I'm a long-time listener and admirer of Uncomfortable Conversations. Your willingness to engage with difficult topics with humour and generosity is rare and deeply valuable.
I appreciate that listening to your show means encountering views I may strongly disagree with—something I believe is essential. Your recent episode with Prof. Amos Goldberg was particularly challenging. While you pushed back on several of his claims, I felt many problematic assertions went unchecked, and I wanted to offer a response for your consideration.
First, I take issue with the idea that Prof. Goldberg’s views carry special weight simply because he is Israeli. I, too, am Israeli—writing this from a train between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv—and believe arguments should be judged on their merits, not their origin. Citing someone for “bucking the trend” within their group is a logical fallacy, whether they support or critique Israel.
Several of Goldberg’s claims were demonstrably false:
He said the IDF intentionally killed Shireen Abu Akleh and never apologised. Both claims are factually incorrect; apologies and investigations did follow.
He argued the Nazis had no top-down extermination policy—a claim disproven by ample historical evidence like the Wannsee Conference
He repeated the myth that Israel controlled whether Gazans “eat pasta or rice”—a total distortion of the reality of the blockade pre-Oct.7.
He described a “genocidal atmosphere” in Israeli society. Living here and speaking with soldiers returning from Gaza, I find this characterisation deeply inaccurate and emotionally charged. As I wonder around my local neighbourhood in Ramat Gan, I can’t say I’m picking up on a genocidal atmosphere, but maybe that’s just me.
Goldberg’s claim that Israel bombs civilian structures without justification ignores that schools, hospitals, and mosques used for military purposes lose protected status under international law. Hamas's documented use of such sites is well known to anyone familiar with the conflict, and tragically accounts for the devastation we see in Gaza.
Yes, the suffering in Gaza is real and tragic. But the statistics—20,000–25,000 militants among the 54,000 reported dead—show this is not genocide but, tragically, the most precise urban warfare campaign in modern history.
You and I both loathe Netanyahu. He's indeed a “corrupt little hack.” But machiavellian leadership doesn’t negate the necessity or morality of Israel’s military response. Would Israel’s response have been significantly different were Ben Gurion or Rabin Prime Minister on October 7? In 18 months, Israel has devastated Hamas, weakened Hezbollah, struck Iran, lead to the toppling of Assad, returned nearly 200 hostages, and done so with a civilian-to-combatant ratio that—while still horrific—stands as historically low.
Goldberg ended with the idea that while history is complex, some moral decisions are “very simple.” I strongly disagree. As I sit here on the train from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv I do so with a high degree of confidence that this train won’t be blown up by a suicide bomber. Israelis don’t maintain a military occupation, build separation fences, implement blockades, curtail civil liberties, and run checkpoints for fun. They do so because a blood-soaked history has demonstrated what happens when they don’t. I appreciated hearing Goldberg’s views, but anyone who characterises this situation as “morally simple” betrays their analysis as morally simplistic.
Thanks for another thought-provoking episode. I hope you’ll consider these points in future discussions.
Thank you for your perspective. So many seem to over-simplify this conflict or just adopt the majority position.
There really is no substitute for reviewing various sources yourself, weighing their perspectives and coming to your own conclusion; particularly in a time where trust in institutions is being eroded by conspiratorial skepticism on the right, and postmodernist distortions on the left.
I tend to give additional weight to opinions from academics, as the presumption is that their opinion is well-informed. However, that presumption is contingent on intellectual honesty and grounding in fact - which does not appear to have been the case here.
On Shireen Abu Akleh, were any investigations undertaken or co-operated with by Israel themselves? I can't find any evidence of this happening and Wikipedia claims otherwise (I am fully aware that Wikipedia has become frequently completely unreliable on these matters, but still).
It says a lot about Israel that somebody who has these opinions is tolerated as a professor at an Israeli university. He’s either a moron or is dishonest for some purpose such as being hosted on a podcast perhaps? Israel has faced existential threats from her Arab neighbors since the very beginning of the state. No other country has shown so much restraint in battle. The Israelis have survived and prospered despite the odds. The west should be celebrating the accomplishments of Israel. Unbelievable.
The only reason Israel exists is because of European-sponsored ethnic cleansing of Arabs that began in 1948. Israel started this conflict and now plays victim when the people it subjugated fight back.
Jews have been moving back to the land in significant numbers starting in the early 1800s. If you object to their presence, that is where you should start. Significant friction started with the Nebi Musa riots in 1920. "the only reason" indeed.
Let's assume this guy's definition of genocide is reasonable (it's not, but just for the sake of argument). According to his logic, it's actually hard to find wars that are NOT genocide. And in fact, some recent wars would count as stronger cases for genocide by his own criteria.
