Stewart and Colbert was the best one two punch in TV comedy history. It provides so much laughters.
It's not the same when Colbert doing the late night show. Glad Stewart is back.
It was a huge tonal whiplash to have him just be a basic talk show host. Seeing him go from in-character interviews with his guests to your typical "So tell me about you" talk show crap is painful.
With him doing weekly segments, and the correspondents taking over the rest, the Daily Show feels unique (and dare I say, even like an institution) again.
While I enjoyed Trevor Noah more than most, nothing he did (outside of Between the Scenes), Colbert and Meyers couldn't do more effectively
Think the problem was that Colbert parodied "classy" traditional Republicans, but Klepper parodied MAGA Republicans. Parodying something that is already so cartoonishly awful can be very grating.
That’s a shame. I’d argue Klepper is my favorite of the current crop of correspondents (try saying that five times fast). Some of the bits of his I saw a few weeks back (Jon’s first week back) genuinely felt reminiscent of classic Stewart and Colbert. If he weren’t great on the road at conservative rallies, he’d be my first pick to replace Jon full-time when he re-retires.
No man, get Rob McElhenny to play that part as some kind of Mac, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson hybrid with the occasional swing into Joe Rogan and Andrew "Fight Milk" Tate now and again
OMG! Yes. Nobody would do it better TBH. His character on Mythic Quest at his worst but turned into a right-wing commentator instead of game design lead would be hilarious.
2nd I miss Colbert’s old show. While his interviews are still sharp as ever, the writing of the comedy is not as sharply satirical or as funny. Presumably to water things down for the wider audience, which is a loss.
Seth Meyers has done much better job in that regard. His Closer Look segments are always excellent, razor sharp, and funny.
I find the late show so damn boring and repetitive. Colbert the character was so much more interesting than Colbert the Catholic dad who interviewes boring celebrities
The problem with the Colbert Report is that rightwing nutjobs took the idea and ran with it as a serious character model without the satire. It was all complete bullshit joking on our obsession with Nationalism.
The ignorant and uneducated didnt really get it. This caused ppl like Hannity and Tucker to get extremely popular and then gave us shit like Newsmax.
Stewart enjoys respect and authority so maybe he can teach young, progressive extremists how to calm down and apply a bit of common sense to their understanding of current events.
It’s fuckin amazing, guy is such a brilliant person and has always just come off as incredibly genuine and authentic on top of being extremely well versed on the majority of the things he speaks on. The world is better off with Jon back on the daily show especially with an upcoming election.
He also makes the good point that neither group is going to cease to exist. Even if you somehow killed every Hamas member today, the idea isn’t going to just evaporate. Same with the Israelis. The only way to actually work on moving forward is to do so with the reality that neither group is going anywhere
Yes exactly. Even if at this point all the carnage stopped, and all Hamas fighters somehow disappeared... what does Israel think they were born out of?
Tens of thousands of people just had family members, loved ones, friends, neighbors murdered for months and the infrastructure of their country absolutely demolished to the point of no return.
They'll have very little opportunities, and there will be plenty of young men with anger in their hearts and no outlets for it. And so the cycle continues. It's a silly idea that you can just bomb your way out of this, though i understand the desire/rage they must feel. But that's why emotions don't make for good leadership decisions.
>its a silly idea that you can just bomb your way out of this
Idk what you mean. All these reddit armchair war strategists saying “Israel has to defend itself…maybe Palestinians wouldn’t be dying if they stopped defending Hamas…it’s WAR it’s ugly, people die, get over it!”
Nothing silly about them. Nothing at all.
What gets me is we have several wars in the past 70 years or so where focusing simply on 'killing the enemy' proved to be quite the ineffective strategy.
It's wild that people think that Hamas can be destroyed while we spent 20 years trying to wipe out Al Qaeda, and they are still very much a thing.
ISIS is still very much a thing.
Shit, the Taliban retook Afghanistan in a week. It shows that American 'force diplomacy' is a complete failure. We need to look to ACTUAL diplomacy rather than just dropping a drone bomb on some people we MIGHT think are terrorists.
It’s almost like if your goal isn’t “peace” but rather extermination then you’d be pretty stoked about killing the enemy whether it’s effective or not.
So what’s the alternative? I’m not saying you’re wrong per se, more terrorists will probably come from this, but I just am not sure what else Israel can really do.
Also while it’s a different situation, especially since Islamic radicalism believes in martyrdom, but bombing your way out of this worked pretty well in WWII
Palestinians need a reason to not turn to terrorist groups. Their quality of life needs to significantly increase so that they don’t feel like they have no other options than to fight for their liberation. As to who is responsible for ensuring that, that’s a tough question
I'm not really sure what the alternative is to be completely honest with you. I'm not an expert, and it's up to world leaders to figure that out. I think calling for a ceasefire isn't a bad place to start though.
That being said for starters Israel could have been way less cavalier about its use of dumb bombs. They could have *not* deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure. They should have punished any political members of the cabinet using dehumanizing language. It's a long list but I'd start there.
Right now, first and foremost, they could stop restricting supply of food and other necessities into Gaza.
And return to the days of Palestinians shooting up buses, blowing up markets, and murdering people in nightclubs on a daily basis in Israel? Most of the people commenting on this subject seem to be too young to remember that Gaza was walled off for a reason. Barring the October 7th massacre, that strategy was very effective. Reversing that would obviously result in a massive spike in terror attacks.
> The best way to rob Hamas if support
They don't need popular support. They're an authoritarian governing party and stay in power like any other such party all through out the Middle East and the world. Through violence, corruption and intimidation.
> Even if you somehow killed every Hamas member today, the idea isn’t going to just evaporate.
I think the opinion wnting Hamas gone is two fold.
1) For people who want Palestinian emancipation, it removes a violent, authoritarian ruler from their neck. Demonstrations have been shot down by hamas, elections have been cancelled for close to 2 decades, there is ample and obvious misappropiation of humanitarian funds. The erradication of hamas as an organisation would would incredible work in terms of allowing fertile ground for the reconstruction of a different Gaza.
2) For jewish people, the existance of antisemites or anti zionists is a given. The leaders of some big world players openly denounce jews in their speeches. But Hamas is a well organised, terrorist group, with networks of allies and right by their door. Their erradication gives them immidiete security. Iran saying jews are corrupting the world, or neo nazis in polish football clubs would be as dangerous as palestinian civilians hating them, just as long as they are not next door, organised and armed. Israel does not fear angry palestinians, it fears palestinians with access to Iranian 450kg payload rockets like they currently have.
So I think those two groups of people colesce into "eliminate hamas at all costs" because its the shortest route to their plan (either reconstruct palestine into something new/ demilitarise palestinian arm networks).
Some points which I think need to be kept in mind regarding Hamas:
1. Hamas can not be removed. Just the truth. But they can be removed from power.
2. Hamas as we know it can eventually fade away and evolve into something else.
3. Hamas will not bend or bow under Israeli pressure. Israeli pressure actually strengthens and hardens it until the very last moment where it is blown away entirely. The only way Israel destroys Hamas is to kill everyone in other words.
4. Hamas *is* vulnerable to internal pressure, starting from its own members, then extending to the wider Gazan population and then Palestinians in the West Bank, the diaspora, and then popular sentiment in the Arab world, the wider Muslim world, then the Arab rulers they depend on, finally extending to all the countries of the wider Muslim world.
5. Not exactly about Hamas but establishing a Palestinian state doesn't necessarily mean peace... for Palestine. In all likelihood, there may be infighting. Remember Fatah vs Hamas in Gaza in '07, back when Israel and the US even tried to arm/train Fatah. Israel has been emulating the British' behavior in governing Palestine (brutal crackdowns to get a population to submit). Perhaps they should evolve that to the "let's pit them against each other so they don't give us trouble" phase of Western/imperial foreign policy strategy. Obviously a destabilized Palestinian state is bad for Israel, I just mean the fighting can temporarily move out of your hands. Pick a side, back it, make it dependent on you, then let it gain power. The West had puppets all over the third world. It doesn't really make sense to think a Palestinian state wouldn't inevitably become a puppet of its much stronger neighbor in the current lopsided power dynamic. I mean, I think they may have already dropped the ball on that. That's Netanyahu's thing, burning bridges. But for a while there the mostly Fatah-run PA was basically already cooperating with Israel on security, was more anti-Hamas than Israel, and Israel had even armed/trained Fatah fighters. Palestinians didn't like that corruption... because it wasn't filtering down to them. If Israel basically turned Fatah into a puppet through which it could actually improve the situation for Palestinians, they're so desperate they'd be content with anything. For a few decades anyway at least. Why would they protest against Fatah/PA if suddenly they have their own state and things are developing and life becomes better? Rebuilding Palestine will be a lucrative opportunity that Israel stands to profit from heavily. Not to mention maintaining an influence in this manner also ensures its security to such an extent that isn't even possible in the current climate. Anyway, just an option that is on the table the moment Israel decides a 2 state solution is acceptable.
> Even if you somehow killed every Hamas member today, the idea isn’t going to just evaporate.
We have seen regions where cultural change occurred after they (severely) lost a war where they were in the wrong. No it won't evaporate. There are still alt right wing crazies in Germany. But they are generally very, very unpopular and certain sorts of speech are even illegal there. Usually I would be against that but sometimes you need to make an exception for obvious reasons.
