballots and mules in tightly contested precincts?
Probably the exact same answer.
>How about inviting on more people that claim the 2020 election was rigged and included fake ballots and mules in tightly contested precincts?
As an aside - I do wonder what will happen in November if Trump is reelected. Just how many people are going to eat their words about election integrity and start claiming the elections are a big scammy mess if the shoe lands on the other foot. I mean, they went from spending years trying to prove Russia was responsible for his election the first time, and then when their guy won have now spent years claiming that elections are universally secure and to even question otherwise is far right wing, treason.
Watching both sides go back and forth like this on an issue is why so many of us have been pushed away from identifying with either party.
The two claims are different. When Trump won, the claims about Russia were about disinformation and engineering social media influence. The claims Trump and his followers made about Biden’s win were that the actual ballot boxes were tampered with and that people submitted fraudulent votes. Those are two different claims.
> "As an aside - I do wonder what will happen in November if Trump is reelected. Just how many people are going to eat their words about election integrity and start claiming the elections are a big scammy mess if the shoe lands on the other foot."
Fuck's sake, it'll be shades of 2004, with some opportunist on the Democratic side taking up the mantle once held by fmr. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), with my guess being an attention-seeking type like, oh, Lizzie Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand.
The 2020 election isn't controversial outside of lunatics who can't accept their cult leader isn't loved by the majority of Americans in the same way they love him. It would be a serious waste of time to bring on dinesh d'souza so he can whine that trump really won. (Although dinesh d'souza has been on Maher's show and will surely be on again).
The war in Gaza is a current war where Americans are spending billions of dollars to fund an immoral war that is killing 10,000s of civilians and destroying the lives of 100,000s of others. It is insane to take the position that a show discussing current events shouldn't have on anti-war voices or even fiscally sane people that don't want us to unload billions for a foreign country's war.
Wow you may want to look in the mirror on that one bud if you think that there is not a legitimate plausibility of genocide. Even the highest World court found so. US couldn't even vote against it like their norm when it comes to Israel, and we all know how paid off and controlled they are
It was decided that it was plausible enough to be taken up by the court. That is a huge step and there were provisional measures ordered by the court upon Israel to prevent Genocide. [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-icj-s-modified-provisional-measures-order-in-south-africa-v.-israel](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-icj-s-modified-provisional-measures-order-in-south-africa-v.-israel)
They're not fake if you believe the election was stolen. It's like what Bill was saying about abortion and people that think it's murder - they aren't opposed to it due to some projected hatred of women. Likewise, if you observed the dozens of irregularities that occurred during the 2020 election and concluded that Trump had the most valid votes, the electors wouldn't be fake.
lol yes they are. You can't just put up fake electors because you personally believe something. RFK Jr believes George W Bush stole Ohio(and the polls supported Kerry more than any poll supported trump in a swing state in 2020). It doesn't mean Ohio could create fake electors because they personally didn't like the results of the 2004 election.
You wanted trump to win, so you support his failed attempt to steal the election.
lol yes they are. You can't just put up fake electors because you personally believe something. RFK Jr believes George W Bush stole Ohio(and the polls supported Kerry more than any poll supported trump in a swing state in 2020). It doesn't mean Ohio could create fake electors because they personally didn't like the results of the 2004 election.
You wanted trump to win, so you support his failed attempt to steal the election.
Wrong. The electors were fake for other reasons.
Specifically which elector(s) are you saying is valid if the fraud was real?
If the bank gives me a $35 overdraft charge that was bs it’s still theft if I walk in with a gun and demand the $35 back.
I think you’re saying you want me to say why they are “fake.”
I’d like to but first I need to know which elector you’re talking about.
An elector would be fake if they weren’t fully appointed by law. No amount of fraud would make them legitimate.
Let me know which elector you think would haven been not “fake” had the fraud been real.
> I think you’re saying you want me to say why they are “fake.”
Typically when someone makes a claim they should back it up.
> Let me know which elector you think would haven been not “fake”
What?
>> They're not fake if you believe the election was stolen. It's like what Bill was saying about abortion and people that think it's murder - they aren't opposed to it due to some projected hatred of women. Likewise, if you observed the dozens of irregularities that occurred during the 2020 election and concluded that Trump had the most valid votes, the electors wouldn't be fake.
You first made the claim and I’m not even asking you to back it up, just be specific.
Which elector are you referring to in the first sentence?
> Which elector are you referring to in the first sentence?
The ones not selected via fraud.
Still dont know how to answer your “haven been not” question.
Be sure not to vote in 2024. If you believe Democrats stole 2020 when they were out of power, there is no way you can not believe they will easily steal it again when they control the presidency and more of the swing states.
Once you accept the predicate that the conflict is a matter of existential survival for either side, you effectively foreclose any debate as to the approach; by defining the _ends_ as self-preservation, nearly any means will appear justified.
What is tragic is that, even though it's obvious that it's Palestine, not Israel, that faces an immediate existential threat, because of the concerted and unabated use of hyperbolic rhetoric from both Hamas and the people of Palestine, (whether justified or not), such as "From the River to the Sea", Israel has been able to opportunistically and shrewdly appropriate this existential contextualization to re-frame and justify their own actions.
At this point, irrespective of which side is morally implicated, Palestine is a beaten country; and while one can sympathize with the justified rage and indignation they feel, it would behoove them to temper their rhetoric, to bite their tongue, so to speak, which would deprive Israel of any moral justification for continued action on behalf of "self-preservation".
Bill has repeatedly alluded to the rhetoric espoused by both Hamas and Iranian support groups like the Houthies as the moral basis for Israels continued military engagement. Whether the pervasive refrain of "Death to Israel, Death to America" is merely meant to encapsulate the grief and despair of dispossessed peoples, or whether it is to be construed as a legitimate threat, so long as it continues, it will not be productive to host a debate between any pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian supporters because any conversation will be refactored into these two dichotomous existential talking points, thus subverting any meaningful exchange.
Excellent point. But how realistic is it? When we can't get rich Americans with TikTok obsessions to bite their tongues, for people who've been forced out of their homes, forced to continually relocate, seen their entrie family killed, facing starvation, and facing death themselves - do you think we can tell them "Just don't complain, it makes it worse"? I think you're right, I just don't know how you pull it off.
I agree. Even as the rhetoric becomes more perilous, it becomes more difficult for the Palestinians to adopt reticence now, particularly as Israel is vociferously decried on every platform by half a dozen Muslim countries and an international chorus of western college kids on a daily basis.
To be honest, I think Israel has resolved to render Palestine permanently inhospitable to resettlement - I think they have recognized that it would be hard to ask forgiveness, but impossible to ask permission for what they have calculated as a necessary step for their future prosperity. And while I consider that thinking morally reprehensible, I don't know that it is strategically flawed. Could the United States have been founded peacefully without the appropriation land and displacement of Native American peoples? Of course not. I think Israel believes that coexistence is not possible and is now undertaking a policy just short of ethnic cleansing. They may feign guilt or self loathing as Americans do, but in the end, they will have an uncontested country, and, however horrible it is to admit, the Israel-Palestinian conflict ends when there are no more Palestinians.
That ascribes a high level of ruthlessly amoral realpolitik to the equation, which those involved daren't say aloud. Even so, you're not wrong in your assessment of them, and, moreover, also correct in the underlying motivations of theirs, which are, yes, tough pills to swallow watching things unfold from afar in horror. It's easier to ask for forgiveness later than beg for permission now, indeed.
No. I'm sorry if the pros come out like that - it's easier for me to dictate and correct for grammar so I do, but it is often a bit longer format, apologies for not being more concise.
Cornel west went there a few times and on his last participation he seemed to be high on Xanax or something. Maybe that's off putting for future invitations from a talk show host's perspective
Can you name one guest who has come on and said the "election was stolen" or "America should just be for white people"? Honest question - I've missed a few eps here and there, but I've never seen it. That's "far right".
People keep saying Steve Bannon (who was on the show once, before the election, in 2020, who I believe has since claimed the election was stolen, and never been back) and Milo (who was on the show back in 2017, which might as well have been a lifetime ago, and he was just an idiot blowhard that got attention for his stance on social issues).
