You're listening to Comedy Central.
Let's continue our conversation about Israel and Palestine. Please welcome senior writer at The Intercept, Martaza Hussein and staff writer at The Atlantic.
Yeah, you're Rosenberg.
Please wort that.
Their audience.
Very rarely do you get a standing ovation for the guests, but clearly they think Muslim and Jew sitting next to each other?
How can that be? But thank you both for being here.
You are both obviously you're American writers that write a lot about the Middle East, the Peace Plan, the STU Plan, as I call it, the me Too Plan, and Tasa will start with you. How unrealistic is that? It's similar to a two thousand and two.
Arab League resolution? Why why can't this happen?
Well, you know it's not a bad idea, and on paper.
We're gonna cut there. Thank you so much, So appreciate that.
Well, you know, I think the problem is I write about US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, and I feel that the consistent theme here is that when we give blank checks to countries which are clients or partners, we enable their worst tendencies or their worst behaviors. In this case, you know, you mentioned the Arab Peace Plan.
In two thousand and two, the Arab League offered Israel full political, economic, diplomatic normalization exchange for the main crux of it is creating a Palestinian state in the nineteen sixty seven borders, which is in line with international law and so forth.
Bright they've read the repatriation plan, which.
Which can negotiate the details of it, but that was the crux of it. And you know they've reiterated this plan many times, including recently. It's not just our world, the broader Muslim world as well too. I interviewed the Pakistani ambassador to the UN a few weeks ago. It told me that Pakistan, Indonesia, other are large population Muslim countries would be willing to normalize with Israel, but they do not want the Palistenians be thrown under the bus.
There needs to be a two state solution in their view, creating a state in those lines. Without that they cannot be But Israeli government has never responded to the steal. It's not even rejected, it's refused to engage. And I think the main reason is because they have the US as a guaranteur. Whatever they do will have a superpower backing, and many people in Israel want the West Bank and the Israeli government Benjamin Netanyahu's brag that he's stopped the
palest Indian State from coming into existence. And because they have this backing, they don't need to compromise with their neighbors or engage with the neighbors.
Think the US backing of that enabled I think reticence.
I think the US putting itself in this position, not just this position, many other situations where it's acts as a blank check writer for its clients. It enables these stutions.
We got to make money some and without selling weapons, what are we going to fall back on?
Wheat? Come on?
Yeah, you probably have a slightly different interpretation of that piece plan and also what we laid out here.
So yeah, well I think that the again, the idea is actually a pretty good one, which is they had to put some third party in between these two parties.
That's what seems like hasle.
That would then be sort of like the you know, the referee. The problem is is that while you, as you showed in your monel, like the Air of States are willing to talk a big game, the United States and sometimes depending on administration. WI also talk a big game, but no one actually wants to put their own troops
down there. Can you imagine America under democratic presidents who are retrenching from the Middle East, right, trying to get out of the forever words, or Donald Trump who wants to turn Americans to some sort of isolationist country, get us out of you know, stops helping Ukraine. Right, They're not going to stick Americans there, right. The Arab country is no different. They'll they'll you know, give a token amount of money and then try to like, you know,
make it go away. And so that's I think the fundamental flaw here. I will say that if you took away US backing and said Israelis, we're going to put some other people on your border, particularly say Arab states, and they're going to be the guarant terms of your security, these Relis wouldn't say, well, gues, we don't have the Americans, We're just gonna pack it.
Up, right, because this is a country. But he's going anywhere. Yeah.
And also this is a country that's full of people, right who fled other countries, including those Arab countries, because they were persecuted, right, killed dispossessed. Right, there's like, you know, half of Israelis are now Middle Eastern Oraich but.
Two diasporas don't make a right you know, but they won't they won't trust that. But let me, let me, let me push back on both of these for just onsid so, and this.
Just pushes back on both, you know, we get into this litigation of well, the Palestinians and the Arab state. They proposed something very reasonable to these religess but these Raelis wouldn't do. And they just rarely say, well, we don't have a partner for peace, and we propose something very reasonable, but they didn't do. Doesn't it appear that no party is incentivized to fix this at the peril and detriment to the Palestinian people.
And here's what I mean by that.