But like most activists, he's angry when Josh even suggests a comparison to other countries and directs all his ire at Israel and only Israel. The worst part is that while he thinks he's helping Palestinians (for whom I have much sympathy), his obfuscation and clear confirmation bias are more likely to do the opposite.
I was looking forward to an interesting perspective and new ideas or arguments on the subject, but I heard none of that. Other than his name or accent he could have been any lefty online commentator, or middle eastern studies professor I've been hearing for the last year and a half. It was the same set of arguments, the same ideological capture, the same moral surety... just with the novelty of it being from an actual Israeli.
I found his perspective on Israeli society much more interesting. The second half was much better than the first.
This was definitely an uncomfortable conversation. But I did want to challenge my priors so I gave it a listen.
I guess I should have known what to expect from reading his history writing books considering the parallels between the Holocaust and the Nakba, but as soon as we got straight into talk of Israeli apartheid and Gaza as being "occupied" before Oct 7, I knew where this was going to land.
I guess I expected more from a genocide "scholar" but maybe academia is academia, even in Israel. His argument was just the same as any other anti Zionist who considers Israel an illegitimate state and a "colonialist" enterprise. That's what it comes down to. The same old weaponised words that place Israel as the oppressor. Didn't really learn anything here, which was a shame.
When Goldberg calls Israel the “invader” in 1967, he isn’t just misrepresenting the Six-Day War—he’s revealing the lens through which he sees the entire conflict. A lens where Israel is the aggressor by default, even when surrounded by enemies preparing for war. That’s not nuance. That’s inversion.
From a military perspective, waiting for the enemy to strike first when facing potential encirclement by multiple armies would likely be seen as strategically suicidal by most defense establishments. Israel's entire military doctrine was built around the reality that, given its small size and lack of strategic depth, it couldn't afford to absorb a first strike and then respond.
I was shocked to see Josh let Amos Goldberg rage about “genocide” practically without challenge. Goldberg’s Haaretz piece pushing that claim has been thoroughly dismantled, with data and definitions both refuted:
The term “genocide” here is not just hyperbolic—it’s a rhetorical inversion that reframes Israel’s defensive war as a crime against humanity, while letting Hamas off the hook for its openly stated, explicitly genocidal goals and strategy of harming Gazan civilians. Josh must be aware of the work of people like John Spencer yet he lets the term pass unchallenged and thus risks laundering it into mainstream legitimacy.
Would be interesting to see Josh talk with John Spencer and Brianna Wu 🙂
This certainly fit the definition of an uncomfortable conversation. I found it painful and fascinating to listen to. I wish you had asked the professor the question of what he would recommend as policy once the war is over and the hostages have been returned.
It must be difficult for decent Jews/Semites with a strong conscience when they publicly denounce Israeli atrocities and are then referred to as "self-hating" by the Zionist powers, likely in large part to try shaming them into self-censoring.
I've read that there's been an increase in the rate of suicide among younger or teenaged Jews/semites since 10/7. I find it hard not to feel for them. They didn't ask for what happened and especially the horrors currently happening.
Meanwhile, living, breathing human beings can actually be seen and treated as though they are disposable and, by extension, their suffering and death are somehow less worthy of external, i.e. our, concern.
Yeah. I don't know. I think you did fine here Josh, but this guest was incomprehensible to me. Sounded like the galaxy brained loons on the right just doing an un-checkable stream of consciousness and then dismissing any criticism without really even giving a reason for it.
I really think this view is playing with half a deck. There's no *there* there for me.
The claims that the IDF are conducting targeted killings of children, journalists, etc feel implausible to me.
Over the past maybe 60 years, there are literally dozens of documented examples of the Israeli state electing not to kill known Hamas, Hezbollah, other targets when they had clear chances because they were worried about bystanders and even family members being injured or killed.
For the Israeli state and its agencies to evolve from this hyper-cautious entity which routinely cancelled entire missions for fear of collateral loss of life to one that sends snipers out to murder children in cold blood just doesn’t strike me as plausible.
And if Israel wanted to kill children, why wouldn’t they just drop a bomb on a school and claim it was a mistake? At least then they’d have plausible deniability.
No I mean your actual argument about Israel and Palestine, based on what you said here: "I have defended Israel over the years but it gets to a point where you need to step back and ask, what exactly is being accomplished here?"
You've suggested there's a lack of nuance in the perspective of some commenters here in that they take one side. I'm trying to find the nuance in your position, which I still don't see.