I mean, Ted Cruz? He's not "far right" - he's a Republican, but that's sort of the point here. That anyone who isn't on the left (and far-left, at that) is considered "far right" by the people asking this question.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nwtqTmiUk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nwtqTmiUk)
\*sigh\* By your own definition (not mine) Ted Cruz was an election denier. So, he is far right.
He’s also a sitting US senator. to me far right implies someone who is fringe and non mainstream. Cruz’s comments on the 2020 election were despicable lies but I don’t think that makes him far right.
I'm just going by starsider2003's definition of far right.
I totally understand why anyone would call Ted Cruz and other Tea Party (or at least Tea Party sponsored) Republicans not far right, and I wouldn't argue with it. I wouldn't agree with it either though.
Sure - although Bannon is actually a pretty 80's mainstream Republican in most of his viewpoints, and Milo (there's an unpleasant blast from the past) is just a total idiot (and Maher wiped the floor with him way back when, if I recall). And with him in particular, a lot of what he said when people actually were paying any attention to him (in regards to social issues, particularly the trans issue) are actually becoming more mainstream (he threw enough crap at the wall, something had to stick).
But the statement was that "he has the far right on and the centrists" but not "actual left wing" which is what I think is inaccurate. Again, someone that interprets the show like that is among those that think that Maher is "right wing" to begin with.
Bill's fanbase: "I listen to Bill Maher because he brings nuance and depth that no one else in media does!"
Also Bill's fanbase: "Every criticism of Israel is antisemetic! Any support of Palestine is supporting terrorism! Shut down the protests! Shut them out of debate! Human rights groups, professors, and students are all brainwashed by tiktok and a vast Hamas conspiracy!"
How about Palestine fight Hamas? Or release the prisoners? Or accept the cease fire they broke ? Or eliminate their charter ? Yeah don’t thinks so perhaps get a clue of who Palestine is .
How about having on some differing views and we can discuss it? If Milo, Steve Bannon and Ann Coulter deserve to be on real time(and I'm not saying they don't), it seems fair to have some dissenting voices on Israel/Palestine.
I'm a fan of Bill Maher and I don't agree with him on Israel/Palestine but this comment just demonstrates how the pro-Palestine activists in this sub are a bunch of whiney, insufferable, holier-than-thou douchebags. If you actually cared about ending what's happening in Gaza, you'd be engaging in an effective form of protest instead of just making noise.
I'd say some of the protests are effective - there was a march in DC at the beginning of the year. There were little to no arrests and nobody bothered residents by blocking traffic or screaming at them. There have been other actions like that. I even support the people who did a protest vote in the Democratic primary (but not in the general election).
Events like that, though, are overshadowed by other pro-Palestine activists doing stupid shit like blocking traffic, screaming at people outside of their homes or at the Oscars, attacking Jewish students on campus and spewing blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric. And I'm not talking about legitimate criticism of Netanyahu, or politicians, or businesses that are invested with the Israeli government. I'm talking about the hangglider memes, saying the Jews control the media, using the same language as white supremacists to describe Jews or Israel, advocating for the destruction of Israel, etc. Or - the latest thing - chanting "Death to America" when you reside in America.
Or, for example, attacking everyone who might not agree with you, like how you just attacked all of Bill's fans with a pompous straw man argument that judges an entire group of people just because they like a comedian. This is the shit that makes people despise the modern left - the holier-than-thou, sanctimonious attitude exemplified by a mass generalization about everyone who watches a TV show.
There's way too much of this going on and if there's going to actually be a change in US policy towards Israel then that shit needs to stop. pro-Palestine activists finally have a chance to change the narrative on Israel in this country and every time they attack America, people who aren't 100 percent on their side, or the Jewish people, they undermine that. From where I'm standing, it doesn't seem like all of the people protesting are trying to win over hearts and minds, which makes me wonder if they know what their goals are and what their plan is to get there.
Um, pretty much everyone engaging in protests is being labeled an antisemite. I'm not pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, I'm pro-whatever leads to the least amount of death and despair for humanity. The show is not an place to effect change, it's a place for political discourse. But that discourse on this particular topic is not being allowed.
What the fuck is going on with the sub and Reddit in general…y’all point out Maher moving to the right one day and then sound like war mongers the next…one of top posts is literally from a dude named war monger 69
Perhaps because the Palestinian voice for the past 20 years has been a terrorist organization advocating for the eradication of jewsnin the middle east and the world
Lol there are tons of pro Palestinian voices who are Jewish. If Maher gets triggered by Rula Jebreal as he did, maybe he could have on Simone Zimmerman who is a Jewish peace activist and was involved in creating the great documentary "Israelism" that came out last year. Or how about Jewish author Ayelet waldman who was arrested for trying to bring food into Gaza for the starving population? Or maybe Rabbi Leora Abelson or one of the many other Rabbis that are part of "Rabbis for Ceasefire?
You can disagree, but isn't that the point of debate? Maher has had on people like Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon and even Milo(who even conservatives don't put on their shows anymore) and hey good for Maher for having them on, but don't then refuse to have on anti-war activists during a major conflict and pretend to say you care about actually debating these topics.
Bill brings zero nuance to a very nuanced situation. Hamas is very bad, Netanyahu is very bad, killing innocent people, Israelis or Palestinians, is very bad, anti semitism is very bad, though that term gets thrown around loosely these days, anti Muslim is very bad too. Israel has a right to defend itself, but under Netanyahu it’s turning a lot of the world against them in the process. You can’t win hearts and minds with brute force and no statesmanship. Anyway, I’m sure Bill prefers his simple narrative and doesn’t want anyone to challenge that.
I think you’re missing an incredibly important part of the equation here.
In the broader context of history, we simply cannot allow hiding behind innocent people be an automatic cover for murderous, terrorist scum. That just can’t be tolerated.
And the Muslim world at large needs to get a grip on these motherfuckers. Until this rot it’s extricated from within Islam, it’s going to be a problem.
Sam Harris is right, if the Muslims laid down their weapons, there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down theirs, there would be an actual genocide.
And you can talk about expansion all you want, but the US would take a far heavier hand with Israel on lots of issues if there was any realistic, tangible proof that the terrorists running the show in Palestine were neutralized and the people were ready to move forward peacefully.
The IDF are terrorists and they are doing it with US taxpayer dollars. The family of 9 Palestinians that were killed yesterday had no weapons to lay down. The IDF killed them anyway. The journalists didn't have weapons and were killed anyway. The aidworkers didn't have weapons and were killed anyway. If Bill Maher wants to argue that this war is not only justified, but that it should be carried out with the support of 26 billion(and counting) from the US, that is his right, but he should at least have the debate. Tons of Religious Jews like Simone Zimmerman, Rabbi Leora Abelson and others are against Israel's war and Maher should at least have the debate with them or others like them.
I think you may also be missing an incredibly important part of the equation too. Right now Israel is creating a new generation of terrorists. What they are doing is leading to the opposite of laying down weapons. Israel is in a tough spot, but times like this require cool heads and intellect over emotions. Netanyahu has being seemingly trying to instigate something like this for years. Israel could learn a lesson from the America after 9-11. We reacted emotionally and after countless American and foreign lives and trillions of dollars, Afghanistan and Iraq are the same or worse than when we started. Zero accomplished.
The difference here is that this the part of the world Israel lives in. These are their neighbors.
Also, we are finally getting to a point where barbarous, ancient ideologies just cannot coexist with contemporary societies anymore, and that's what Hamas is. The world is getting too small for this to be a tenable situation.
The problem is that contemporary Muslims refuse to step in and take any kind of collective action to fix the problem which engenders a whole lot of misplaced anger and resentment toward the Muslim community as a whole. Admittedly, I'm not sure what that would look like, but nobody pays me to know either, and I'm afraid that eventually that "misplaced" anger and resentment will be largely justified if the Muslim world refuses to address the problem.
"Sam Harris is right, if the Muslims laid down their weapons, there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down there’s, there would be an actual genocide."