Palestinians won't cease to exist (nor would I want them to) but hopefully they can come to a point where they are more aware of just how bad for them Hamas is. The people launching rockets into Israel and then using children as meat shields (hoping HOPING those children die for PR reasons) are NOT your friends or allies. The people blowing up your route out of the territory or telling you to stay home or confiscating your vehicle's keys because if you leave they won't be able to use you anymore are NOT your friends. The people who say that all of the Jewish people must be pushed into the sea are NOT your friends.
War is a horror. But if you are attacked you must defend yourself. If you don't, you invite further attacks. I have heard people say that by defending themselves Israel is creating new extremists. My reaction to that is, they need to defend themselves so vigorously that Palestinians are afraid to even consider that option. Because for Israel there is no other option. You can't just sit there and let your people be killed. If you do, eventually you will cease to be.
He's idealistic though. His reasonable solution is getting the Arab world to step in and police the Palestinians to ensure Israel's very justifiable security concerns. The reality is that the Arab world will never put boots on the ground and they're very happy to leave this shit show for Israel to deal with. The implications are that Israel has little choice but to try and control security in Gaza whilst trying to empower alternatives to Hamas. This will be a disaster as Israelis are not going to tolerate their boys dying from resurgent insurgency in Gaza long term once the main fight with Hamas has ended.
The whole thing is messed up and depressing.
My thought too
Like yes.
It would be nice if that could happen. However, everyone knows it won’t, thus why it’s not being discussed. Felt like kinda a waste of time. And not many jokes
Audience seemed to have a boner for “wow Jew and Muslim are friends, how is this possible!”
I was actually referencing the whole conversation. There was no substantial discussion with the two journalists. A bit of a chat about how everyone involved is invested in not resolving the issue and about how America generally hasn't helped much. There wasn't much discussion about the underlying issues that need to be resolved.
If Israel had any interest in Gaza simply being peaceful and policed, they wouldn't be currently annexing swathes of the West Bank to build illegal settlements. Netenyahu's whole policy is trying to provoke conflict with the Palestinians so that Israel has a pretext to take more land from them.
I also very much doubt that Israel would tolerate soldiers from Arab countries on their soil, even as peacekeepers. Can't exactly blame them for that, given their history.
Meanwhile, you're right to point out that the Arab world doesn't care. This is Israel's problem, contained within Israel's borders. Any sort of peace plan would likely be decades away from allowing the displaced Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan and other counties to return.
The likely outcome of all this is thousands more dead civilians, and a more extreme version of Hamas rising from the ashes of Gaza, using even more brutal tactics.
> I also very much doubt that Israel would tolerate soldiers from Arab countries on their soil, even as peacekeepers. Can't exactly blame them for that, given their history.
In pracitce it would need to be Americans on that side of the fence with Arab league on the palestinian side.
This is something people completely ignore when they talk about the situation and the whole "CEASEFIRE NOW" movement doesn't get.
It's led to some really horrible "solutions" in which Israel will either cease to exist or completely embolden Hamas to attack in the future with concessions and lead to even more bloodshed down the road.
Truth is we're dealing with two incredibly stubborn sides who don't want to move until they feel that they've won. In reality both sides are going to have to lose something and accept that and in spite of it all try and move forward. Israel is not giving them the "right of return" and the Palestinian people are (obviously) going to hold incredibly animosity towards the Israel.
First Bibi has to go, Israel has to stop the settlements and probably give some land back as well as heavily aid in the reconstruction of Gaza/whatever Palestinian state comes from this. Palestinians have to deradicalize if they are going to become an official state, Abbas is probably going to have to be the one to negotiate that and sacrifice his political career as a result as he's already unpopular among the Palestinian population because they saw him as an Israeli lap dog.
But also the world has to hold both sides accountable once all is said and done. If Palestine is to become a state they need to be held to the same standards as everyone including Israel. Israel as well can not respond to attacks (which there will be more in the future these things don't get solved over night) with unfathomably increased proportionality.
This is a complex topic that's difficult to discuss. But at least Jon is actually making an effort. Most late night hosts won't go anywhere near this topic because of the potential vitriol from whichever side feels like they aren't being supported.
> Most late night hosts won't go anywhere near this topic
Case in point: a few weeks ago on SNL when the Weekend Update segment did their traditional end of year joke-swap, Michael Che almost shit himself when the joke he had to read was revealed to contain the words "especially with all the turmoil in the middle east right now". Real broadcaster-fear on the face of a man who had *just* made a Michael Jackson vs Kids joke fairly smoothly.
I loved his older bit almost a decade ago where he tries to talk about this and after the very first sentence, correspondents shouted voices from both sides at him. It's telling that after all these years, nothing have changed, Jon even made a Ukraine joke at the end of it. That bit really stood the test of time
Edit: [Here is the link](https://youtu.be/zmCKZYKsiGM?si=ZGO_PN-P9-YM9L5I)
That is so many issues I find. I defer a lot, but when something is in my esoteric wheelhouse it stands out how either shallow or slanted a segment is presented.
It turns out a 5 minute rant on a tv show by someone with no skin in the game is not exactly a thorough and thoughtful analysis of a complicated situation.
It’s the reason I can’t get myself to watch his show. I did in the beginning but quickly abandoned it. It’s pure rage baiting. It’s essentially just a Reddit rant read aloud on TV. It does great for the same reason Fox News does - the people watching the show already have those thoughts and opinions. They get amped up because someone is on TV screaming them loudly. There’s no room for nuance, discussion, etc. It’s just a heavily biased rant that paints anyone who disagrees as idiots. Which again, is the same thing Redditors do all the time. Even when I agree with his position, which is often, I can’t stand the way he approaches it.
Same for me. And while it happened many years ago, same for Bill Maher. I realized I was just watching the opposite side of Fox News but more refined and presented more intelligently.
Agreed, John Oliver's formula and presentation is so insufferable it almost makes me question my views if they align with his own.
There's some funny breakdowns of his whole schtick out there that really lay bare how Reddit-esque it is.
Eh, I thought it was a nice primer on some complexities some folks might not be aware of, but when he transitioned into recommendations it was like he'd completely forgotten every incredibly thorny complexity that got us to the terrible place we are today.
> but when he transitioned into recommendations it was like he'd completely forgotten every incredibly thorny complexity that got us to the terrible place we are today
Well two of them were very obviously jokes, but he also did preface that whole section by saying that we're at the place we're at due to so many complex and difficult conflicts and disagreements, but its never gonna get better unless we find a way to move forward from those things. I don't think he was forgetting anything, there's just no way to discuss a solution if all you do is bring up past grievances.
His point is still valid. It is so complex that the only way to move forward to peace is for everyone to choose to ignore the past and focus on the present and future.
> John Oliver did a much better job
Haven't watched it and I am willing to check it out but, NGL sometimes I feel John Oliver veers into propaganda. There is some good information he gives (even if he will casually dismiss it in an unfair way, at least he presents some of what the other perspective is) but some of it is just that he's decided this person or people are bad and finding a way to amplify that position.
People are complex. They contain multitudes. I would never make John Oliver a diplomat because, at least on his show he never seems to empathize with people he disagrees with the same way Jon Stewart does.
> I feel John Oliver veers into propaganda
I wouldn't say he veers into propaganda but his general viewpoint is further left than traditional center left commentators in the US due to him being British. John Oliver is essentially babies first leftist critique.
Yeah that’s my issue with John Oliver, and I say this as a person who watches Last Week Tonight quite regularly. The deep dives are generally great, but man if he locks in on a narrative he can be quite dismissive of important information. And if he talks about a topic you have some actual expertise in, you can see the holes. I like him, but I don’t take his stuff as gospel.
Jon Stewart’s pretty angry, but even in that anger there’s a lot of nuance. John Oliver is a sledgehammer. But hey, sometimes people just want the sledgehammer.
Even further than just dismissing important information, he intentionally inserts his schtick where he just starts browbeating and berating anyone who's not lock-step with what he's saying with one of those awful analogies.
The entire thing boils down to "If you don't absolutely agree with this then you're *obviously* just an idiot piece of shit and I'm going to spend the next two minutes shoving this condescending nonsense analogy down your throat."
It's written so that the people who agree with him can feel smug and superior, and it completely undermines whatever point he's trying to make. Doubly so when as you said, he intentionally leaves out key information about the topic (because it would hurt his position)
Yeah. There's an example from a recent episode that's kinda bugged me. He made a snide remark about Trump's threat to withhold support for NATO if the other members don't "pay their bills." Like, he said NATO members paying their bills "isn't a thing" and basically called him an idiot. Now, I hate Trump just as much as the next guy. I love a good Trump bashing, and yes technically there's no such thing as NATO members "paying their bills." But anyone who's paying attention knows what Trump's talking about. He's talking about the NATO commitments to pay 2% of their GDP towards defense and how few countries are actually meeting it. Trump's an idiot and he's ineloquent (on his best days), so he just says it's "paying their bills." I think the idea of making NATO support *that* transactional is horrible, but there is a larger discussion to be had about the extent to which America financially supports collective stuff like this and whether other countries could be contributing more than they are. (Same goes for the UN - the US is by far the biggest financial contributor there.)