I'm not here to debate Israel v Palestine, only to encourage empathy and charitability. If in your mind I'm disqualified from that based on my comments, that's okay.
There is plenty of room for nuance still. The Palestinian suffering is unimaginable. And the conduct of Israel is not beyond reproach. I have no doubt war crimes have been committed. But there is no intent to wipe the Palestinians out and this guest made no compelling argument that there is. You could tell as soon as he led with talk of apartheid and occupation that he was going to make the same argument that any Western progressive anti Zionist makes. And he did not disappoint.
I respect the professor’s passion and he seems to have quite a bit of knowledge, but his litany was hard to follow just for the sheer volume of it all. More Uncomfortable Monologue than Uncomfortable Conversations. I appreciate that Josh wanted to let him get his point across without nit picking, but I think the professor would have been better served by more back and forth.
i’m cancelling my subscription because Josh’s latest article in the SMH and podcast have crossed a line. By framing Israel as the sole culprit while brushing aside the existential threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and China, he ignores the real reason Israel is targeted: its very existence. My 12 year old Jewish daughter now grows up in a world where the intifada has gone global and Jewish lives are openly threatened yet Josh pours more fuel on that fire by platforming fringe extremists and cherry picking far left sources.
I refuse to bankroll content that endangers my community as surely as funding a radical madrasa would. Canceling my subscription effective immediately. Bring back Douglass Murray to critique your SMH article - not going to happen, he'd be disgusted.
I'm a long-time listener and admirer of Uncomfortable Conversations. Your willingness to engage with difficult topics with humour and generosity is rare and deeply valuable.
I appreciate that listening to your show means encountering views I may strongly disagree with—something I believe is essential. Your recent episode with Prof. Amos Goldberg was particularly challenging. While you pushed back on several of his claims, I felt many problematic assertions went unchecked, and I wanted to offer a response for your consideration.
First, I take issue with the idea that Prof. Goldberg’s views carry special weight simply because he is Israeli. I, too, am Israeli—writing this from a train between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv—and believe arguments should be judged on their merits, not their origin. Citing someone for “bucking the trend” within their group is a logical fallacy, whether they support or critique Israel.
Several of Goldberg’s claims were demonstrably false:
He said the IDF intentionally killed Shireen Abu Akleh and never apologised. Both claims are factually incorrect; apologies and investigations did follow.
He argued the Nazis had no top-down extermination policy—a claim disproven by ample historical evidence like the Wannsee Conference
He repeated the myth that Israel controlled whether Gazans “eat pasta or rice”—a total distortion of the reality of the blockade pre-Oct.7.
He described a “genocidal atmosphere” in Israeli society. Living here and speaking with soldiers returning from Gaza, I find this characterisation deeply inaccurate and emotionally charged. As I wonder around my local neighbourhood in Ramat Gan, I can’t say I’m picking up on a genocidal atmosphere, but maybe that’s just me.
Goldberg’s claim that Israel bombs civilian structures without justification ignores that schools, hospitals, and mosques used for military purposes lose protected status under international law. Hamas's documented use of such sites is well known to anyone familiar with the conflict, and tragically accounts for the devastation we see in Gaza.
Yes, the suffering in Gaza is real and tragic. But the statistics—20,000–25,000 militants among the 54,000 reported dead—show this is not genocide but, tragically, the most precise urban warfare campaign in modern history.
You and I both loathe Netanyahu. He's indeed a “corrupt little hack.” But machiavellian leadership doesn’t negate the necessity or morality of Israel’s military response. Would Israel’s response have been significantly different were Ben Gurion or Rabin Prime Minister on October 7? In 18 months, Israel has devastated Hamas, weakened Hezbollah, struck Iran, lead to the toppling of Assad, returned nearly 200 hostages, and done so with a civilian-to-combatant ratio that—while still horrific—stands as historically low.
Goldberg ended with the idea that while history is complex, some moral decisions are “very simple.” I strongly disagree. As I sit here on the train from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv I do so with a high degree of confidence that this train won’t be blown up by a suicide bomber. Israelis don’t maintain a military occupation, build separation fences, implement blockades, curtail civil liberties, and run checkpoints for fun. They do so because a blood-soaked history has demonstrated what happens when they don’t. I appreciated hearing Goldberg’s views, but anyone who characterises this situation as “morally simple” betrays their analysis as morally simplistic.
Thanks for another thought-provoking episode. I hope you’ll consider these points in future discussions.
Thank you for your perspective. So many seem to over-simplify this conflict or just adopt the majority position.
There really is no substitute for reviewing various sources yourself, weighing their perspectives and coming to your own conclusion; particularly in a time where trust in institutions is being eroded by conspiratorial skepticism on the right, and postmodernist distortions on the left.