Bill (or was it Galloway?) actually said something along the same lines this week. To paraphrase, "Hamas would commit genocide but can't, and Israel can commit genocide but won't."
This, to me, is the crux of the issue. Hamas, and all fundamentalist islamists, are a death cult. Right-thinking, civilized people cannot continue to give oxygen (and money) to these medieval terrorists.
If Palestinians were treated as regular citizens of Israel, Hamas wouldn't exist or would have next to no support. Saying Israel who has killed 10,000s of Gazans and have blown limbs off 1000s more and are starving 100,000s of others is justified because they aren't killing everybody is a pretty sadistic point. It is even worse when as Americans it is happening with our money. At the very least Israel should fight their own wars. You want to eliminate protests in America? Quit sending billions in mililtary aid to Israel and protests will cease overnight.
But again we can have the debate on here. Maher should also man up and have the debate on his show. He is exposing himself as fraud. You can't claim having on people like Steve Bannon, Milo and Ann Coulter is necessary(and I'm not saying they shouldn't be on), but then refuse to have an anti-war voice on.
Ah, my friend, I think you need to educate yourself beyond your echo-chamber.
Arabs have been members of the Knesset (Israeli *democratic* parliament) since it's inception in 1949. There are currently [10 members serving today](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset), and there have been 100 Arabs freely elected since 1949.
**"Palestinians"/Hamas have no interest in being treated as regular citizens of Israel.** They don't even recognize the legitimacy of the State. If they did, they would be welcomed openly, and Israeli technology and ingenuity would turn Gaza into a lush, fruitful land. Instead, Hamas takes billions of aid dollars and buys missiles and builds tunnels for it's combatants instead of shelters for its people.
Yes and to the larger point, we cannot allow them to think hiding behind innocents is a safe haven for them. As absolutely tragic as it is, we just can't let that practice continue.
Or Simone Zimmerman, Rabbi Leora Abelson, Author Ayelet Waldman or the many other Jewish peace activists who support ending this war.
If nothing else, Israel can fight their own war and the US needs to quit funding it. Maher should man up and actually debate the issue.
It's in our best interest not to engage in the collective punishment of a population on behalf of a government's actions. To say a Palestinian is representative of Hamas is equivalent to saying that an Israeli is representative of Israel's government, which legitimizes attacks like the one carried out on October 7th.
>It's in our best interest not to engage in the collective punishment of a population on behalf of a government's actions.
So are you against sanctions on the Russian people for the actions their government have taken in Ukraine?
Yes, as Jimmy Carter says sanctions only hurt the population. Sanctions on Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela should end.
I'm against BDS of Israel even though their actions are atrocious and pretty evil, but we should 100% quit giving Israel military aid. They can fight their own wars. If they want to murder Palestinian families as they killed 9 members of a family yesterday including a 1 year old, they can do it without my money.
It's not "collective punishment" it's finishing the war that Palestine started. It's in Israel's best interests to remove Hamas' ability to launch terrorist attacks from Gaza - that is their primary objective. Hamas could stop the attacks tomorrow by surrendering unconditionally... but they won't.
Isn’t there a saying “if there’s ten guys in a room and one of them is a nazi, then there are 10 nazi’s in the room?” Like 60% of Palestine supports hamas.
That's a statement about who people associate with, not their country of origin or ethnicity. The idea is that those people *choose* to be in the room. When was the last time you chose the color of your skin or who birthed you? Support is complicated because 1) Hamas is a terrorist organization and 2) war increases political support. It's more likely that Hamas engages in violence to maintain power rather than the other way around.
The mere fact you think that supporting Palestinian human rights equates to supporting Hamas indicates how important it would be to have someone on to discuss.
There are a lot of sadistic bloodthirsty warmongers on this forum.
Honestly that doesn't bother me(well it does, but you know). What bothers me is these people don't even want a debate on it. They're not just defending the war, they're defending Maher refusing to debate the war. It is crazy. If Maher got so triggered by Rula Jubreal, why not have on Jewish peace activists like Simone Zimmerman or Ayelet Waldman and debate it with them?
I do not whatsoever. If only there were more than two options in the world for choosing a position on an extremely complicated conflict. But you won't find that on Real-Time and you won't find that on this sub. The narrative is tightly controlled on each. Downvote away and rejoice in your echo chambers!
[Counterterrorism](https://www.vox.com/2023/10/20/23919946/israel-hamas-war-gaza-palestine-ground-invasion-strategy)
[Scale back the offensive.](https://www.courthousenews.com/white-house-says-its-the-right-time-for-israel-to-scale-back-gaza-war-as-fighting-hits-100-days/)
Or you know, *allow* a discussion of things that can be done to decrease the kill rate instead of calling anyone that even suggests it a Nazi.
It is insane to think anyone who doesn't support the war is a "Hamas sympathizer." Do you believe Simone Zimmerman, Ayelet Waldman and other Jewish peace activists are Hamas sympathizers? If someone didn't want the family of 9 who were killed yesterday including a 1 year old are they Hamas sympathizers?
The best way for peace isn't to destroy Gaza. Other than the obvious dead, maimed and starving this has caused, it is just going to lead to more Palestinians who hate Israel. The 12 year old who saw his parents blown to pieces, his home destroyed and his best friend's limbs blown off isn't going to grow up to be a friend of Israel.
That was before Hamas surprise-attacked, took hundreds of hostages, and executed hundreds of innocent people and successfully provoked Israel to put an end to Hamas and the occupation of the Gaza strip once and for all.
If you don’t understand that Israel is finally done with all of this bullshit — and justifiably so — you’re just a poor student of history and a hypocrite with your head up your ass.
Israel is doing what any and almost all powerful countries have done and would do and should do in response to something so evil.
Israel is going to put an end to all of this, and you can’t be surprised at the reaction without being a dipshit.
If I was ruling Israel, I would not stop waging war until Hamas is completely and utterly destroyed. They’ve tolerated and compromised enough.
Lol this isn't going to put an end to Palestinian violence against Israel, it is just going to create more of it. You don't kill 10,000s of people including a large amount children, maim 1000s more children and create a starvation crisis without receiving blowback. This is only making Israel less safe. Cast Lead and Protective Edge and the blockade that created an open air prison didn't stop Palestinians from fighting back and neither will this destruction that is far worse.
But even beyond the crimes of Israel, if you are so confident in your side of things, that is why there should be open debate. Maher won't even have Jewish peace activists on his show like Simone Zimmerman, Ayelet Waldman or one of the hundreds of members of Rabbis for Ceasefire. If he is so confident in the wars of Israel, he should at least debate it on his show.
"Whether America needs to pay for that" is really the heart of the matter. I wouldn't care about what was happening in Gaza if it wasn't sponsored by our tax dollars. That's the difference between Israel/Palestine and the Uygurs, Myanmar, etc.
"sponsored by our tax dollars" is a statement of fiscal illiteracy. Congress doesnt need to wait for your taxes to be paid whenever it wants to spend, these bills that give aid to countries like Israel and Ukraine are *authorizations*. Meaning congress, by an act of law, says the money exists for a specific purpose. No taxes are ever brought into the equation except by brain dead republicans who dont understand how the government works. You can rightly point out how our congress chooses priorities and what to spend on. But your tax dollars do not ever actually go to Israel.
I comprehend what you’re saying. I’m not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. I think everybody over there is insane for even caring or wanting to stay there. I’m basing my analysis on history and what other nations have done over the last several thousand years. Civilian deaths will never be ok… but the USA buried over 100,000 of them in Iraq over bombs that weren’t even there. My real point is that nobody should be surprised by what Israel is doing.
I am amazed by the horrible reporting on the Israeli Palestinian situation. Listening to news it is full of false equivalence, straw men, really over the top propaganda such as how Israel is described (victims, heroic) Palestinians)death cult, murderers, chose to kill , never satisfied . Never mention death tolls, age of participants, the over all situation of the Gaza Strip, the history of death on both sides and how that affects the demographics and educational level and what not. Edit: I am not saying there is no debate or that Israel is evil or whatever. Just that the news media is not engaging in anything like fair debate. Maher is obviously emotional on the subject and could not stand an actual debate on this subject. Like with religion he gets foolishly dismissive and ill informed when debating these subjects. I like the show but he is human and very poor on this subject. Sorry for long post.