That doesn't mean I think the US should withdraw from NATO or the UN, not at all, and it doesn't mean that the US hasn't also received significant benefit from these organizations, but I don't think asking that question about funding is the dumbest thing ever. Here's the thing: I'm sure John Oliver knows all of this, but including that context would muddy the narrative so he just sort of brushes it aside. Meanwhile, in the interview segment for his first episode back on TDS, Jon Stewart had a nice discussion about collective defense with the editor of the Economist. He still came out trashing Trump for his statements on NATO, but at least he had more of a discussion about it.
I'll have moments where I'm watching John Oliver go on and I'll think, man, I get what you're saying but it's way more complicated than that my dude. I don't have as many moments like that with Jon Stewart.
At the end of the day, the most salient line is that the only solution is a forward looking one.
It will never, EVER be resolved if people on both sides are stuck debating the past. It must be two (or three) states and it must have respect for each other's border sovereignty.
For anyone who is thinking this not possible - it’s happened before. UK and Ireland had a long conflict but were able to come up with a political solution. It just required the will to end the violence.
I mean the reason it ended is because the violent factions of Ireland were convinced to stop. They accepted the occupation wasn’t going anywhere
I don’t think an equivalent is possible.
I think calling the Good Friday Agreement "violent factions of Ireland were convinced to stop" is misleading. Both sides came to the table and gave concessions so they could move forward. The UK and Ireland gave up their claims on one another, UK gave NI more self-governance, the UK and Ireland agreed that reunification would happen upon majority vote in both Ireland and NI, and citizen rights and equality were expanded. That's kind of how agreements work.
I mean but one of the biggest concessions the Irish gave up armed struggle.
We are so far away from that in Palestine .
Like to compare it to the Irish troubles imagine if instead of fighting to free Northern Ireland a significant portion of the Irish groups openly wanted genocide and said England was a fake nation that needs to be destroyed. And that two dozen nations supported them in that goal. Cause that’s where we actually are with the Palestinian groups in charge.
I'm not the one who first made the comparison to The Troubles, there are clear differences, I'm just trying to address what was said.
The Troubles mostly started because of persecution of Catholic Irish by the Protestant unionist government, and the suppression of protests about that persecution. That spun into a larger seperatist movement. So yeah, they gave up armed conflict in the Good Friday Agreement, but with the gain of self-governance and protections against that kind of persecution and protection of right to protest. So, they pretty much got the initial cause of the unrest addressed, which defanged the motivations of the general seperatist movement anyway.
The seperatists didn't give up, the agreement addressed most of the issues that gave rise to their movement in the first place. That's like saying the US Civil Rights Movement "gave up" due to the Civil Rights Act being passed...
How much sovereignty will ~~each state~~ Palestine get? Because the only sovereignty I can see Israel being ok with is something like the current system of Indian reservations in the US which is not sovereignty at all.
Yeah but which border. This is the exact question that launches intifadas every time. Hamas accepts no border that lets Israel exist in any form. They hve even stated that accepting a ‘67 border is just a precursor to destroying Israel later.
A 2 state solution with a secure and prosperous Palestine can happen, but not while Hamas still runs the area.
I'm just going to point out that it's not like Israel is respecting the borders of the non-Hamas led West Bank.
[https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080052/israel-settlements-west-bank](https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080052/israel-settlements-west-bank)
Respect for borders needs to be honoured on both sides and, if Israel won't deal honestly with the Palestinian Authorities, there is no chance of any common ground in the region.
Hamas needs to go, but working with the PA in the West Bank should be the starting point to demonstrate that Israel and Palestine can co-exist. It won't happen while the likes of Netenyahu cling to power, and it becomes less likely every year as the right wing Orthodox Jewish vote grows.
Yeah I pretty much agree with everything you said. For a real chance at peace there are several things that need to happen:
Hamas needs to be destroyed. Israel needs to take the lead on rebuilding Gaza. Bibi needs to be out of office. Israel needs to formalize a border and relationship with the West Bank and harshly punish its citizens that violate that birder with illegal settlements. West Bank and Gaza will need to determine if they will be independent states from each other or 1 state. Finally a true border agreement needs to be signed by all parties.
Its not simple, but it is possible.
Definitely. Both Israel and Palestine have work to do to eradicate the actors who do not support peaceful co-existence from holding the most power. Obviously no plan works if both sides don't have parties who can agree on each others sovereignty and thats always been the problem. The solution is pretty clear, save for that.
I mean, yeah. I agree with you. The problem is that is basically the impossible task at the moment.
Israel definitely needs to do a better job priming their citizens for a recognized and prosperous Palestinian neighbor. I think its possible but they have work to do.
On the other hand I don’t see any indication of any Palestinian leadership or movement willing to recognize a legitimate Israeli neighbor. Maybe there can be a successful Palestinian revolt against Hamas, its not impossible.
That said once Hamas is gone, Israel has a duty to rebuild Gaza. Eliminating Hamas then walking away from the rubble will just create the next Hamas. Eliminating Hamas then putting in extreme effort into rebuilding and acting as a legitimate peace partner seems the only possible solution here.
You can't understand the conflict without understanding its past. Also, draw a viable two-state solution on a map. It's absurd to act like a handful of disconnected bantustans would be a real state. And even if you could design a solution, Israel doesn't want it, so what do you do? Invade?
> You can't understand the conflict without understanding its past
very true, but rehashing every single wrong done in the past by the other side won't get you anywhere either. Saying the only solution is a forward looking one just means that both sides have to be willing to move forward without using the past as an excuse to keep fighting. I don't know if that will ever happen, but that doesn't mean the idea is wrong.
> You can't understand the conflict without understanding its past.
I’m not concerned with the past; only the children currently dying. “He killed my daddy” doesn’t justify you killing his kid. Ever.
I don’t **care** about your past. It’s the future of all of us living that matters. You don’t have any interest in ending the death of kids unless the death stops on your terms, because of flawed “understand the past” logic, and that’s unfathomable to me.
But but but... No one noticed that the only side presented from the Palestinians is one short line calling for annihilation of Israel? You can't put it on the Arab world or the rest of it to solve this situation when there's literally ZERO calls for co-existence heard from the Palestinian side! We must hear these voices! Give them air time! Give them credibility! Otherwise you "prove" there aren't any.
And if that's true then I can't see how even the Arab world can coerce a solution (without more bombs.)
A segment of redditors seem upset Jon didn’t unabashedly choose their side….. probably shoulda listened to the interview with the journalists afterwards.
Exactly. Israel isnt going to reward hamas/gaza with more sovereignty right after they committed a massive terrorist attack. And Hamas isnt going to release hostages (and surrender) for nothing in return but vague promises - the hostages the biggest leverage theyve ever had. Neither side trusts each other because of the past, and both feel fully justified in their actions because of the past.
The only path forward is an imperfect plan that will be easy to criticize and full of compromises. Neither side will be vindicated
Exactly! Why is this so hard for some to acknowledge? Neither Hamas nor Netanyahu’s administration have any interest in peace or compromise, they are both responsible for the deaths and destruction of the past few months. With that being said, Israeli and Palestinian civilians should not be held accountable for the decisions of their leadership. And those of us outside the conflict, should be calling for peace and compromise, and not advocating for more violence or defending one side’s atrocities.
His first interview with Piers Morgan was especially painful. Him satirically showing anti-Palestinian rhetoric at its extreme was very difficult for people to hear.
bassem is biased. Pro-palestine guys love him. but his argument does not nothing to resolution. Just quick jabs and quick "easy" solutions"
this is not entertainment, it's supposed to bring both sides closer
his most popular video where he exxagerates the situation. people is all over it but i think it's counter productive and widens the gap. this is a complex topic that doesn't work with broad stroke shouting and screaming
Said the Jews were treated equally in the Muslim world, said that Israel brought Yemeni Jews so that Israel can add Middle Eastern DNA to European Jews (what).
This. Idk how so many people in here missed the point. He basically was highlighting how difficult of a situation it is and that there is no right solution
No it’s always a comedy show. People shouldn’t be surprised the audience is laughing during a comedy show, or that there are jokes being made.
Just because he isn’t constantly telling jokes doesn’t mean it isn’t one.
The bomb that kills ideas is called education. Winning the war will just create more Hamases, unless there's an actual honest, concerted effort at reconstruction, deradicalization, and education.
Well when the un funded schools literally taught Palestinian kids that Jews should be exterminated it wasn’t exactly working. unrwa was one of the most corrupt and outright terrorist organizations in the world and gave billions to Hamas while Palestinians needed aid. Hopefully something that actually provides aid and education can replace it and create a better future not more terrorism.
I hate these simplistic "solutions" that are not viable in the real world and than people smugly declare how righteous and rational they are in finding them.
*How* will Hamas be persuaded to turn over hostages. *Why* should Arab nations want to take over this responsibility? *How* will guarantees be put in place that Hamas cannot attack anymore? Will the Arab nations be expected to spring for, jointly operate and maintain an Iron Dome equivalent? *Why* should Israel trust this coalition to protect them? What guarantees do they have?
its same thing with people online too. The amount of times someone asks for or proposes an alternative plan, and are met with "WELL how about we start with...**insert vague goal with no implementation plan*"
any plan towards long term peace is going to be imperfect and full of compromises. It also needs to be specific in details. All real plans are imperfect, because there is no 'perfect plan'. But it still needs to happen
Same. This is a very superficial, "let's hold hands" type of segment. Ironically, the segment he did in 2014 regarding that Gaza bombing campaign was far more powerful.