Egypt has its border closed to the Palestinians. These are autocratic states in the Arab world. They all view the creation of Israel as a humiliation. If that's where they start from. It's a very easy kind of issue to deflect attention from your own dictatorships, to own the so called Arab street with anger towards Israel. But the Saudis they all do business together, aren't they DISINCENTI disincentivized to fix this net and Yahoo whenever he gets in political trouble,
suddenly there's a war. So who is incentivized to actually fix this? And isn't the people who really suffer from all of it? Just the Palestinians who get no regard from any group, no real support, you know.
I think that was the case for some time. But I think that things have changed in the sense that the Arab countries are very eager to get this off their plate. Actually, that's why they had this Arab peace initiative and keep reiterating it, because they no longer want to have a complict with Israel's not in their interests. They'd like to move past it, but they cannot do
so in a way which ignores the Palestinians. And I think that the idea of the Airbrahamer courts, for instance, was let's a side step this issue and make deals with the Amortis in Saudis and so forth. I was in South Arabia recently and I was talking to a broad range of people. I think the idea that the Saudis will make a deal with Israel without a two state solution or meaningful pathway to one, or significant concitions on that subject. It's very unrealistic because.
No, that's my point, is the two state solution. But if nobody is there to just guarant everybody has preconditions for everything, you know, net Nyahu, I need a partner. If you don't meet these certain conditions of no violence, I won't negotiate with you. Well, America occupied a rock and there was violence there the entire time. I mean, imagine if we had set a precondition that there'd be no Iraqi government unless you know, this violence would end nothing.
Whatever.
It seems like nobody's actually being honest or genuine in the region about their aims.
I would put it a little differently, which is to say that the people who.
Are running your and I'm a comedian, we'll see, we'll see when it's done.
The people who are running the show for some time, which is how we arrive at this disastrous destination, are these absolutist actors who they might say that we'll negotiate and here's the condition, and here's you know whatever. They might say that to some people, but in practice we see from you know, many years of Nathanal governance, every single document and statement, as you showed to you people from Hamas right. These are people who want everything right.
They see half of the people in the land as the problem. Right, and then the question is how you need Yeah, the absolutist ok. And then there are lots of people who are also pragmatists, and that's how we had a peace process that failed. But there were genuine majorities in the polls at the time among his Raelies and Palestenians behind negotiations for two states. And so there always are those people. They might be a minority, they might be rijority at a given point in time during
a war. Right now they're a minority, right. But there's always those people who say this is not going to be solved with weapons. We need to find a way to live together. But we're not supporting those ever be solved.
If the United States and Israel, the two let's face it, most hated entities in that part of the world, are the ones responsible for the peacekeeping effort.
It doesn't make any.
Sense that the Arabs don't step in if the Arab nation's there, And couldn't you say that this was a great bulwark against the strength of Iran. Couldn't you convince UAE in Saudis that the only way to temper Tehran is by forming this alliance and recognizing them.
Well, it's interesting you mentioned that the US stance in the region that's very unpopular. I think it's related to this issue. This is the core issue of why the US has not had normal relations in the Arab world and Muslim world generally. It's a very bitter and a symbolic issue for a lot of people.
We do have normal relationship. We have more weapons of the Saudis than we do to these on a.
Public level or like you know, only with dictators for instance. The reason this democracy is very skeptical in our world. We're afraid that regimes which are matter us will come to power. But I think the main issue, I think from a US perspective, primarily is that we're involved in this very bitter conflict. We're not taking it seriously and
solving it. We take a very one side approach, I think, and we do that supposedly in Israel's interest, but I think what it does in reality is prolonged the conflict and definitely to everyone's detriment. I had come to the position that we should either be fair in this conflict and adjudicate it in a way which is fair and results in a just solution both sides except or we should leave. We should leave because impacting us in very
very negative ways militarily, economically, strategically. We have other problems in the world to deal with as well too. And I believe that if the US were to pull what I'd say is blank check from Israel, it would incentivize Israel to compromise more because ultimately Israel has to live in the Middle East. That's where the country is, That's where the people are going to be. Their neighbors who are willing to compromise with us.
We could move them to Maine. Maine is wide open. They could play tennis, right right, your point. But to that, I do think that the idea that this is all about the United States, that we are the actor that drives all that, I think plays into a myth of United States control. And I think if we've learned anything in these last twenty to thirty years of the United States is We've got big influence, but we sure as
hell don't have control. And I'm not so sure that by the US changing its policy in certain ways that that solves this.