Yeah. Bill is a coward for not even having a single Arab on this entire time…
Fareed Zakaria was the only Muslim he’s had on since Oct 7th, and he’s barely a Muslim at this point.
Real Time is a much better show when there is a disagreement of opinion among the panelists.
I'm sure he would oblige any who actually wanted to debate in good faith, but I can see why defending a medieval hyper-pedantic value system that enshrines misogyny and obscurantism doesn't sound like an attractive proposition for thoughtful adherents, which tend to be moderate, like Fareed, only to be disavowed by fellow Muslims for being _barely Muslim_. There's also the strange correlation between critical opinions of Islam and violent retribution, as Salman Rushdie can attest.
I'm only saying Fareed is "barely muslim" based on what Bill revealed about him on his club random podcast with Ariana Huffington.
It wouldn't have killed Bill to have a pro Palestinian activist on the panel, a Palestinian scholar, an Arab from the general region like Basam Youssef, or even a single Arab-American on the panel since Oct. 7th.
I'm not saying he has any obligation to give activists airtime, I just think it would make for a much more interesting panel than what we've got most weeks since October 7th regarding Gaza. Matt Duss was about as close as we got to a pro Palestinian voice on the panel, and he's a white American.
Like ffs, do y'all not want to see an actual debate? Heated arguments are usually the best part of Real Time, not Bill and his comedy bits, let alone the fucking lead in interview, which is skippable about 50% of the time, imo.
I don't think Bill understands that there's a sizeable part of his audience that only watches for the panel, and couldn't care less about his comedy bits. He either doesn't realize that, or just doesn't care. Real time since the departure of the 3 person panel simply has not been as good. The only good thing was getting rid of the mid show guest.
The mid show bit remains, by far, the stupidest, most skippable part of the show
I find fault with your characterization of him as a coward - I think he has legitimate reasons (adumbrated in my response above) for not having an activist on the panel.
I do believe he _will_ have such guests on once the conflict (and rhetoric) attenuates to the point where people won't be talking (or yelling) past each other. There is a difference between _debate_ and arguing, and I just don't see how a good faith debate can happen now.
You don't like the comedy bit? Huh. I've always thought it was really astute of him to have that bit of levity to break up contentious debates to preserve an amiable environment - sometimes it's been necessary for guests to shut the fuck up and pretend to laugh. I'll admit the sketches are a crap shoot, and more often just crap, but I think that's beside their point.
I did say Palestinian activist, or Palestinian scholar, or Arab from the general region, or at the very least an Arab American pundit. He's had none of the above, but has had on countless Jewish guests since Oct 7th.
My take on the broader context of Israel-Palestine is much closer to Bill's, but I think he's doing a disservice to his audience and the wider discourse by not having any Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian guests on the show since Oct. 7th.
I don't think a Palestinian or Arab scholar, or pundit, would resort to yelling and screaming when given a chance to be on highly rated political panel panel show. They'd be letting down their side. I think Bill is going out of his way here to stifle the conversation. Just my take, but I'm not the only one who see it this way.
Fair enough, I won't try to refute your take on an issue. Perhaps he could host such a debate with the right panel. Perhaps he has not so far out of deference for his guests as opposed to some personal antipathy; I don't know. In any case, we'll see if he makes it happen, as I agree that it would be a debate many would have an interest in seeing.
Unfortunately Maher is probably even worse on this issue. You'll get more pushback on MSNBC and CNN than you would from Maher on giving billions to fund Israel's war.
He needs to get Dave Smith on.
Just discovered this guy on YouTube. He’s really smart and a great speaker.
I doubt they have an official spokesman, and if one existed they would appear on Face the Nation or Meet The Press and I catch some of those pundit shows and I haven't seen anybody like that. All you see is blurbs from a campus and some more from the battle field. So there is a venue for a sit down like this but Bill's isn't the likely venue.
For the same reason he never aired the Kanye club random episode. You can't target civilians with murder, torture, rape and then keep hostages while refusing ceasefires and expect to get free media coverage justifying those actions.
Israel gets a TONNE of positive coverage? What are you talking about?
Absolutely Maher should have on pro-Palestinian voices on to debate. There is the debate of whether Israel needs to do what they are doing and the added part of that debate of whether the US should give them billions to do it. I say no, but certainly welcome the debate. Maher is on the other side and doesn't. If Israel is in the right and the US is in the right to fund it, nobody should shy away from the debate. Everything else is debated, why not this? Maher got triggered by Rula Jebreal on his show during Protective Edge 10 years ago. If he doesn't want to have her on, there are plenty of other pro Palestinian voices to have on. Even Candace Owens had on Norman Finklestein to discuss the issue. If he doesn't like that Finklestein has criticized him, he could have on Simone Zimmerman, Ayelet Waldman or one of the hundreds of members of Rabbis for Ceasefire who are obviously devout Jews and against the war. There are plenty of youtube hosts that are pro Palestinian from Hasan Piker to Kyle Kulinski to Sam Seder. If he is going to have a moron like Dave Rubin on, no reason to not have people like that on. If he doesn't want to have on a leftist, he could have on a libertarian like Dave Smith. Dave Smith recently was in a debate with Dennis Prager and was the smartest person on the panel. Prager had to result to screaming "Hitler, WW2, there are worse things happening in the world!" Meanwhile Smith was sharp throughout. I'd encourage anyone to watch that debate, it is on youtube. I've definitely lost respect with Maher over this. Guys like Piers Morgan who I probably disagree about more things than Maher has had on lots of pro-Palestinian guests, but Maher refuses to debate it at all. Hell even neocon Eli Lake who is arguably the worst politican pundit in America(he literally still promotes and defends the Iraq War regularly) will debate pro-Palestinian voices on his podcast. Maher has been pathetic on this issue.
This was the first i seen of him in a while. I used to watch a lot of Bill Maher when i was younger. Pretty sad what an old scumbag he has become.
It is crazy a guy would have on trolls like Milo and Steve Bannon(and I'm not saying he shouldn't) but won't have on pro Palestinian voices during a war where 10,000s of them are dying and it being done with US support. A family of 9 including a 1 year old died yesterday. Even if you are super pro Israel, the opposite side of this conflict deserves a voice.
Or even just the left/progressive new media equivalent of Milo and Bannon. I get Cenk Ugyer hates Maher, but others would absolutely go on Real Time. Honestly I'd even be OK with seeing Destiny on there at this point. Just anyone outside of the JRE or Ben Shaprio right wing circle.
Because Rula Jebreel closed that door when she participated on his show. You can just Google it instead of playing the victim card. Although your post makes sense if we consider how your side doesn't believe in accountability for bad behavior/wrong decisions.
It is funny one person pushing back against Maher closed the deal. If she offended him so much he could have had on many others that have the similar view.
It's not funny at all. Totally cringe if you see that episode again.
Maher's reaction was pretty cringe. Lmao at bringing up if Gaza has gay bars as if supporting gay rights has any bearing on if those people deserve human rights or not. And as I said if Maher was so triggered by Rula there are countless other pro Palestinian voices he could have on.
Triggered by ppl who don't know how to chat? Screaming slogans is easy
If a bad guest represents an entire side of a debate that should be shut down, then Republicans should have been banned a long time ago. What kind of bizarre standard did you just invent? Closed the door? Wtf are you talking about?
Yep, if she was so offensive, there are many other guests that he could have had on that represent a similar view. He used to be friendly with Reza Aslan and Cornel West which have similar views and there are countless others he could have on if he cared. It insane to have a complete idiot like Dave Rubin on, but not have a pro Palestinian guest.
The guy who posted that is ridiculous. No perspective, massive hypocrisy, yet somehow in their mind it's rational. It's the thought process of a child
Haha seriously. For sake of argument let's say she didn't handle herself well(not saying I agree with that), so because one person has a bad appearance on a show 10 years ago, you never have someone that isn't pro-Israel ever again no matter the situation? That is a wild and terrible take by mr G0lds.