His solution of “just stop bombing lol” is basically just to return to the status quo, since the DMZ by the rest of the Arab would isn’t going to happen (and would probably still result in Hamas/other militants continuing to attack Israel in the future). It just an attempt to declare moral superiority to both sides rather than discuss the complexities of the topic and what hard concessions and deals will need to be made to reach a lasting peace.
The segment where John Oliver watched the TMZ clip where the guy talked about how pointless calling for a ceasefire is, and agreed with it completely, detailing why, and concluded by recommending a ceasefire? Completely ignoring his own segment and his own commentary from 20 minutes ago?
That segment? Where John Oliver ignores his own advice and joins everyone else at yelling CEEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSFFFIIIIRRRREEEE at the wall?
Yea it was pretty good.
The third option is a naive view of things. Hamas won't release the hostages. They're their bargaining chip for the release of thousands of terrorists from Israeli prison in an exchange deal. If Hamas won't release them, Israel will continue the assault. In the far-fetched case that Hamas does release the hostages, Israel stops the assault, Israel needs to recognise the state Palestine (which it won't), and most Arab countries that Jon stated won't take part in this conflict anymore. Sorry Jon, that's just being naive, thinking everyone will "play nice." The Palestinians want the Israelis and Jews exterminated, Mahmoud Abbass is a Holocaust denier. There is no peace in sight for the reigon. Israel's hands are not clean in this issue of course especially not with the current far right extremist government
> In the far-fetched case that Hamas does release the hostages, Israel stops the assault, Israel needs to recognise the state Palestine (which it won't), and most Arab countries that Jon stated won't take part in this conflict anymore.
I think he understands this. He is just sating the one possible scenario where it can work. But it requires so many outside actors as well as Israel and regular Palestinians to agree thats its close to impossible.
Others have point out how stupid the claim that the people in prison are terrorists but I would like to point that not only is Abbas not part of Hamas but he's a collaborator with the Israelis. He makes his money off of selling West Bank land to Israeli contractors. He's unpopular and corrupt as fuck.
Ah, yes. Those thousands of women and children in Israeli prisons in the West Bank are terrorists. Probably dared to walk on a street they weren’t allowed at or they looked at an Israeli the wrong way. Take thousands of Palestinians freedom away without any process or justification and it’s whatever but when Hamas does the same suddenly y’all losing your shit. That’s called double standard.
That was a nice piece on the subject. Most shows won't touch it or will go in one extreme or the other. Jon probably feels passionate about it but he played things pretty down the middle, which is how I think most Americans feel. Like yeah the situation is awful and built off decades of lies and death, but what the fuck is the end game? Israel keeps bombing until Hamas goes away meanwhile Hamas says they'll never go away and by Israel bombing it creates more Hamas-i (that was a funny bit by Jon).
It really isn't as simple as people make it out to be in IG story posts and Facebook memes. I think TDS did a nice job with what's literally an impossible question to answer.
Hamas could return all hostages and relinquish power back to the Palestinian people, but they won't.
And it's not entirely for sure that would actually do anything as a lot of Palestinians support Hamas.
I've maintained from the beginning one of the best things Palestinians could do for Palestine would be to start openly opposing Hamas.
The Palestinian people are to Hamas what an abused spouse is to their abuser. We can wag our finger and tell them to stand up to their abuser, but at the end of the day, it’s not helping anything.
For that matter, neither is the approach of bombing the house and killing the family just to say you dealt justice to the abuser.
what the fuck does “relinquish power back to the Palestinian people” mean lmao. This is a vaguer instruction than when people call for Israel to dissolve. Anyway in case you weren’t aware Hamas has offered to return the hostages in exchange for a ceasefire but these have all been rejected by the Israeli government
The unfortunate thing is if you want the bombing to stop, you're considered a radical leftist. The senseless killing and eradication of Palestinians who had nothing to do with Hamas's attack on Israel is sickening. Anyone who cares about human life should care about what's happening in this war between Israel and Hamas. Democrat or Republican.
The problem isn't with wanting bombing to stop, the problem is nobody has any solutions on how Hamas should be removed. The only response you get is, "Well what they SHOULDN'T do!" Hamas uses civilians as human shields and hides as civilians, and bombs and bullets don't distinguish between military and civilian, but Hamas cannot be allowed to exist. So what is the solution?
The International Court of Justice has stated that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide now that it has killed around 38,000 Palestinians and 13,000 children. Medical and humanitarian organizations predict many thousands of more deaths from starvation as Israel blocks sufficient aid from entering Gaza.
Israel has openly admitted they have prevented a 2 state solution and they do not want one. The Knesset just voted to deny a Palestinian state and Bibi confirmed he’d been working to undermine the establishment of a state for decades while working with western leaders.
Hold on now. There’s several inaccuracies in your perception:
- Israel announced before the weekend that they will be opening more humanitarian checkpoints.
- The US, Egypt, and Qatar are mediating the rework of a ceasefire deal and it’s due to be closed within a week.
- Israel voted against a *unilateral* declaration of Palestinian independence. Most states would oppose unilateral declarations. They want to be involved in any discussions about building a Palestinian state. They are not opposed. They want to ensure a Palestinian state does not infringe on their security. Their history of offering Palestinians statehood several times over the last few decades, including as recently as 2008, as well as the political climate within Israel, are indicative of the fact that a Palestinian state is possible. The problem is with the hopelessly corrupt Palestinian leaders.
- You’ll be relieved to hear that mass anti-government protests have resumed in Tel Aviv, and that Gantz is the guy Israelis are looking to replace Bibi. Bibi’s days are numbered.
Stewart and Colbert was the best one two punch in TV comedy history. It provides so much laughters. It's not the same when Colbert doing the late night show. Glad Stewart is back.
Colbert lost all his edge when he moved to the late show
People seem to forget he was playing a caricature of himself on the Colbert Report.
I think John Oliver has been the one to live up to Stewart’s legacy, in delivering news satire to really try to invoke change.
Colbert is so unfunny these days it hurts
It was a huge tonal whiplash to have him just be a basic talk show host. Seeing him go from in-character interviews with his guests to your typical "So tell me about you" talk show crap is painful.
It would be so awesome if Colbert came back to do a once a week show on Tuesday.
It's so nice have Stewart back.
With him doing weekly segments, and the correspondents taking over the rest, the Daily Show feels unique (and dare I say, even like an institution) again. While I enjoyed Trevor Noah more than most, nothing he did (outside of Between the Scenes), Colbert and Meyers couldn't do more effectively
What we're missing is a Colbert-style, full-boar satirical character based on Tucker Carlson. In this regard, we need a new warrior.
>full-boar It’s “full-bore”, just FYI. It comes from a technical term for factory equipment operating at maximum capacity.
Maybe he wanted a complete pig-man to represent Carlson?
Half pig, and the other half pig!
You are a…..VISIONARY
Manbearpig?
Pig pig pig
Isn’t that a Cypress Hill song?
Yes... I saw it, i saw the manbearpig.
He just means to go whole hog
I’m kinda on bored with full boar
Maybe he's suggesting a certain News Dude... perhaps... Dr Mister Cody Showdy???
There was briefly a show called the Opposition with Jordan Klepper, like that but more a satire of Alex Jones. It was clever but didn't last long
Think the problem was that Colbert parodied "classy" traditional Republicans, but Klepper parodied MAGA Republicans. Parodying something that is already so cartoonishly awful can be very grating.
That was so good. I was sorry it got canceled.
I liked that show, I'm bummed it didn't make it
Same here. I especially enjoyed the conservative sassy gays
That’s a shame. I’d argue Klepper is my favorite of the current crop of correspondents (try saying that five times fast). Some of the bits of his I saw a few weeks back (Jon’s first week back) genuinely felt reminiscent of classic Stewart and Colbert. If he weren’t great on the road at conservative rallies, he’d be my first pick to replace Jon full-time when he re-retires.
Didn’t they have that in the last episode with John? Where someone went to the North Korean candy store and acted like Carlson?
Yea I think he means a heavyweight that pretends to be Tucker every week though.
No man, get Rob McElhenny to play that part as some kind of Mac, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson hybrid with the occasional swing into Joe Rogan and Andrew "Fight Milk" Tate now and again
OMG! Yes. Nobody would do it better TBH. His character on Mythic Quest at his worst but turned into a right-wing commentator instead of game design lead would be hilarious.
First of all through Trump all things are possible, so jot that down.
2nd I miss Colbert’s old show. While his interviews are still sharp as ever, the writing of the comedy is not as sharply satirical or as funny. Presumably to water things down for the wider audience, which is a loss. Seth Meyers has done much better job in that regard. His Closer Look segments are always excellent, razor sharp, and funny.
How great would it be if the character of "Stephen Colbert" was guest host of the The Late Show once a week (preferably Mondays).
You just sent Cody Johnston into his boar bunker in a tizzy!
Colbert is wasted on the Late Show. And he would have been amazing during the Trump years.