What's your thought.
On that, Well, I mean, John, that's a very controversial thing to say that the United States is not the main character of the entire plan.
And you said it, and I didn't say it. That was him.
Okay, you know, because you know this is not live so maybe we'll cut that, yes, exactly, but you know that is clearly the case. There is this sort of sense that a lot of people have that the United States, and the President of the United States in particular, have the ability to sort of wave a magic wand and
solve these things if they could. There are multiple American presidents who would have done so, and they would have changed the policies, and they would have tried and there were always people in different factions of the State Department, and they tried different things. You go out to Eisenhower and Nixon, they all had plans, right and you know, they pressure at Israel in ways that you know presidents
today don't. But there's a reason why we moved in different directions because they thought maybe we if we are.
You know, more you know, involved.
And one thing I want to say to this though, is that a lot of people want to see a solution in the Middle East, but they also want to see the US get out of the Mid East, and those two things are in contradiction, and people are ultimately going to have to make choices about what the US does and doesn't do. But I don't necessarily have the answer and.
Not be so involved in the region.
I do think if there is to your point, if the Arab States form a more broader alliance with Israel in a genuine way, and that the United States wouldn't feel maybe that it had to be on the line there.
Listen. I'm no fan of any of it.
I think this cycle of violence over the seventy five years is destroying the dreams of two peoples, not just a Poutinius. I think it's destroying the dream of the Israeli people as well. And so I think that what we're doing now, clearly and what we've been doing, is a cycle that we have to pull out of. And I imagine, you know, that's the thing that ultimately has
to happen. We're talking to Martaza Hussein and yeah, you're Rosenberg, and we talked a little bit about some of the things that could help break the cycle of violence in the Middle East. You know, the act of the two of you sitting here having this conversation is almost rebellious or revolutionary in the current moment. How do you counsel Americans in this moment to be able to you know, not lose so many Facebook friends.
When it comes to all this. Is there any advice that you guys have.
Well, the backstory of the two of us is that we've been having these conversations for something like ten years. And the further backstory is that we reached out to each other on Twitter because we both realized that we shared a lot in common about how we approached the world, but we had very different opinions on issues like these. And that's what we became friends some ten years ago.
Is like, and so we've we've been doing this over you know, at kosher and kosher restaurants because for Sunni Muslims, many of them kosher mediashalal and so I will take murders of to Akasha restaurant, introduced them to it, and then we'll have conversations like these and John is just you know, interloping, you know, just sort of you know, we decided to let it come to check, we've got there, we go and so and what it is is we refuse to allow ourselves or our communities to be held
hostage to a runeous conflict thousands of miles away that we may never be able to fully resolve or fix, but we can have an impact about how we treat each other here. And the other thing, you know, I would say, is that we both are both journalists, and one of the things that motivates us is our pursuit of truth and what is true, and we share that even when we disagree, it's because we came to different conceptions and we really believe the other is honest.
Yes, well said, well, you know, ultimately, as Yeh I mentioned, we're journalists, and you know, we seek out people's perspectives are different from you, who see a different world, to see the world from a different vie and then that's how you learn about the world a little bit. I think I have to say that it's easier for us too, because not Israeli and not Pastenian. Ultimately we're American, and
American review it that way. You know, both of us know people who've families members have been killed recently, many dozens in some cases in Gaza recently, and you know that emotional component, you can compartmentalize it when you're not so directly involved. So we look at an American perspective two different sides. It's issue in some sense, but we're
able to have that conversation, which is constructive. What I would say, you know, I could accept any Palestinians view or any Israelis view when they're so intimately involved in it, But I can never respect the blood thirsty the American. That's the only person that cannot respect.
So you know, and you know I have said this for many years, one of the biggest issues I have with American foreign policy is how cavalier it is about the destruction that so money of our policies have had internationally, even something as simple as you know, we had a big issue here with burn pits, with Iraqi war veterans and Afghan war veterans, and we talked a lot about getting them the help they need here, but the thing nobody ever talked about was what those did to the
environment in Iraq and Afghanistan we left, and I think our policies oftentimes are cavalier to the destruction that occurs.