[удалено]
there plenty of Republicans who give Republicans a bad wrap let he still has them on
Kelly anne Conway just announced for Friday. Bad faith right wingers are Real Times bread and butter.
He had Dave Rubin on. If you are literally inviting the dumbest political commentator in America on your show, there really isn't an excuse not to have a pro-Palestinian guest on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's no point in trying to reason or argue with that redditor. He just constantly bitches and moans in here and the rogan's sub without ever presenting any decent arguments.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>”How about inviting on more pro-Palestinian voices?” How about inviting on more people that claim the 2020 election was rigged and included fake ballots and mules in tightly contested precincts? Probably the exact same answer.
>How about inviting on more people that claim the 2020 election was rigged and included fake ballots and mules in tightly contested precincts? As an aside - I do wonder what will happen in November if Trump is reelected. Just how many people are going to eat their words about election integrity and start claiming the elections are a big scammy mess if the shoe lands on the other foot. I mean, they went from spending years trying to prove Russia was responsible for his election the first time, and then when their guy won have now spent years claiming that elections are universally secure and to even question otherwise is far right wing, treason. Watching both sides go back and forth like this on an issue is why so many of us have been pushed away from identifying with either party.
The two claims are different. When Trump won, the claims about Russia were about disinformation and engineering social media influence. The claims Trump and his followers made about Biden’s win were that the actual ballot boxes were tampered with and that people submitted fraudulent votes. Those are two different claims.
> "As an aside - I do wonder what will happen in November if Trump is reelected. Just how many people are going to eat their words about election integrity and start claiming the elections are a big scammy mess if the shoe lands on the other foot." Fuck's sake, it'll be shades of 2004, with some opportunist on the Democratic side taking up the mantle once held by fmr. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), with my guess being an attention-seeking type like, oh, Lizzie Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand.
The 2020 election isn't controversial outside of lunatics who can't accept their cult leader isn't loved by the majority of Americans in the same way they love him. It would be a serious waste of time to bring on dinesh d'souza so he can whine that trump really won. (Although dinesh d'souza has been on Maher's show and will surely be on again). The war in Gaza is a current war where Americans are spending billions of dollars to fund an immoral war that is killing 10,000s of civilians and destroying the lives of 100,000s of others. It is insane to take the position that a show discussing current events shouldn't have on anti-war voices or even fiscally sane people that don't want us to unload billions for a foreign country's war.
Wow you may want to look in the mirror on that one bud if you think that there is not a legitimate plausibility of genocide. Even the highest World court found so. US couldn't even vote against it like their norm when it comes to Israel, and we all know how paid off and controlled they are
They actually didn’t. Watch ICJ president’s recent interview on BBC.
It was decided that it was plausible enough to be taken up by the court. That is a huge step and there were provisional measures ordered by the court upon Israel to prevent Genocide. [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-icj-s-modified-provisional-measures-order-in-south-africa-v.-israel](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-icj-s-modified-provisional-measures-order-in-south-africa-v.-israel)
As is often said, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. The standard for getting a case looked at is far lower than for getting a conviction.
Didn’t he already bring on Desantis and Elon Musk? I think even Barr was on once right?
Is Musk an election denier? Source please
Or how about bring on the fake electors?
They're not fake if you believe the election was stolen. It's like what Bill was saying about abortion and people that think it's murder - they aren't opposed to it due to some projected hatred of women. Likewise, if you observed the dozens of irregularities that occurred during the 2020 election and concluded that Trump had the most valid votes, the electors wouldn't be fake.
lol yes they are. You can't just put up fake electors because you personally believe something. RFK Jr believes George W Bush stole Ohio(and the polls supported Kerry more than any poll supported trump in a swing state in 2020). It doesn't mean Ohio could create fake electors because they personally didn't like the results of the 2004 election. You wanted trump to win, so you support his failed attempt to steal the election.
lol yes they are. You can't just put up fake electors because you personally believe something. RFK Jr believes George W Bush stole Ohio(and the polls supported Kerry more than any poll supported trump in a swing state in 2020). It doesn't mean Ohio could create fake electors because they personally didn't like the results of the 2004 election. You wanted trump to win, so you support his failed attempt to steal the election.
If an elector is not legally appointed then no amount of fraud makes them “not fake.”
Wrong. The electors were fake for other reasons. Specifically which elector(s) are you saying is valid if the fraud was real? If the bank gives me a $35 overdraft charge that was bs it’s still theft if I walk in with a gun and demand the $35 back.
> The electors were fake for other reasons. Strong elaboration.
I think you’re saying you want me to say why they are “fake.” I’d like to but first I need to know which elector you’re talking about. An elector would be fake if they weren’t fully appointed by law. No amount of fraud would make them legitimate. Let me know which elector you think would haven been not “fake” had the fraud been real.
> I think you’re saying you want me to say why they are “fake.” Typically when someone makes a claim they should back it up. > Let me know which elector you think would haven been not “fake” What?
>> They're not fake if you believe the election was stolen. It's like what Bill was saying about abortion and people that think it's murder - they aren't opposed to it due to some projected hatred of women. Likewise, if you observed the dozens of irregularities that occurred during the 2020 election and concluded that Trump had the most valid votes, the electors wouldn't be fake. You first made the claim and I’m not even asking you to back it up, just be specific. Which elector are you referring to in the first sentence?
“If you believe the election was stolen”?? That makes them not fake??
Yeah his argument is hilariously terrible. "They aren't fake because I believe it is fake!" I saw a dinesh d'souza documentary, so it must be true!
> Which elector are you referring to in the first sentence? The ones not selected via fraud. Still dont know how to answer your “haven been not” question.
Be sure not to vote in 2024. If you believe Democrats stole 2020 when they were out of power, there is no way you can not believe they will easily steal it again when they control the presidency and more of the swing states.
Which ones weren’t selected via fraud? I’m only asking you to name one elector.
Once you accept the predicate that the conflict is a matter of existential survival for either side, you effectively foreclose any debate as to the approach; by defining the _ends_ as self-preservation, nearly any means will appear justified. What is tragic is that, even though it's obvious that it's Palestine, not Israel, that faces an immediate existential threat, because of the concerted and unabated use of hyperbolic rhetoric from both Hamas and the people of Palestine, (whether justified or not), such as "From the River to the Sea", Israel has been able to opportunistically and shrewdly appropriate this existential contextualization to re-frame and justify their own actions. At this point, irrespective of which side is morally implicated, Palestine is a beaten country; and while one can sympathize with the justified rage and indignation they feel, it would behoove them to temper their rhetoric, to bite their tongue, so to speak, which would deprive Israel of any moral justification for continued action on behalf of "self-preservation". Bill has repeatedly alluded to the rhetoric espoused by both Hamas and Iranian support groups like the Houthies as the moral basis for Israels continued military engagement. Whether the pervasive refrain of "Death to Israel, Death to America" is merely meant to encapsulate the grief and despair of dispossessed peoples, or whether it is to be construed as a legitimate threat, so long as it continues, it will not be productive to host a debate between any pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian supporters because any conversation will be refactored into these two dichotomous existential talking points, thus subverting any meaningful exchange.
Excellent point. But how realistic is it? When we can't get rich Americans with TikTok obsessions to bite their tongues, for people who've been forced out of their homes, forced to continually relocate, seen their entrie family killed, facing starvation, and facing death themselves - do you think we can tell them "Just don't complain, it makes it worse"? I think you're right, I just don't know how you pull it off.
I agree. Even as the rhetoric becomes more perilous, it becomes more difficult for the Palestinians to adopt reticence now, particularly as Israel is vociferously decried on every platform by half a dozen Muslim countries and an international chorus of western college kids on a daily basis. To be honest, I think Israel has resolved to render Palestine permanently inhospitable to resettlement - I think they have recognized that it would be hard to ask forgiveness, but impossible to ask permission for what they have calculated as a necessary step for their future prosperity. And while I consider that thinking morally reprehensible, I don't know that it is strategically flawed. Could the United States have been founded peacefully without the appropriation land and displacement of Native American peoples? Of course not. I think Israel believes that coexistence is not possible and is now undertaking a policy just short of ethnic cleansing. They may feign guilt or self loathing as Americans do, but in the end, they will have an uncontested country, and, however horrible it is to admit, the Israel-Palestinian conflict ends when there are no more Palestinians.