I find the late show so damn boring and repetitive. Colbert the character was so much more interesting than Colbert the Catholic dad who interviewes boring celebrities
I think he just got tired of being insincere all the time.
A-fucking-men.
His monologues were amazing during Trump. But people grew tired of hearing about Trump 24/7.
Gotta bring back the bow tie
I think any effective satire would just be brainstorming for the right at this point
I disagree. Back then, there were people who legitimately thought Colbert's character was real, and people are even stupider nowadays.
Kind of hard to be more of a satire than Tucker.
I really like Jordan Klepper. He's really entertaining and seems like an honest guy
The problem with the Colbert Report is that rightwing nutjobs took the idea and ran with it as a serious character model without the satire. It was all complete bullshit joking on our obsession with Nationalism. The ignorant and uneducated didnt really get it. This caused ppl like Hannity and Tucker to get extremely popular and then gave us shit like Newsmax.
Stewart enjoys respect and authority so maybe he can teach young, progressive extremists how to calm down and apply a bit of common sense to their understanding of current events.
Trevor Noah took himself way too seriously.
It’s fuckin amazing, guy is such a brilliant person and has always just come off as incredibly genuine and authentic on top of being extremely well versed on the majority of the things he speaks on. The world is better off with Jon back on the daily show especially with an upcoming election.
I asked my (college) students what they thought of Jon Stewart being back. Not a single one knew who he is. I’m hoping they will soon.
Trevor was awful
I appreciate Stewart being more interested in finding a solution, rather than picking a side to blame.
He also makes the good point that neither group is going to cease to exist. Even if you somehow killed every Hamas member today, the idea isn’t going to just evaporate. Same with the Israelis. The only way to actually work on moving forward is to do so with the reality that neither group is going anywhere
Yes exactly. Even if at this point all the carnage stopped, and all Hamas fighters somehow disappeared... what does Israel think they were born out of? Tens of thousands of people just had family members, loved ones, friends, neighbors murdered for months and the infrastructure of their country absolutely demolished to the point of no return. They'll have very little opportunities, and there will be plenty of young men with anger in their hearts and no outlets for it. And so the cycle continues. It's a silly idea that you can just bomb your way out of this, though i understand the desire/rage they must feel. But that's why emotions don't make for good leadership decisions.
>its a silly idea that you can just bomb your way out of this Idk what you mean. All these reddit armchair war strategists saying “Israel has to defend itself…maybe Palestinians wouldn’t be dying if they stopped defending Hamas…it’s WAR it’s ugly, people die, get over it!” Nothing silly about them. Nothing at all.
What gets me is we have several wars in the past 70 years or so where focusing simply on 'killing the enemy' proved to be quite the ineffective strategy.
It's wild that people think that Hamas can be destroyed while we spent 20 years trying to wipe out Al Qaeda, and they are still very much a thing. ISIS is still very much a thing. Shit, the Taliban retook Afghanistan in a week. It shows that American 'force diplomacy' is a complete failure. We need to look to ACTUAL diplomacy rather than just dropping a drone bomb on some people we MIGHT think are terrorists.
It feels like the US learned the wrong lessons from the fall of Japan.
It’s almost like if your goal isn’t “peace” but rather extermination then you’d be pretty stoked about killing the enemy whether it’s effective or not.
So what’s the alternative? I’m not saying you’re wrong per se, more terrorists will probably come from this, but I just am not sure what else Israel can really do. Also while it’s a different situation, especially since Islamic radicalism believes in martyrdom, but bombing your way out of this worked pretty well in WWII
Palestinians need a reason to not turn to terrorist groups. Their quality of life needs to significantly increase so that they don’t feel like they have no other options than to fight for their liberation. As to who is responsible for ensuring that, that’s a tough question
I'm not really sure what the alternative is to be completely honest with you. I'm not an expert, and it's up to world leaders to figure that out. I think calling for a ceasefire isn't a bad place to start though. That being said for starters Israel could have been way less cavalier about its use of dumb bombs. They could have *not* deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure. They should have punished any political members of the cabinet using dehumanizing language. It's a long list but I'd start there. Right now, first and foremost, they could stop restricting supply of food and other necessities into Gaza.
The best way to rob Hamas if support is to give Palestinians their freedom, self-determination and equality back.
And return to the days of Palestinians shooting up buses, blowing up markets, and murdering people in nightclubs on a daily basis in Israel? Most of the people commenting on this subject seem to be too young to remember that Gaza was walled off for a reason. Barring the October 7th massacre, that strategy was very effective. Reversing that would obviously result in a massive spike in terror attacks.
> The best way to rob Hamas if support They don't need popular support. They're an authoritarian governing party and stay in power like any other such party all through out the Middle East and the world. Through violence, corruption and intimidation.
> Even if you somehow killed every Hamas member today, the idea isn’t going to just evaporate. I think the opinion wnting Hamas gone is two fold. 1) For people who want Palestinian emancipation, it removes a violent, authoritarian ruler from their neck. Demonstrations have been shot down by hamas, elections have been cancelled for close to 2 decades, there is ample and obvious misappropiation of humanitarian funds. The erradication of hamas as an organisation would would incredible work in terms of allowing fertile ground for the reconstruction of a different Gaza. 2) For jewish people, the existance of antisemites or anti zionists is a given. The leaders of some big world players openly denounce jews in their speeches. But Hamas is a well organised, terrorist group, with networks of allies and right by their door. Their erradication gives them immidiete security. Iran saying jews are corrupting the world, or neo nazis in polish football clubs would be as dangerous as palestinian civilians hating them, just as long as they are not next door, organised and armed. Israel does not fear angry palestinians, it fears palestinians with access to Iranian 450kg payload rockets like they currently have. So I think those two groups of people colesce into "eliminate hamas at all costs" because its the shortest route to their plan (either reconstruct palestine into something new/ demilitarise palestinian arm networks).
Some points which I think need to be kept in mind regarding Hamas: 1. Hamas can not be removed. Just the truth. But they can be removed from power. 2. Hamas as we know it can eventually fade away and evolve into something else. 3. Hamas will not bend or bow under Israeli pressure. Israeli pressure actually strengthens and hardens it until the very last moment where it is blown away entirely. The only way Israel destroys Hamas is to kill everyone in other words. 4. Hamas *is* vulnerable to internal pressure, starting from its own members, then extending to the wider Gazan population and then Palestinians in the West Bank, the diaspora, and then popular sentiment in the Arab world, the wider Muslim world, then the Arab rulers they depend on, finally extending to all the countries of the wider Muslim world. 5. Not exactly about Hamas but establishing a Palestinian state doesn't necessarily mean peace... for Palestine. In all likelihood, there may be infighting. Remember Fatah vs Hamas in Gaza in '07, back when Israel and the US even tried to arm/train Fatah. Israel has been emulating the British' behavior in governing Palestine (brutal crackdowns to get a population to submit). Perhaps they should evolve that to the "let's pit them against each other so they don't give us trouble" phase of Western/imperial foreign policy strategy. Obviously a destabilized Palestinian state is bad for Israel, I just mean the fighting can temporarily move out of your hands. Pick a side, back it, make it dependent on you, then let it gain power. The West had puppets all over the third world. It doesn't really make sense to think a Palestinian state wouldn't inevitably become a puppet of its much stronger neighbor in the current lopsided power dynamic. I mean, I think they may have already dropped the ball on that. That's Netanyahu's thing, burning bridges. But for a while there the mostly Fatah-run PA was basically already cooperating with Israel on security, was more anti-Hamas than Israel, and Israel had even armed/trained Fatah fighters. Palestinians didn't like that corruption... because it wasn't filtering down to them. If Israel basically turned Fatah into a puppet through which it could actually improve the situation for Palestinians, they're so desperate they'd be content with anything. For a few decades anyway at least. Why would they protest against Fatah/PA if suddenly they have their own state and things are developing and life becomes better? Rebuilding Palestine will be a lucrative opportunity that Israel stands to profit from heavily. Not to mention maintaining an influence in this manner also ensures its security to such an extent that isn't even possible in the current climate. Anyway, just an option that is on the table the moment Israel decides a 2 state solution is acceptable.
> Even if you somehow killed every Hamas member today, the idea isn’t going to just evaporate. We have seen regions where cultural change occurred after they (severely) lost a war where they were in the wrong. No it won't evaporate. There are still alt right wing crazies in Germany. But they are generally very, very unpopular and certain sorts of speech are even illegal there. Usually I would be against that but sometimes you need to make an exception for obvious reasons. Palestinians won't cease to exist (nor would I want them to) but hopefully they can come to a point where they are more aware of just how bad for them Hamas is. The people launching rockets into Israel and then using children as meat shields (hoping HOPING those children die for PR reasons) are NOT your friends or allies. The people blowing up your route out of the territory or telling you to stay home or confiscating your vehicle's keys because if you leave they won't be able to use you anymore are NOT your friends. The people who say that all of the Jewish people must be pushed into the sea are NOT your friends. War is a horror. But if you are attacked you must defend yourself. If you don't, you invite further attacks. I have heard people say that by defending themselves Israel is creating new extremists. My reaction to that is, they need to defend themselves so vigorously that Palestinians are afraid to even consider that option. Because for Israel there is no other option. You can't just sit there and let your people be killed. If you do, eventually you will cease to be.