I tend to give additional weight to opinions from academics, as the presumption is that their opinion is well-informed. However, that presumption is contingent on intellectual honesty and grounding in fact - which does not appear to have been the case here.
On Shireen Abu Akleh, were any investigations undertaken or co-operated with by Israel themselves? I can't find any evidence of this happening and Wikipedia claims otherwise (I am fully aware that Wikipedia has become frequently completely unreliable on these matters, but still).
It says a lot about Israel that somebody who has these opinions is tolerated as a professor at an Israeli university. He’s either a moron or is dishonest for some purpose such as being hosted on a podcast perhaps? Israel has faced existential threats from her Arab neighbors since the very beginning of the state. No other country has shown so much restraint in battle. The Israelis have survived and prospered despite the odds. The west should be celebrating the accomplishments of Israel. Unbelievable.
Great point—I was thinking the same thing and have been everytime Jews speak out against Israel or Israelis speak out about their government.
I suppose the name of this podcast says it all “uncomfortable conversations” Can one hold two thoughts two truths at the same time.
The only reason Israel exists is because of European-sponsored ethnic cleansing of Arabs that began in 1948. Israel started this conflict and now plays victim when the people it subjugated fight back.
Jews have been moving back to the land in significant numbers starting in the early 1800s. If you object to their presence, that is where you should start. Significant friction started with the Nebi Musa riots in 1920. "the only reason" indeed.
Let's assume this guy's definition of genocide is reasonable (it's not, but just for the sake of argument). According to his logic, it's actually hard to find wars that are NOT genocide. And in fact, some recent wars would count as stronger cases for genocide by his own criteria.
To take just one example, the Syrian Civil War (which I wrote about here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-154501767 and https://medium.com/@lukecuddy/double-tap-strikes-and-human-shields-e908ff2a0912). More people killed per year and altogether, bigger resulting refuge crisis, explicit targeting of civilians with double tap strikes, etc.
But like most activists, he's angry when Josh even suggests a comparison to other countries and directs all his ire at Israel and only Israel. The worst part is that while he thinks he's helping Palestinians (for whom I have much sympathy), his obfuscation and clear confirmation bias are more likely to do the opposite.
I was looking forward to an interesting perspective and new ideas or arguments on the subject, but I heard none of that. Other than his name or accent he could have been any lefty online commentator, or middle eastern studies professor I've been hearing for the last year and a half. It was the same set of arguments, the same ideological capture, the same moral surety... just with the novelty of it being from an actual Israeli.
I found his perspective on Israeli society much more interesting. The second half was much better than the first.
If they just freed the hostages and disarmed there would be no war; the professor apparently cannot figure that out
This was definitely an uncomfortable conversation. But I did want to challenge my priors so I gave it a listen.
I guess I should have known what to expect from reading his history writing books considering the parallels between the Holocaust and the Nakba, but as soon as we got straight into talk of Israeli apartheid and Gaza as being "occupied" before Oct 7, I knew where this was going to land.
I guess I expected more from a genocide "scholar" but maybe academia is academia, even in Israel. His argument was just the same as any other anti Zionist who considers Israel an illegitimate state and a "colonialist" enterprise. That's what it comes down to. The same old weaponised words that place Israel as the oppressor. Didn't really learn anything here, which was a shame.
When Goldberg calls Israel the “invader” in 1967, he isn’t just misrepresenting the Six-Day War—he’s revealing the lens through which he sees the entire conflict. A lens where Israel is the aggressor by default, even when surrounded by enemies preparing for war. That’s not nuance. That’s inversion.
From a military perspective, waiting for the enemy to strike first when facing potential encirclement by multiple armies would likely be seen as strategically suicidal by most defense establishments. Israel's entire military doctrine was built around the reality that, given its small size and lack of strategic depth, it couldn't afford to absorb a first strike and then respond.
I was shocked to see Josh let Amos Goldberg rage about “genocide” practically without challenge. Goldberg’s Haaretz piece pushing that claim has been thoroughly dismantled, with data and definitions both refuted:
https://x.com/aizenberg55/status/1887173995876733013
The term “genocide” here is not just hyperbolic—it’s a rhetorical inversion that reframes Israel’s defensive war as a crime against humanity, while letting Hamas off the hook for its openly stated, explicitly genocidal goals and strategy of harming Gazan civilians. Josh must be aware of the work of people like John Spencer yet he lets the term pass unchallenged and thus risks laundering it into mainstream legitimacy.