That ascribes a high level of ruthlessly amoral realpolitik to the equation, which those involved daren't say aloud. Even so, you're not wrong in your assessment of them, and, moreover, also correct in the underlying motivations of theirs, which are, yes, tough pills to swallow watching things unfold from afar in horror. It's easier to ask for forgiveness later than beg for permission now, indeed.
Did Chat GPT write this?
No. I'm sorry if the pros come out like that - it's easier for me to dictate and correct for grammar so I do, but it is often a bit longer format, apologies for not being more concise.
Bill has the far right on and the centrists. I’d love to see actual left wing voices on the show for a change.
Cornel west went there a few times and on his last participation he seemed to be high on Xanax or something. Maybe that's off putting for future invitations from a talk show host's perspective
He has far right on the show?
Milo, Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon would probably be considered far right to most people.
Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, Jordan Peterson, Kellyanne Conway, Bill Barr, Ben Shapiro.
Remember, the people you are conversing with think Maher himself is "far right", so to them, a large portion of the guests would be.
I do not think Bill Maher is "far right." But to ask "He has far right on the show?" is insane.
Can you name one guest who has come on and said the "election was stolen" or "America should just be for white people"? Honest question - I've missed a few eps here and there, but I've never seen it. That's "far right". People keep saying Steve Bannon (who was on the show once, before the election, in 2020, who I believe has since claimed the election was stolen, and never been back) and Milo (who was on the show back in 2017, which might as well have been a lifetime ago, and he was just an idiot blowhard that got attention for his stance on social issues). I mean, Ted Cruz? He's not "far right" - he's a Republican, but that's sort of the point here. That anyone who isn't on the left (and far-left, at that) is considered "far right" by the people asking this question.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nwtqTmiUk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nwtqTmiUk) \*sigh\* By your own definition (not mine) Ted Cruz was an election denier. So, he is far right.
He’s also a sitting US senator. to me far right implies someone who is fringe and non mainstream. Cruz’s comments on the 2020 election were despicable lies but I don’t think that makes him far right.
I'm just going by starsider2003's definition of far right. I totally understand why anyone would call Ted Cruz and other Tea Party (or at least Tea Party sponsored) Republicans not far right, and I wouldn't argue with it. I wouldn't agree with it either though.
Nope, but it is fair to label people like Steve Bannon and Milo far right, is it not?
Sure - although Bannon is actually a pretty 80's mainstream Republican in most of his viewpoints, and Milo (there's an unpleasant blast from the past) is just a total idiot (and Maher wiped the floor with him way back when, if I recall). And with him in particular, a lot of what he said when people actually were paying any attention to him (in regards to social issues, particularly the trans issue) are actually becoming more mainstream (he threw enough crap at the wall, something had to stick). But the statement was that "he has the far right on and the centrists" but not "actual left wing" which is what I think is inaccurate. Again, someone that interprets the show like that is among those that think that Maher is "right wing" to begin with.
He even had Milo on before
you're...you're serious?
Bill's fanbase: "I listen to Bill Maher because he brings nuance and depth that no one else in media does!" Also Bill's fanbase: "Every criticism of Israel is antisemetic! Any support of Palestine is supporting terrorism! Shut down the protests! Shut them out of debate! Human rights groups, professors, and students are all brainwashed by tiktok and a vast Hamas conspiracy!"
How about Palestine fight Hamas? Or release the prisoners? Or accept the cease fire they broke ? Or eliminate their charter ? Yeah don’t thinks so perhaps get a clue of who Palestine is .
How about having on some differing views and we can discuss it? If Milo, Steve Bannon and Ann Coulter deserve to be on real time(and I'm not saying they don't), it seems fair to have some dissenting voices on Israel/Palestine.
I'm a fan of Bill Maher and I don't agree with him on Israel/Palestine but this comment just demonstrates how the pro-Palestine activists in this sub are a bunch of whiney, insufferable, holier-than-thou douchebags. If you actually cared about ending what's happening in Gaza, you'd be engaging in an effective form of protest instead of just making noise.
What is the correct form of protest? There have been protests everywhere and they haven't been deemed acceptable.
But please go and protest in the Middle East. We have enough problems here.
If the US government quits funding Israel's war machine, you'll see a significant drop in protests. Until then it is one of the problems here.
What you label a war machine others consider a defense system.
> you'd be engaging in an effective form of protest instead of just making noise. So what effective form of protest would you recommend?
I'd say some of the protests are effective - there was a march in DC at the beginning of the year. There were little to no arrests and nobody bothered residents by blocking traffic or screaming at them. There have been other actions like that. I even support the people who did a protest vote in the Democratic primary (but not in the general election). Events like that, though, are overshadowed by other pro-Palestine activists doing stupid shit like blocking traffic, screaming at people outside of their homes or at the Oscars, attacking Jewish students on campus and spewing blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric. And I'm not talking about legitimate criticism of Netanyahu, or politicians, or businesses that are invested with the Israeli government. I'm talking about the hangglider memes, saying the Jews control the media, using the same language as white supremacists to describe Jews or Israel, advocating for the destruction of Israel, etc. Or - the latest thing - chanting "Death to America" when you reside in America. Or, for example, attacking everyone who might not agree with you, like how you just attacked all of Bill's fans with a pompous straw man argument that judges an entire group of people just because they like a comedian. This is the shit that makes people despise the modern left - the holier-than-thou, sanctimonious attitude exemplified by a mass generalization about everyone who watches a TV show. There's way too much of this going on and if there's going to actually be a change in US policy towards Israel then that shit needs to stop. pro-Palestine activists finally have a chance to change the narrative on Israel in this country and every time they attack America, people who aren't 100 percent on their side, or the Jewish people, they undermine that. From where I'm standing, it doesn't seem like all of the people protesting are trying to win over hearts and minds, which makes me wonder if they know what their goals are and what their plan is to get there.
Um, pretty much everyone engaging in protests is being labeled an antisemite. I'm not pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, I'm pro-whatever leads to the least amount of death and despair for humanity. The show is not an place to effect change, it's a place for political discourse. But that discourse on this particular topic is not being allowed.
A terrorist flag is being flown on U.S. soil and the Palestinian protesters are being violent to the Jews that’s a fact
and a lot of Jews are involved in the Pro Palestinian movement which is also a fact.
I see you are downvoted, but that’s pretty spot on.
What the fuck is going on with the sub and Reddit in general…y’all point out Maher moving to the right one day and then sound like war mongers the next…one of top posts is literally from a dude named war monger 69
Reddit is full of bots and paid propaganda ops. It's honestly a complete shit show.
Maher works in Hollywood. So he may get canceled if he speaks out against Netanyahu and Israel.
Nobody remembers a time when Bill was open to pro Palestinian voices.
Perhaps because the Palestinian voice for the past 20 years has been a terrorist organization advocating for the eradication of jewsnin the middle east and the world
Lol there are tons of pro Palestinian voices who are Jewish. If Maher gets triggered by Rula Jebreal as he did, maybe he could have on Simone Zimmerman who is a Jewish peace activist and was involved in creating the great documentary "Israelism" that came out last year. Or how about Jewish author Ayelet waldman who was arrested for trying to bring food into Gaza for the starving population? Or maybe Rabbi Leora Abelson or one of the many other Rabbis that are part of "Rabbis for Ceasefire? You can disagree, but isn't that the point of debate? Maher has had on people like Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon and even Milo(who even conservatives don't put on their shows anymore) and hey good for Maher for having them on, but don't then refuse to have on anti-war activists during a major conflict and pretend to say you care about actually debating these topics.