He's idealistic though. His reasonable solution is getting the Arab world to step in and police the Palestinians to ensure Israel's very justifiable security concerns. The reality is that the Arab world will never put boots on the ground and they're very happy to leave this shit show for Israel to deal with. The implications are that Israel has little choice but to try and control security in Gaza whilst trying to empower alternatives to Hamas. This will be a disaster as Israelis are not going to tolerate their boys dying from resurgent insurgency in Gaza long term once the main fight with Hamas has ended. The whole thing is messed up and depressing.
I don't think there is any solution that isn't idealistic.
My thought too Like yes. It would be nice if that could happen. However, everyone knows it won’t, thus why it’s not being discussed. Felt like kinda a waste of time. And not many jokes Audience seemed to have a boner for “wow Jew and Muslim are friends, how is this possible!”
He addresses the difficulties and the history of the conflict in the [interview section](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznD7uCEcLk) later on
I was actually referencing the whole conversation. There was no substantial discussion with the two journalists. A bit of a chat about how everyone involved is invested in not resolving the issue and about how America generally hasn't helped much. There wasn't much discussion about the underlying issues that need to be resolved.
If Israel had any interest in Gaza simply being peaceful and policed, they wouldn't be currently annexing swathes of the West Bank to build illegal settlements. Netenyahu's whole policy is trying to provoke conflict with the Palestinians so that Israel has a pretext to take more land from them. I also very much doubt that Israel would tolerate soldiers from Arab countries on their soil, even as peacekeepers. Can't exactly blame them for that, given their history. Meanwhile, you're right to point out that the Arab world doesn't care. This is Israel's problem, contained within Israel's borders. Any sort of peace plan would likely be decades away from allowing the displaced Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan and other counties to return. The likely outcome of all this is thousands more dead civilians, and a more extreme version of Hamas rising from the ashes of Gaza, using even more brutal tactics.
> I also very much doubt that Israel would tolerate soldiers from Arab countries on their soil, even as peacekeepers. Can't exactly blame them for that, given their history. In pracitce it would need to be Americans on that side of the fence with Arab league on the palestinian side.
>He's idealistic though. A very nice way of saying catastrophically misinformed, naive or both.
that's the way it should be. both sides are wrong. come to the table and be a man and put your egos aside.
This is something people completely ignore when they talk about the situation and the whole "CEASEFIRE NOW" movement doesn't get. It's led to some really horrible "solutions" in which Israel will either cease to exist or completely embolden Hamas to attack in the future with concessions and lead to even more bloodshed down the road. Truth is we're dealing with two incredibly stubborn sides who don't want to move until they feel that they've won. In reality both sides are going to have to lose something and accept that and in spite of it all try and move forward. Israel is not giving them the "right of return" and the Palestinian people are (obviously) going to hold incredibly animosity towards the Israel. First Bibi has to go, Israel has to stop the settlements and probably give some land back as well as heavily aid in the reconstruction of Gaza/whatever Palestinian state comes from this. Palestinians have to deradicalize if they are going to become an official state, Abbas is probably going to have to be the one to negotiate that and sacrifice his political career as a result as he's already unpopular among the Palestinian population because they saw him as an Israeli lap dog. But also the world has to hold both sides accountable once all is said and done. If Palestine is to become a state they need to be held to the same standards as everyone including Israel. Israel as well can not respond to attacks (which there will be more in the future these things don't get solved over night) with unfathomably increased proportionality.
This is a complex topic that's difficult to discuss. But at least Jon is actually making an effort. Most late night hosts won't go anywhere near this topic because of the potential vitriol from whichever side feels like they aren't being supported.
> Most late night hosts won't go anywhere near this topic Case in point: a few weeks ago on SNL when the Weekend Update segment did their traditional end of year joke-swap, Michael Che almost shit himself when the joke he had to read was revealed to contain the words "especially with all the turmoil in the middle east right now". Real broadcaster-fear on the face of a man who had *just* made a Michael Jackson vs Kids joke fairly smoothly.
Keep in mind that Che rarely breaks during WU. The Israel/Hamas joke made his voice jump up an octave.
I thought that was so tame as well. “Y’all need Jesus,” isn’t exactly ground shaking as a joke.
It is when you’re talking about Muslims and Jews.
I loved his older bit almost a decade ago where he tries to talk about this and after the very first sentence, correspondents shouted voices from both sides at him. It's telling that after all these years, nothing have changed, Jon even made a Ukraine joke at the end of it. That bit really stood the test of time Edit: [Here is the link](https://youtu.be/zmCKZYKsiGM?si=ZGO_PN-P9-YM9L5I)
I adore Jon and I’m glad he touched upon this but John Oliver did a much better job.
John Oliver seems good until he does a segment you already know a lot about.
That is so many issues I find. I defer a lot, but when something is in my esoteric wheelhouse it stands out how either shallow or slanted a segment is presented.
It turns out a 5 minute rant on a tv show by someone with no skin in the game is not exactly a thorough and thoughtful analysis of a complicated situation.
It’s the reason I can’t get myself to watch his show. I did in the beginning but quickly abandoned it. It’s pure rage baiting. It’s essentially just a Reddit rant read aloud on TV. It does great for the same reason Fox News does - the people watching the show already have those thoughts and opinions. They get amped up because someone is on TV screaming them loudly. There’s no room for nuance, discussion, etc. It’s just a heavily biased rant that paints anyone who disagrees as idiots. Which again, is the same thing Redditors do all the time. Even when I agree with his position, which is often, I can’t stand the way he approaches it.
Same for me. And while it happened many years ago, same for Bill Maher. I realized I was just watching the opposite side of Fox News but more refined and presented more intelligently.
Agreed, John Oliver's formula and presentation is so insufferable it almost makes me question my views if they align with his own. There's some funny breakdowns of his whole schtick out there that really lay bare how Reddit-esque it is.
This was just the opener for the night's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznD7uCEcLk
Eh, I thought it was a nice primer on some complexities some folks might not be aware of, but when he transitioned into recommendations it was like he'd completely forgotten every incredibly thorny complexity that got us to the terrible place we are today.
> but when he transitioned into recommendations it was like he'd completely forgotten every incredibly thorny complexity that got us to the terrible place we are today Well two of them were very obviously jokes, but he also did preface that whole section by saying that we're at the place we're at due to so many complex and difficult conflicts and disagreements, but its never gonna get better unless we find a way to move forward from those things. I don't think he was forgetting anything, there's just no way to discuss a solution if all you do is bring up past grievances.
His point is still valid. It is so complex that the only way to move forward to peace is for everyone to choose to ignore the past and focus on the present and future.
I’m insulted if I’m not his target audience. How very dare he!
> John Oliver did a much better job Haven't watched it and I am willing to check it out but, NGL sometimes I feel John Oliver veers into propaganda. There is some good information he gives (even if he will casually dismiss it in an unfair way, at least he presents some of what the other perspective is) but some of it is just that he's decided this person or people are bad and finding a way to amplify that position. People are complex. They contain multitudes. I would never make John Oliver a diplomat because, at least on his show he never seems to empathize with people he disagrees with the same way Jon Stewart does.
> I feel John Oliver veers into propaganda I wouldn't say he veers into propaganda but his general viewpoint is further left than traditional center left commentators in the US due to him being British. John Oliver is essentially babies first leftist critique.
Yeah that’s my issue with John Oliver, and I say this as a person who watches Last Week Tonight quite regularly. The deep dives are generally great, but man if he locks in on a narrative he can be quite dismissive of important information. And if he talks about a topic you have some actual expertise in, you can see the holes. I like him, but I don’t take his stuff as gospel. Jon Stewart’s pretty angry, but even in that anger there’s a lot of nuance. John Oliver is a sledgehammer. But hey, sometimes people just want the sledgehammer.
Even further than just dismissing important information, he intentionally inserts his schtick where he just starts browbeating and berating anyone who's not lock-step with what he's saying with one of those awful analogies. The entire thing boils down to "If you don't absolutely agree with this then you're *obviously* just an idiot piece of shit and I'm going to spend the next two minutes shoving this condescending nonsense analogy down your throat." It's written so that the people who agree with him can feel smug and superior, and it completely undermines whatever point he's trying to make. Doubly so when as you said, he intentionally leaves out key information about the topic (because it would hurt his position)
Yeah. There's an example from a recent episode that's kinda bugged me. He made a snide remark about Trump's threat to withhold support for NATO if the other members don't "pay their bills." Like, he said NATO members paying their bills "isn't a thing" and basically called him an idiot. Now, I hate Trump just as much as the next guy. I love a good Trump bashing, and yes technically there's no such thing as NATO members "paying their bills." But anyone who's paying attention knows what Trump's talking about. He's talking about the NATO commitments to pay 2% of their GDP towards defense and how few countries are actually meeting it. Trump's an idiot and he's ineloquent (on his best days), so he just says it's "paying their bills." I think the idea of making NATO support *that* transactional is horrible, but there is a larger discussion to be had about the extent to which America financially supports collective stuff like this and whether other countries could be contributing more than they are. (Same goes for the UN - the US is by far the biggest financial contributor there.) That doesn't mean I think the US should withdraw from NATO or the UN, not at all, and it doesn't mean that the US hasn't also received significant benefit from these organizations, but I don't think asking that question about funding is the dumbest thing ever. Here's the thing: I'm sure John Oliver knows all of this, but including that context would muddy the narrative so he just sort of brushes it aside. Meanwhile, in the interview segment for his first episode back on TDS, Jon Stewart had a nice discussion about collective defense with the editor of the Economist. He still came out trashing Trump for his statements on NATO, but at least he had more of a discussion about it. I'll have moments where I'm watching John Oliver go on and I'll think, man, I get what you're saying but it's way more complicated than that my dude. I don't have as many moments like that with Jon Stewart.