Would be interesting to see Josh talk with John Spencer and Brianna Wu 🙂
This certainly fit the definition of an uncomfortable conversation. I found it painful and fascinating to listen to. I wish you had asked the professor the question of what he would recommend as policy once the war is over and the hostages have been returned.
It must be difficult for decent Jews/Semites with a strong conscience when they publicly denounce Israeli atrocities and are then referred to as "self-hating" by the Zionist powers, likely in large part to try shaming them into self-censoring.
I've read that there's been an increase in the rate of suicide among younger or teenaged Jews/semites since 10/7. I find it hard not to feel for them. They didn't ask for what happened and especially the horrors currently happening.
Meanwhile, living, breathing human beings can actually be seen and treated as though they are disposable and, by extension, their suffering and death are somehow less worthy of external, i.e. our, concern.
You should get Natasha Hausdorff on To discuss the same points
Yes, I'd love to hear a conversation that doesn't appeal to Szeps's confirmation bias on this issue. Sadly, I don't think that will happen
Yeah. I don't know. I think you did fine here Josh, but this guest was incomprehensible to me. Sounded like the galaxy brained loons on the right just doing an un-checkable stream of consciousness and then dismissing any criticism without really even giving a reason for it.
I really think this view is playing with half a deck. There's no *there* there for me.
Disappointed that Josh didn’t have a historian on the podcast with Goldberg to discuss the points Goldberg made.
The claims that the IDF are conducting targeted killings of children, journalists, etc feel implausible to me.
Over the past maybe 60 years, there are literally dozens of documented examples of the Israeli state electing not to kill known Hamas, Hezbollah, other targets when they had clear chances because they were worried about bystanders and even family members being injured or killed.
For the Israeli state and its agencies to evolve from this hyper-cautious entity which routinely cancelled entire missions for fear of collateral loss of life to one that sends snipers out to murder children in cold blood just doesn’t strike me as plausible.
And if Israel wanted to kill children, why wouldn’t they just drop a bomb on a school and claim it was a mistake? At least then they’d have plausible deniability.
It's both disappointing and surprising that this audience so firmly takes a side in this conflict.
I have defended Israel over the years but it gets to a point where you need to step back and ask, what exactly is being accomplished here?
I realise there is little room for nuance in the mainstream, but it's disappointing to find the same thing in this audience.
I'm not seeing the nuance in your position. Seems to reek of the same faux moral posturing of the professor. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
I'm not so dogmatically aligned with a side that I see any oppositional moral gesturing as inauthentic and cynical, for starters.
So what's your argument?
That both sides of this debate have become demeaning, hostile and uncharitable to the other side, and I'm saddened to see some of that here.
No I mean your actual argument about Israel and Palestine, based on what you said here: "I have defended Israel over the years but it gets to a point where you need to step back and ask, what exactly is being accomplished here?"
You've suggested there's a lack of nuance in the perspective of some commenters here in that they take one side. I'm trying to find the nuance in your position, which I still don't see.
I'm not here to debate Israel v Palestine, only to encourage empathy and charitability. If in your mind I'm disqualified from that based on my comments, that's okay.
There is plenty of room for nuance still. The Palestinian suffering is unimaginable. And the conduct of Israel is not beyond reproach. I have no doubt war crimes have been committed. But there is no intent to wipe the Palestinians out and this guest made no compelling argument that there is. You could tell as soon as he led with talk of apartheid and occupation that he was going to make the same argument that any Western progressive anti Zionist makes. And he did not disappoint.
Definitely an uncomfortable conversation.
The left wing professor is in a left echo chamber. He just happens to be Israeli .
If he tried to speak out like this in any of the neighbouring Arab countries he would be hanged.
He failed to mention the ethnic cleansing of Europe in 1944 or of the Arab countries of its Jews in the 50’s .
I respect the professor’s passion and he seems to have quite a bit of knowledge, but his litany was hard to follow just for the sheer volume of it all. More Uncomfortable Monologue than Uncomfortable Conversations. I appreciate that Josh wanted to let him get his point across without nit picking, but I think the professor would have been better served by more back and forth.
i’m cancelling my subscription because Josh’s latest article in the SMH and podcast have crossed a line. By framing Israel as the sole culprit while brushing aside the existential threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and China, he ignores the real reason Israel is targeted: its very existence. My 12 year old Jewish daughter now grows up in a world where the intifada has gone global and Jewish lives are openly threatened yet Josh pours more fuel on that fire by platforming fringe extremists and cherry picking far left sources.
I refuse to bankroll content that endangers my community as surely as funding a radical madrasa would. Canceling my subscription effective immediately. Bring back Douglass Murray to critique your SMH article - not going to happen, he'd be disgusted.