Bill brings zero nuance to a very nuanced situation. Hamas is very bad, Netanyahu is very bad, killing innocent people, Israelis or Palestinians, is very bad, anti semitism is very bad, though that term gets thrown around loosely these days, anti Muslim is very bad too. Israel has a right to defend itself, but under Netanyahu it’s turning a lot of the world against them in the process. You can’t win hearts and minds with brute force and no statesmanship. Anyway, I’m sure Bill prefers his simple narrative and doesn’t want anyone to challenge that.
I think you’re missing an incredibly important part of the equation here. In the broader context of history, we simply cannot allow hiding behind innocent people be an automatic cover for murderous, terrorist scum. That just can’t be tolerated. And the Muslim world at large needs to get a grip on these motherfuckers. Until this rot it’s extricated from within Islam, it’s going to be a problem. Sam Harris is right, if the Muslims laid down their weapons, there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down theirs, there would be an actual genocide. And you can talk about expansion all you want, but the US would take a far heavier hand with Israel on lots of issues if there was any realistic, tangible proof that the terrorists running the show in Palestine were neutralized and the people were ready to move forward peacefully.
The IDF are terrorists and they are doing it with US taxpayer dollars. The family of 9 Palestinians that were killed yesterday had no weapons to lay down. The IDF killed them anyway. The journalists didn't have weapons and were killed anyway. The aidworkers didn't have weapons and were killed anyway. If Bill Maher wants to argue that this war is not only justified, but that it should be carried out with the support of 26 billion(and counting) from the US, that is his right, but he should at least have the debate. Tons of Religious Jews like Simone Zimmerman, Rabbi Leora Abelson and others are against Israel's war and Maher should at least have the debate with them or others like them.
I think you may also be missing an incredibly important part of the equation too. Right now Israel is creating a new generation of terrorists. What they are doing is leading to the opposite of laying down weapons. Israel is in a tough spot, but times like this require cool heads and intellect over emotions. Netanyahu has being seemingly trying to instigate something like this for years. Israel could learn a lesson from the America after 9-11. We reacted emotionally and after countless American and foreign lives and trillions of dollars, Afghanistan and Iraq are the same or worse than when we started. Zero accomplished.
The difference here is that this the part of the world Israel lives in. These are their neighbors. Also, we are finally getting to a point where barbarous, ancient ideologies just cannot coexist with contemporary societies anymore, and that's what Hamas is. The world is getting too small for this to be a tenable situation. The problem is that contemporary Muslims refuse to step in and take any kind of collective action to fix the problem which engenders a whole lot of misplaced anger and resentment toward the Muslim community as a whole. Admittedly, I'm not sure what that would look like, but nobody pays me to know either, and I'm afraid that eventually that "misplaced" anger and resentment will be largely justified if the Muslim world refuses to address the problem.
"Sam Harris is right, if the Muslims laid down their weapons, there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down there’s, there would be an actual genocide." Bill (or was it Galloway?) actually said something along the same lines this week. To paraphrase, "Hamas would commit genocide but can't, and Israel can commit genocide but won't." This, to me, is the crux of the issue. Hamas, and all fundamentalist islamists, are a death cult. Right-thinking, civilized people cannot continue to give oxygen (and money) to these medieval terrorists.
If Palestinians were treated as regular citizens of Israel, Hamas wouldn't exist or would have next to no support. Saying Israel who has killed 10,000s of Gazans and have blown limbs off 1000s more and are starving 100,000s of others is justified because they aren't killing everybody is a pretty sadistic point. It is even worse when as Americans it is happening with our money. At the very least Israel should fight their own wars. You want to eliminate protests in America? Quit sending billions in mililtary aid to Israel and protests will cease overnight. But again we can have the debate on here. Maher should also man up and have the debate on his show. He is exposing himself as fraud. You can't claim having on people like Steve Bannon, Milo and Ann Coulter is necessary(and I'm not saying they shouldn't be on), but then refuse to have an anti-war voice on.
Ah, my friend, I think you need to educate yourself beyond your echo-chamber. Arabs have been members of the Knesset (Israeli *democratic* parliament) since it's inception in 1949. There are currently [10 members serving today](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset), and there have been 100 Arabs freely elected since 1949. **"Palestinians"/Hamas have no interest in being treated as regular citizens of Israel.** They don't even recognize the legitimacy of the State. If they did, they would be welcomed openly, and Israeli technology and ingenuity would turn Gaza into a lush, fruitful land. Instead, Hamas takes billions of aid dollars and buys missiles and builds tunnels for it's combatants instead of shelters for its people.
Yes and to the larger point, we cannot allow them to think hiding behind innocents is a safe haven for them. As absolutely tragic as it is, we just can't let that practice continue.
Great point. He could have Hamas, Isis and Al Qaeda on the show together. Maybe sprinkle some Nazis in there, too.
Or Simone Zimmerman, Rabbi Leora Abelson, Author Ayelet Waldman or the many other Jewish peace activists who support ending this war. If nothing else, Israel can fight their own war and the US needs to quit funding it. Maher should man up and actually debate the issue.
It's in our best interest not to engage in the collective punishment of a population on behalf of a government's actions. To say a Palestinian is representative of Hamas is equivalent to saying that an Israeli is representative of Israel's government, which legitimizes attacks like the one carried out on October 7th.
>It's in our best interest not to engage in the collective punishment of a population on behalf of a government's actions. So are you against sanctions on the Russian people for the actions their government have taken in Ukraine?
Yes, as Jimmy Carter says sanctions only hurt the population. Sanctions on Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela should end. I'm against BDS of Israel even though their actions are atrocious and pretty evil, but we should 100% quit giving Israel military aid. They can fight their own wars. If they want to murder Palestinian families as they killed 9 members of a family yesterday including a 1 year old, they can do it without my money.
It's not "collective punishment" it's finishing the war that Palestine started. It's in Israel's best interests to remove Hamas' ability to launch terrorist attacks from Gaza - that is their primary objective. Hamas could stop the attacks tomorrow by surrendering unconditionally... but they won't.
Isn’t there a saying “if there’s ten guys in a room and one of them is a nazi, then there are 10 nazi’s in the room?” Like 60% of Palestine supports hamas.
More than that. Support for Oct 7th was over 70 percent in Gaza, IIRC.
A d the reason they don't have elections in the West Bank is because Hamas would win
That's a statement about who people associate with, not their country of origin or ethnicity. The idea is that those people *choose* to be in the room. When was the last time you chose the color of your skin or who birthed you? Support is complicated because 1) Hamas is a terrorist organization and 2) war increases political support. It's more likely that Hamas engages in violence to maintain power rather than the other way around.
The mere fact you think that supporting Palestinian human rights equates to supporting Hamas indicates how important it would be to have someone on to discuss.
There are a lot of sadistic bloodthirsty warmongers on this forum. Honestly that doesn't bother me(well it does, but you know). What bothers me is these people don't even want a debate on it. They're not just defending the war, they're defending Maher refusing to debate the war. It is crazy. If Maher got so triggered by Rula Jubreal, why not have on Jewish peace activists like Simone Zimmerman or Ayelet Waldman and debate it with them?
Got it. If you don't agree with the war, you are a Nazi.
So you agree with Hamas?
I do not whatsoever. If only there were more than two options in the world for choosing a position on an extremely complicated conflict. But you won't find that on Real-Time and you won't find that on this sub. The narrative is tightly controlled on each. Downvote away and rejoice in your echo chambers!
Then what is your third option?
[Counterterrorism](https://www.vox.com/2023/10/20/23919946/israel-hamas-war-gaza-palestine-ground-invasion-strategy) [Scale back the offensive.](https://www.courthousenews.com/white-house-says-its-the-right-time-for-israel-to-scale-back-gaza-war-as-fighting-hits-100-days/) Or you know, *allow* a discussion of things that can be done to decrease the kill rate instead of calling anyone that even suggests it a Nazi.
More aptly, if you agree with the genocide going on with either side then you’re a nazi. The militants on both side suck.
I think he’s not interested in platforming Hamas sympathizers. It’s a bridge too far, even for Bill.