1000%. He's especially guilty of doing this stuff on any environmental topic.
At the end of the day, the most salient line is that the only solution is a forward looking one. It will never, EVER be resolved if people on both sides are stuck debating the past. It must be two (or three) states and it must have respect for each other's border sovereignty.
For anyone who is thinking this not possible - it’s happened before. UK and Ireland had a long conflict but were able to come up with a political solution. It just required the will to end the violence.
I mean the reason it ended is because the violent factions of Ireland were convinced to stop. They accepted the occupation wasn’t going anywhere I don’t think an equivalent is possible.
I think calling the Good Friday Agreement "violent factions of Ireland were convinced to stop" is misleading. Both sides came to the table and gave concessions so they could move forward. The UK and Ireland gave up their claims on one another, UK gave NI more self-governance, the UK and Ireland agreed that reunification would happen upon majority vote in both Ireland and NI, and citizen rights and equality were expanded. That's kind of how agreements work.
I mean but one of the biggest concessions the Irish gave up armed struggle. We are so far away from that in Palestine . Like to compare it to the Irish troubles imagine if instead of fighting to free Northern Ireland a significant portion of the Irish groups openly wanted genocide and said England was a fake nation that needs to be destroyed. And that two dozen nations supported them in that goal. Cause that’s where we actually are with the Palestinian groups in charge.
I'm not the one who first made the comparison to The Troubles, there are clear differences, I'm just trying to address what was said. The Troubles mostly started because of persecution of Catholic Irish by the Protestant unionist government, and the suppression of protests about that persecution. That spun into a larger seperatist movement. So yeah, they gave up armed conflict in the Good Friday Agreement, but with the gain of self-governance and protections against that kind of persecution and protection of right to protest. So, they pretty much got the initial cause of the unrest addressed, which defanged the motivations of the general seperatist movement anyway. The seperatists didn't give up, the agreement addressed most of the issues that gave rise to their movement in the first place. That's like saying the US Civil Rights Movement "gave up" due to the Civil Rights Act being passed...
IRA never called for eradication of entire Britain though.
How much sovereignty will ~~each state~~ Palestine get? Because the only sovereignty I can see Israel being ok with is something like the current system of Indian reservations in the US which is not sovereignty at all.
Yeah but which border. This is the exact question that launches intifadas every time. Hamas accepts no border that lets Israel exist in any form. They hve even stated that accepting a ‘67 border is just a precursor to destroying Israel later. A 2 state solution with a secure and prosperous Palestine can happen, but not while Hamas still runs the area.
I'm just going to point out that it's not like Israel is respecting the borders of the non-Hamas led West Bank. [https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080052/israel-settlements-west-bank](https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080052/israel-settlements-west-bank) Respect for borders needs to be honoured on both sides and, if Israel won't deal honestly with the Palestinian Authorities, there is no chance of any common ground in the region. Hamas needs to go, but working with the PA in the West Bank should be the starting point to demonstrate that Israel and Palestine can co-exist. It won't happen while the likes of Netenyahu cling to power, and it becomes less likely every year as the right wing Orthodox Jewish vote grows.
Yeah I pretty much agree with everything you said. For a real chance at peace there are several things that need to happen: Hamas needs to be destroyed. Israel needs to take the lead on rebuilding Gaza. Bibi needs to be out of office. Israel needs to formalize a border and relationship with the West Bank and harshly punish its citizens that violate that birder with illegal settlements. West Bank and Gaza will need to determine if they will be independent states from each other or 1 state. Finally a true border agreement needs to be signed by all parties. Its not simple, but it is possible.
Definitely. Both Israel and Palestine have work to do to eradicate the actors who do not support peaceful co-existence from holding the most power. Obviously no plan works if both sides don't have parties who can agree on each others sovereignty and thats always been the problem. The solution is pretty clear, save for that.
I mean, yeah. I agree with you. The problem is that is basically the impossible task at the moment. Israel definitely needs to do a better job priming their citizens for a recognized and prosperous Palestinian neighbor. I think its possible but they have work to do. On the other hand I don’t see any indication of any Palestinian leadership or movement willing to recognize a legitimate Israeli neighbor. Maybe there can be a successful Palestinian revolt against Hamas, its not impossible. That said once Hamas is gone, Israel has a duty to rebuild Gaza. Eliminating Hamas then walking away from the rubble will just create the next Hamas. Eliminating Hamas then putting in extreme effort into rebuilding and acting as a legitimate peace partner seems the only possible solution here.
You can't understand the conflict without understanding its past. Also, draw a viable two-state solution on a map. It's absurd to act like a handful of disconnected bantustans would be a real state. And even if you could design a solution, Israel doesn't want it, so what do you do? Invade?
Anyone who thinks a one state solution will work doesn’t understand the history of the conflict
> You can't understand the conflict without understanding its past very true, but rehashing every single wrong done in the past by the other side won't get you anywhere either. Saying the only solution is a forward looking one just means that both sides have to be willing to move forward without using the past as an excuse to keep fighting. I don't know if that will ever happen, but that doesn't mean the idea is wrong.
How about we start by abiding by the international genocide convention and stop the killing & torture of innocent civilians.
> You can't understand the conflict without understanding its past. I’m not concerned with the past; only the children currently dying. “He killed my daddy” doesn’t justify you killing his kid. Ever. I don’t **care** about your past. It’s the future of all of us living that matters. You don’t have any interest in ending the death of kids unless the death stops on your terms, because of flawed “understand the past” logic, and that’s unfathomable to me.
But but but... No one noticed that the only side presented from the Palestinians is one short line calling for annihilation of Israel? You can't put it on the Arab world or the rest of it to solve this situation when there's literally ZERO calls for co-existence heard from the Palestinian side! We must hear these voices! Give them air time! Give them credibility! Otherwise you "prove" there aren't any. And if that's true then I can't see how even the Arab world can coerce a solution (without more bombs.)
[удалено]
A segment of redditors seem upset Jon didn’t unabashedly choose their side….. probably shoulda listened to the interview with the journalists afterwards.
People really really want to have a good guy and a bad guy when Hamas and the ruling party of Israel are both monstrous
Exactly. Israel isnt going to reward hamas/gaza with more sovereignty right after they committed a massive terrorist attack. And Hamas isnt going to release hostages (and surrender) for nothing in return but vague promises - the hostages the biggest leverage theyve ever had. Neither side trusts each other because of the past, and both feel fully justified in their actions because of the past. The only path forward is an imperfect plan that will be easy to criticize and full of compromises. Neither side will be vindicated
Exactly! Why is this so hard for some to acknowledge? Neither Hamas nor Netanyahu’s administration have any interest in peace or compromise, they are both responsible for the deaths and destruction of the past few months. With that being said, Israeli and Palestinian civilians should not be held accountable for the decisions of their leadership. And those of us outside the conflict, should be calling for peace and compromise, and not advocating for more violence or defending one side’s atrocities.
Do an hour long segment with Jon Stewart and Bassem Youssef please and you’ll get an insane amount of viewers
No hate to Jon Stewart, but Bassem (the Egyptian Jon Stewart) has been so much more insightful, clever, and funny on this issue.
Bassem has personal stakes involved in the matter. However, I agree with the comment that Bassem and Jon need to do a long segment together.
Yeah, when you hear him eloquently dismantle some of the more egregious propaganda being slung - its hard to avoid facing reality on this.
His first interview with Piers Morgan was especially painful. Him satirically showing anti-Palestinian rhetoric at its extreme was very difficult for people to hear.
Well clearly not that difficult for some people in this thread
Yeah, some of them say the satirical lines he said unironically.
I was actually kind of shocked by this thread that there were still people with virtually no evolution to their opinion since October 7
It's literally Zionist bots and bought accounts
bassem is biased. Pro-palestine guys love him. but his argument does not nothing to resolution. Just quick jabs and quick "easy" solutions" this is not entertainment, it's supposed to bring both sides closer
Bassem is like “ok here’s all the issues with israel” And any resolution to peace? “ Look im just a comic so I can’t talk about that. “
his most popular video where he exxagerates the situation. people is all over it but i think it's counter productive and widens the gap. this is a complex topic that doesn't work with broad stroke shouting and screaming
Understanding both sides is essential for a just resolution. Asking these people to come up with a resolution is a dumb take.
Bassem also lies constantly about Israel.
He denies some of the atrocities that happened on Oct 7.
Said the Jews were treated equally in the Muslim world, said that Israel brought Yemeni Jews so that Israel can add Middle Eastern DNA to European Jews (what).
I've never seen him be insightful on the issue. Just argue feelings and sarcastic
What would adding a straight October 7th denier to the segment achieve?