Of report from Iraq, and I met so many people whose found members were killed by the US military or by the violence of the place in that time, also a value elevated rates of cancer and the other indirect causes of the war, and it's kind of just kind of forgotten. Actually those people are their lives go on, but you know the impact that we had in a very cavalier moment to us because of the new cycle
mos on. So but you know, those memories stay and the impacts our ability to operate there or how we're viewed there in the future. So it's something which you know, it's maybe very pessistic about US foreign policy and since that, I know many at the end of the Cold War there's an optimistic view we can make the world a better place. I think that's the case true in some cases, but I'm a lot more hesitant to get the US deeply involved because there's a very negative track record.
I think there's a mythology around sort of the Marshall Plan, and it's the you know, after World War Two, so we were in war with Germany and Japan, and we threw a bunch of money at it, and now we're the best of friends, and they buy our cars and we buy their cars, and it's all lovely and all it takes is a little bit of money and some American know how, and we can turn the world into allies. I think we might have learned the wrong message from all that.
I'd also say from reporting around the world myself. When you talk to people, this can have the wrong impact. If you have a great mythology about yourself and how you fix all the world's problems, then some people will say, how can the Americans not fix this problem?
And they're like, no, it is they believe us.
People believe us, right, And I will say to them, actually, they're a tremendous number of incredibly well meeting people, serving our country trying to do this stuff. It's just really hard, right, But there's a certain story that we've told, and sometimes people really expect us to make good on it. There are impossible promises that we can't keep.
How do you, guys, negotiate this pragmatic view you within your own families? Because I know within you know there is no I can't get five Jews to agree on anything at dinner. R How do you negotiate that within your own families?
You know, I think there's the personality type that tries to really hear where people are coming from and speak.
So you can get one of those in your family.
Sheer, dumb luck or your dad is a rabbi in my case, right, you know, And so that's what you do as the rabbi, right, and you're trying to understand where everyone in the audience is coming from. Your synagogue can be diverse, and there are people with different political and ideological perspectives, and how do you tell them the truth and stay true to that while also saying, you know, speaking to each of them, right, And so, yeah, it's
a type of personality. You see it in different There are different kinds of political leaders and spiritual leaders who managed to do this, and there are others who feel like, what's the hardest, sharpest, best viral slogan I can use on Twitter right to own the other side?
Right?
And by the way, when we were younger, I mean, I'll speak for you, we were like that.
I was much more hot headed when.
I really yeah, when we first met, you guys seem the opposite of hot headed, Like it's we aged a lot. I honestly, this as my screensaver like.
This just so calming to me that.
I what about saying so let me ask you this is this because that brings up any interesting points?
What mitigated the rashness? Was it just youth? What what got you guys less visceral?
I think getting older is one aspect of it. But then also, you know, reading a lot of books, trying to see other people's ready to travel, that has a big impact on things. Keeping open mind, trying to treat others consistently as you want to be treated, keeping that Golden rule in mind as well too. I'll tell you know you mentioned family. It's interesting. I've had confidences family. Family very spread out over the world, and you know,
certain experiences can be very resonant with people. I had an uncle who lives in a Pakistan, and you know, he was very critical of the US warn of Ghanistan. He thought that it was very, very bad, he said. I think he visited Coabble and that's kind of what put this in his mind. He said, look, there's nothing being built here, it's all falling apart. There, didn't make anything good from their presence here. It's just very exploitative.
And then he actually visited New York one day and he visited the subway system and he's like, oh, no, I get it. Actually it's not they just it's not there on purpose. They just can't do it.
Actually, So that's hilarious.
I mean you look at I mean, this is where we're getting to the jokes portion, which is hard in this topic.
Very hard.
And like people ask me, like, how do I conceptualize the comas has what is the New York Times as three hundred and fifty to four hundred and fifty miles of tunnels underneath Gaza, And I was like, to think, think of it this way. It would cost New York City six hundred and forty eight quadrillion dollars over two hundred and sixty eight years to build that much tunnel, right, you know, it's just a really.
If you're just raised the price to a dollar fifty ride and then it's problem solved two dollars a ride. I appreciate you both so much for coming on and having the conversation and really just admire both of you not just having this conversation but your journalism as well. It's it's really fantastic stuff.
So thank you both.
Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.
Watch The Daily Show weeknights at eleven.
Ten Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount Plus.
This has been a Comedy Central podcast now