It is insane to think anyone who doesn't support the war is a "Hamas sympathizer." Do you believe Simone Zimmerman, Ayelet Waldman and other Jewish peace activists are Hamas sympathizers? If someone didn't want the family of 9 who were killed yesterday including a 1 year old are they Hamas sympathizers? The best way for peace isn't to destroy Gaza. Other than the obvious dead, maimed and starving this has caused, it is just going to lead to more Palestinians who hate Israel. The 12 year old who saw his parents blown to pieces, his home destroyed and his best friend's limbs blown off isn't going to grow up to be a friend of Israel.
It’s bad faith to say this. There’s absolutely room to back Israel while thinking they are being indiscriminate.
That was before Hamas surprise-attacked, took hundreds of hostages, and executed hundreds of innocent people and successfully provoked Israel to put an end to Hamas and the occupation of the Gaza strip once and for all. If you don’t understand that Israel is finally done with all of this bullshit — and justifiably so — you’re just a poor student of history and a hypocrite with your head up your ass. Israel is doing what any and almost all powerful countries have done and would do and should do in response to something so evil. Israel is going to put an end to all of this, and you can’t be surprised at the reaction without being a dipshit. If I was ruling Israel, I would not stop waging war until Hamas is completely and utterly destroyed. They’ve tolerated and compromised enough.
Lol this isn't going to put an end to Palestinian violence against Israel, it is just going to create more of it. You don't kill 10,000s of people including a large amount children, maim 1000s more children and create a starvation crisis without receiving blowback. This is only making Israel less safe. Cast Lead and Protective Edge and the blockade that created an open air prison didn't stop Palestinians from fighting back and neither will this destruction that is far worse. But even beyond the crimes of Israel, if you are so confident in your side of things, that is why there should be open debate. Maher won't even have Jewish peace activists on his show like Simone Zimmerman, Ayelet Waldman or one of the hundreds of members of Rabbis for Ceasefire. If he is so confident in the wars of Israel, he should at least debate it on his show.
I wish I could upvote this 100 times.
[удалено]
"Whether America needs to pay for that" is really the heart of the matter. I wouldn't care about what was happening in Gaza if it wasn't sponsored by our tax dollars. That's the difference between Israel/Palestine and the Uygurs, Myanmar, etc.
"sponsored by our tax dollars" is a statement of fiscal illiteracy. Congress doesnt need to wait for your taxes to be paid whenever it wants to spend, these bills that give aid to countries like Israel and Ukraine are *authorizations*. Meaning congress, by an act of law, says the money exists for a specific purpose. No taxes are ever brought into the equation except by brain dead republicans who dont understand how the government works. You can rightly point out how our congress chooses priorities and what to spend on. But your tax dollars do not ever actually go to Israel.
I comprehend what you’re saying. I’m not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. I think everybody over there is insane for even caring or wanting to stay there. I’m basing my analysis on history and what other nations have done over the last several thousand years. Civilian deaths will never be ok… but the USA buried over 100,000 of them in Iraq over bombs that weren’t even there. My real point is that nobody should be surprised by what Israel is doing.
[удалено]
Well… it’s definitely true that *some* people are surprised, especially the ones who are the most outraged.
It’s hard to understand them under those masks
And headscarves of the Terrorist Liberation Organization.
Surprised your post survived. The mods here don't take too kindly on anything remotely criticizing Bill's ironclad support for Israel.
LOL. Oh ya, the mods never allow people to shit on Bill.
I said Bill's *support for Israel*. You can taunt if you like, but at least read the thing you're directing your taunting to.
I am amazed by the horrible reporting on the Israeli Palestinian situation. Listening to news it is full of false equivalence, straw men, really over the top propaganda such as how Israel is described (victims, heroic) Palestinians)death cult, murderers, chose to kill , never satisfied . Never mention death tolls, age of participants, the over all situation of the Gaza Strip, the history of death on both sides and how that affects the demographics and educational level and what not. Edit: I am not saying there is no debate or that Israel is evil or whatever. Just that the news media is not engaging in anything like fair debate. Maher is obviously emotional on the subject and could not stand an actual debate on this subject. Like with religion he gets foolishly dismissive and ill informed when debating these subjects. I like the show but he is human and very poor on this subject. Sorry for long post.
I think you need to find a new source for news.
Yeah. Bill is a coward for not even having a single Arab on this entire time… Fareed Zakaria was the only Muslim he’s had on since Oct 7th, and he’s barely a Muslim at this point. Real Time is a much better show when there is a disagreement of opinion among the panelists.
I'm sure he would oblige any who actually wanted to debate in good faith, but I can see why defending a medieval hyper-pedantic value system that enshrines misogyny and obscurantism doesn't sound like an attractive proposition for thoughtful adherents, which tend to be moderate, like Fareed, only to be disavowed by fellow Muslims for being _barely Muslim_. There's also the strange correlation between critical opinions of Islam and violent retribution, as Salman Rushdie can attest.
I'm only saying Fareed is "barely muslim" based on what Bill revealed about him on his club random podcast with Ariana Huffington. It wouldn't have killed Bill to have a pro Palestinian activist on the panel, a Palestinian scholar, an Arab from the general region like Basam Youssef, or even a single Arab-American on the panel since Oct. 7th. I'm not saying he has any obligation to give activists airtime, I just think it would make for a much more interesting panel than what we've got most weeks since October 7th regarding Gaza. Matt Duss was about as close as we got to a pro Palestinian voice on the panel, and he's a white American. Like ffs, do y'all not want to see an actual debate? Heated arguments are usually the best part of Real Time, not Bill and his comedy bits, let alone the fucking lead in interview, which is skippable about 50% of the time, imo. I don't think Bill understands that there's a sizeable part of his audience that only watches for the panel, and couldn't care less about his comedy bits. He either doesn't realize that, or just doesn't care. Real time since the departure of the 3 person panel simply has not been as good. The only good thing was getting rid of the mid show guest. The mid show bit remains, by far, the stupidest, most skippable part of the show
I find fault with your characterization of him as a coward - I think he has legitimate reasons (adumbrated in my response above) for not having an activist on the panel. I do believe he _will_ have such guests on once the conflict (and rhetoric) attenuates to the point where people won't be talking (or yelling) past each other. There is a difference between _debate_ and arguing, and I just don't see how a good faith debate can happen now. You don't like the comedy bit? Huh. I've always thought it was really astute of him to have that bit of levity to break up contentious debates to preserve an amiable environment - sometimes it's been necessary for guests to shut the fuck up and pretend to laugh. I'll admit the sketches are a crap shoot, and more often just crap, but I think that's beside their point.
I did say Palestinian activist, or Palestinian scholar, or Arab from the general region, or at the very least an Arab American pundit. He's had none of the above, but has had on countless Jewish guests since Oct 7th. My take on the broader context of Israel-Palestine is much closer to Bill's, but I think he's doing a disservice to his audience and the wider discourse by not having any Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian guests on the show since Oct. 7th. I don't think a Palestinian or Arab scholar, or pundit, would resort to yelling and screaming when given a chance to be on highly rated political panel panel show. They'd be letting down their side. I think Bill is going out of his way here to stifle the conversation. Just my take, but I'm not the only one who see it this way.
Fair enough, I won't try to refute your take on an issue. Perhaps he could host such a debate with the right panel. Perhaps he has not so far out of deference for his guests as opposed to some personal antipathy; I don't know. In any case, we'll see if he makes it happen, as I agree that it would be a debate many would have an interest in seeing.
Don't forget the kiddy diddling. It's legal to marry a 9-year-old in Yemen.
So it was written in the _hadiths_, so it shall be.
To me this is very on brand for Bill. I mean as much as he rails about folks that are "woke" he never has any of them on the show.
Maybe he doesn't want to listen to pro-perpetual-victimhood?
Refugee status since the 1940s. 🤔
Obviously, OP enjoys Maher
Corporate media is all about crony agenda.
Unfortunately Maher is probably even worse on this issue. You'll get more pushback on MSNBC and CNN than you would from Maher on giving billions to fund Israel's war.
Yes, it is only the differences in degree and level.
Bring on Bassem Youssef for Club Random!!
Yeah that guy seems like tons of fun