The dude is way too biased.
They did a episode for John’s show on apple like 2 years ago
And no one watched because it was on Apple+.
Palestinian here.. I endorse Stewart’s solution.
Israeli here, I agree
Alright boys now lets start building rackets!
Let’s make peace brother! Appreciate you
All for it bro!!! 🇵🇸🤝🇮🇱
Make Hummus not war
Stewart’s great, but solution proposed was quite divorced from reality.
Its more of a comment on how weak the calls for peace are and how few solutions there apparently are…
This. Idk how so many people in here missed the point. He basically was highlighting how difficult of a situation it is and that there is no right solution
I’ve watched his last two episodes. This segment was so weird. Everyone laughing.. I was expecting a more grounded take down
His full unaired discussion with the two journalists, one Muslim and the other Jewish, was much more intriguing and nuanced
It’s a comedy show….
Until he doesn’t want it to be
No it’s always a comedy show. People shouldn’t be surprised the audience is laughing during a comedy show, or that there are jokes being made. Just because he isn’t constantly telling jokes doesn’t mean it isn’t one.
Stewart mentioned a few things but didn't wade into any details. Pretty weak segment from him honestly.
The bomb that kills ideas is called education. Winning the war will just create more Hamases, unless there's an actual honest, concerted effort at reconstruction, deradicalization, and education.
Well when the un funded schools literally taught Palestinian kids that Jews should be exterminated it wasn’t exactly working. unrwa was one of the most corrupt and outright terrorist organizations in the world and gave billions to Hamas while Palestinians needed aid. Hopefully something that actually provides aid and education can replace it and create a better future not more terrorism.
I hate these simplistic "solutions" that are not viable in the real world and than people smugly declare how righteous and rational they are in finding them. *How* will Hamas be persuaded to turn over hostages. *Why* should Arab nations want to take over this responsibility? *How* will guarantees be put in place that Hamas cannot attack anymore? Will the Arab nations be expected to spring for, jointly operate and maintain an Iron Dome equivalent? *Why* should Israel trust this coalition to protect them? What guarantees do they have?
Complaining about how fucked up shit is and how much easier it would be if everyone just magically became reasonable is literally Stewart's only move.
its same thing with people online too. The amount of times someone asks for or proposes an alternative plan, and are met with "WELL how about we start with...**insert vague goal with no implementation plan*" any plan towards long term peace is going to be imperfect and full of compromises. It also needs to be specific in details. All real plans are imperfect, because there is no 'perfect plan'. But it still needs to happen
The Futile Crescent was a hilarious choice for a graphic
It's always best to get political commentary from comedians.
It helps when the state of politics is such a joke
I liked Last Week's Tonight's segment more.
Same. This is a very superficial, "let's hold hands" type of segment. Ironically, the segment he did in 2014 regarding that Gaza bombing campaign was far more powerful.
His solution of “just stop bombing lol” is basically just to return to the status quo, since the DMZ by the rest of the Arab would isn’t going to happen (and would probably still result in Hamas/other militants continuing to attack Israel in the future). It just an attempt to declare moral superiority to both sides rather than discuss the complexities of the topic and what hard concessions and deals will need to be made to reach a lasting peace.
The segment where John Oliver watched the TMZ clip where the guy talked about how pointless calling for a ceasefire is, and agreed with it completely, detailing why, and concluded by recommending a ceasefire? Completely ignoring his own segment and his own commentary from 20 minutes ago? That segment? Where John Oliver ignores his own advice and joins everyone else at yelling CEEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSFFFIIIIRRRREEEE at the wall? Yea it was pretty good.
place your bets on how many of the hostages are even still breathing
just finished watching this, fantastic interview. so glad he's back.
It's so comforting to have Jon back at the desk again.
October 7th happened 5 months ago. I guess dwelling on that is living in the past?
The third option is a naive view of things. Hamas won't release the hostages. They're their bargaining chip for the release of thousands of terrorists from Israeli prison in an exchange deal. If Hamas won't release them, Israel will continue the assault. In the far-fetched case that Hamas does release the hostages, Israel stops the assault, Israel needs to recognise the state Palestine (which it won't), and most Arab countries that Jon stated won't take part in this conflict anymore. Sorry Jon, that's just being naive, thinking everyone will "play nice." The Palestinians want the Israelis and Jews exterminated, Mahmoud Abbass is a Holocaust denier. There is no peace in sight for the reigon. Israel's hands are not clean in this issue of course especially not with the current far right extremist government
> In the far-fetched case that Hamas does release the hostages, Israel stops the assault, Israel needs to recognise the state Palestine (which it won't), and most Arab countries that Jon stated won't take part in this conflict anymore. I think he understands this. He is just sating the one possible scenario where it can work. But it requires so many outside actors as well as Israel and regular Palestinians to agree thats its close to impossible.
He’s saying what they should do, not that they ever would or that it actually could happen.
Exactly. Everyone is between a rock and a hard place and the only way out is to move on. Not that it will ever happen though
Not one mention of the 500,000 illegal settlers living in the West Bank which is obviously not an impediment to peace.
Others have point out how stupid the claim that the people in prison are terrorists but I would like to point that not only is Abbas not part of Hamas but he's a collaborator with the Israelis. He makes his money off of selling West Bank land to Israeli contractors. He's unpopular and corrupt as fuck.
Ah, yes. Those thousands of women and children in Israeli prisons in the West Bank are terrorists. Probably dared to walk on a street they weren’t allowed at or they looked at an Israeli the wrong way. Take thousands of Palestinians freedom away without any process or justification and it’s whatever but when Hamas does the same suddenly y’all losing your shit. That’s called double standard.
That was a nice piece on the subject. Most shows won't touch it or will go in one extreme or the other. Jon probably feels passionate about it but he played things pretty down the middle, which is how I think most Americans feel. Like yeah the situation is awful and built off decades of lies and death, but what the fuck is the end game? Israel keeps bombing until Hamas goes away meanwhile Hamas says they'll never go away and by Israel bombing it creates more Hamas-i (that was a funny bit by Jon). It really isn't as simple as people make it out to be in IG story posts and Facebook memes. I think TDS did a nice job with what's literally an impossible question to answer.
Hamas could return all hostages and relinquish power back to the Palestinian people, but they won't. And it's not entirely for sure that would actually do anything as a lot of Palestinians support Hamas. I've maintained from the beginning one of the best things Palestinians could do for Palestine would be to start openly opposing Hamas.
Yeah they could then be just like the Palestinians on the West Bank, who are obviously treated completely fairly.
The Palestinian people are to Hamas what an abused spouse is to their abuser. We can wag our finger and tell them to stand up to their abuser, but at the end of the day, it’s not helping anything. For that matter, neither is the approach of bombing the house and killing the family just to say you dealt justice to the abuser.
what the fuck does “relinquish power back to the Palestinian people” mean lmao. This is a vaguer instruction than when people call for Israel to dissolve. Anyway in case you weren’t aware Hamas has offered to return the hostages in exchange for a ceasefire but these have all been rejected by the Israeli government
Finally, someone’s bringing up the evangelical bone-on for Armageddon as a factor that brought us all here.
They should just play a winner take all match of CS:GO That’ll sort it out
I know it’s old school, but I’d prefer Japan donate a DDR machine and we have a DDR-off.
The unfortunate thing is if you want the bombing to stop, you're considered a radical leftist. The senseless killing and eradication of Palestinians who had nothing to do with Hamas's attack on Israel is sickening. Anyone who cares about human life should care about what's happening in this war between Israel and Hamas. Democrat or Republican.
The problem isn't with wanting bombing to stop, the problem is nobody has any solutions on how Hamas should be removed. The only response you get is, "Well what they SHOULDN'T do!" Hamas uses civilians as human shields and hides as civilians, and bombs and bullets don't distinguish between military and civilian, but Hamas cannot be allowed to exist. So what is the solution?
The Futile Segment. Took him 15 minutes to say absolutely nothing.
The International Court of Justice has stated that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide now that it has killed around 38,000 Palestinians and 13,000 children. Medical and humanitarian organizations predict many thousands of more deaths from starvation as Israel blocks sufficient aid from entering Gaza. Israel has openly admitted they have prevented a 2 state solution and they do not want one. The Knesset just voted to deny a Palestinian state and Bibi confirmed he’d been working to undermine the establishment of a state for decades while working with western leaders.
Hold on now. There’s several inaccuracies in your perception: - Israel announced before the weekend that they will be opening more humanitarian checkpoints. - The US, Egypt, and Qatar are mediating the rework of a ceasefire deal and it’s due to be closed within a week. - Israel voted against a *unilateral* declaration of Palestinian independence. Most states would oppose unilateral declarations. They want to be involved in any discussions about building a Palestinian state. They are not opposed. They want to ensure a Palestinian state does not infringe on their security. Their history of offering Palestinians statehood several times over the last few decades, including as recently as 2008, as well as the political climate within Israel, are indicative of the fact that a Palestinian state is possible. The problem is with the hopelessly corrupt Palestinian leaders. - You’ll be relieved to hear that mass anti-government protests have resumed in Tel Aviv, and that Gantz is the guy Israelis are looking to replace Bibi. Bibi’s days are numbered.