![The Realignment [Premium Podcast]](https://supercast-storage-assets.b-cdn.net/landingpage/1716/logo/large-39789fd20d7ed65eaeb8aa3dfaa64482.png){kind=logo}
Thoughts on Journalistic Business Models
Recently the Economist has removed all of its free podcasts from being publicly available and made them part of a premium podcast subscription. This has made me think about the different business models that journalistic outlets have to potentially fund themselves. They can rely on advertising (no longer viable on the digital era when advertisers get a better ROI on social media ads), they can do the subscription premium model and lock their content away from the public, or they can rely on donations. Do you think that journalism needs to find a new business model that's better adapted for the digital era? Or do you think one of the existing business models they use can be tweaked for it?
What is a realistic, best-case outcome to the Israel / Gaza war
It feels clear that Israel does not have a viable plan for resolving the war against Hamas. Their current path will either result in a wider war in the Middle East, or in a decades long occupation of Gaza that will only result in continued atrocities from both sides and nothing will change in the long term. My uninformed solution to this issue is to dramatically change the equation. 1. Israel is convinced (forced) to agree to a ceasefire and withdraw everyone (including settlers) from Gaza and the West Bank 2. Convince (force) Turkey/Jordan/Egypt/ our other Arab "allies" to form a "United Arab Nations" (UAN) who will assume responsibility for governing and policing Gaza and the West Bank. This means they are also responsible for rooting out Hamas and for Israel's safety from attacks from Gaza & the West Bank. If attacks happen from those regions, they are responsible for paying reparations. This is a new Abraham Accords. 3. Israel is no longer allowed to enter either territory without the permission of the UAN and must stop all attempts at settlement at risk of conflict with the UAN 4. Palestinian refugees are allowed (but not forced) to enter refugee camps on the Sinai peninsula while Gaza is rebuilt by a coalition of countries led by the US and including Israel. This coalition will also be responsible for paying for the refugee camps in the Sinai peninsula. 5. Israel continues to receive defense funding and security assurances from the US 6. The long term goal of the UAN is to stabilize the Palestinian situation and turn it into an independent state Why I think this would lead to a best case outcome is: 1. Everyone loses in some way. - Israel has to give up their aspirations to take over Gaza and the West Bank - the Arab countries have to actually take some responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians instead of just threaten war - the Palestinians are no longer "in control" of their governance and must accept Israel as a permanent neighbor 2. Everyone also wins. - There is no broader war in the Middle East - The Palestinians are no longer being attacked and are governed & protected by Arabs instead of Israelis. They also receive a more viable path to statehood - Israel does not have to police Gaza / the West Bank and therefore should not get as much day to day grievance from Palestinians, out of sight, out of mind. Hopefully produces fewer future terrorists both from Palestinians and from abroad. They are not the occupiers, other Arabs are - The Arab countries appease their populations and get to be the benefactors of the inevitable graft that will happen during the Gaza rebuild. Instead of going to war, they get to skip the war and just be in charge - The US gets to play the peacemaker for once and spend its money on aid instead of bombs. Probably cheaper in the long run - The new UAN is also a new, more formal alliance of Arab countries against Iran's coalition, who are excluded from the agreements and weakened in the region I know there are a lot of reasons this would be difficult (and yes, this is nation-building), but what are the reasons it couldn't work (assuming the US had the will to press the issue)? Also, what are your "best case outcomes" for this conflict?
Thoughts on these numbers
Hi Marshall (and Sagar), One of the less mentioned facts that surprised me when I looked at the map is the relative size of Israel to gaza. 8,500 sq miles compared to 140 sq miles. The number of bombs dropped on this 140 sq miles of predominantly desert is now far exceeding the number of bombs dropped in Afghanistan in a year of heavy bombardment such as 2019, a 250k sq mile area, and although people have doubted the deaths from the health ministry, a senior Israeli official told Haaretz that they have killed 20,000, with of course the caveat of the claim that they were mostly terrorists. Given the claims coming out from government officials regarding Palestinians being the "same Arabs" as Hamas, calling them animals in a way that blurs the line between militants and civilians, and the well documented now bombing of hospitals, schools, civilian camps, ambulance caravans, combined with the lack of action against settler violence against palestinians in the west bank, arresting of non jewish israeli civilians who post support for Palestine and speak out against the bombings, and the new laws being pushed through as "war powers" to revoke citizenship of Israel is who are speaking out under the guide of sympathizing with terrorists, how can someone make the claim that this is any longer self defense and not sectarian motivated violence for power (aka terrorism) and that israel is still realistically the only democratic bastion in the middle east? If you disagree with either of these points, please address the evidences I raised directly, and do not try to do a moral equivocation with Hamas as I am seeing many do where apparently anything is justified because Hamas is (truly) a much more outwardly and self-proclaiming proponent of hate, violence, and authoritarian force on gazans.
Board of Education
Hi Guys, I work in Ohio for a K12 School, currently the state is looking to dismantle the Ohio Department of Ed and be replaced with an organization directly under the governor. This doesn't make much sense to me. On that note I was curious on your views on the Department of Education in general. I recall Saagar mentioning his parents were in education.
Psycho-Politics - Neoliberal & Emotional Politics
In your recent podcast with Patrick Ruffini - you refer to the emotional aspect of the voting block being more driven by cultural policy as opposed to economic incentives. I recently read the book, Psycho-politics by Byung-Chil Han, who I don’t believe I’ve heard you reference on the show, but I think his ideas align with many of the themes touched on the show, specially this one. To avoid making my question more of a statement and less of a question - Have you read anything by Han - what do you think of his ideas related to rituals, neoliberal power manipulation, the digital panopticon, etc.? If you haven’t read his work, I recommend it!